[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Background Checks? (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 5/29/2007 3:41:23 PM EDT
I was called anti-gun today!!!!  Am I anti-gun for thinking background checks are a good thing? There are some restraints that prevent people from buying firearms that I do not agree with, but I do think that a basic background check is a good thing? Am I wrong? flame away, or convert me if possible. (take cover, poll imbound!) |
I have never been a supporter of registration or anything of the sort. Background checks is just a way to make sure some child killer doesn't LEGALLY aquire a gun. Which I agree if he wanted one he could get one illegally anyway. I'm also for state IDs! 
|
If you are a paranoid schizophrenic, likely to blow away the little girls selling cookies - because you believe they are secret alien agents, come to steal the magic leprecauns that live in your brain - then some mechanism to make it harder for you to get a firearm is a good idea. Personally, I think some minimal background checks aren't always a bad idea - but the problem is that they are never minimal. 
|
And if that guy buys a gun, I could honestly care less. I really don't give a shit. Seriously. There are plenty of prohibited persons who own them right now, and I don't lose a wink of sleep over it. |
... unless you are the parents of those girl scouts. Then you'd care a lot.
Right - but if there is an easy way to prevent people that everyone could agree probably shouldn't have access to firearms, then why not do it? As long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else, right? A delusional paranoid schizophrenic is probably not going to be able to find some illegal gun to buy, or orchestrate a straw purchase, because he is simply too insane. But he is going to be smart enough to walk into a gun store and hand over some cash. And that's the problem - that arguemnt is hard to fight, and then we've already opened the door, and the politicians start piling on more restrictions. |
The difference in this case is that back then, nobody ran a background check on the buyer. BTW 1968 wasn't that long ago, or is my age showing? |
|
This thread is so ghey, it even offends teh gheys! Who sets the criteria for a background check? Dosen't the government run your life for you enough already? Reasonable is a relative term, fellas. Look at what they have spun & twisted this far under the guise of reasonableness regarding the RKBA. Now imagine what it will look like in 10, 20, and 50 years.
|
If this thread is gay then why are you posting in it? |
To humor you. It appears that you can reason, so what do you have to say regarding the substantive points that I made? |
Reasonable is a relative term, However everything must be regulated to a degree, with in "reason." That's the kicker! Would you say the 2A protects the right to bare WMDs? |
Ok, good. Now, who would you prohibit from owning arms? What arms would you prohibited from ownership? Who would the burden of proof be upon? Would these criteria be subject to amendment at a later date? What currently keeps prohibited arms from the market or probhibited persons from possessing arms? I would wager that we have far more firearm regulations in force today then almost ever before, and yet there are likely far more prohibited arms and prohibited possessors of arms then almost ever before. Good thing we have reasonable gun control today, no? |
That is a very good point, and I believe it too. But, background checks do not violate the rights of law abiding citizens. (I know there are some exceptions) |
Not too long ago we didn't have them and crime wasn't much different. Criminal wants a gun, criminal will get a gun. BG checks are an infringement on our rights, and the info allows backdoor registration whether they admit to it or not. Wait till misdemeanor convictions bar you from buying a gun, maybe too many traffic tickets, being on the wrong lists with no convictions. Too much power in the governments hands is a bad thing. I am also in favor of felons buying guns once they serve their time, but we've had that discussion too many times and that isn't the point of this thread. Remember BG checks will only affect the honest men, criminals will find ways to avoid them. I wouldn't call you anti gun just for that, but you are taking a step in their direction. |
Who cares WHERE the gun came from. I doubt its a consolation to the parents to know he bought the gun illegally. Crime is the problem not BG checks. Answer me this, did gun crime get reduced after BG checks are introduced ? I bet very little, and more likely not at all. |
That's funny, I didn't know NCIC was around when the 2A was brought into action... Background Checks are to keep low-life thug-wannabe convicted felons from owning firearms - period... If every convicted felon in this country were armed, we would have a shitload of crime, alot more than we see now... |
Every convicted felon who wants a gun, has one. Just like every doper who wants crack, has it. The fact that we have background checks does not stop felons from getting guns, just like the fact the pharmacies do not sell crack does not prevent dopers from getting crack. |
OK...just how many times did a law stop someone from getting a gun if they really wanted one? Please, tell us and support it with documentation--we'll be waiting. You sound like a very young idealist....let us know how things go in the real world. HH |
Yes, and in that vein, I believe we ought to hand them out at the beginning of every commercial flight along with headphones. 
|
Of course I'm not the one calling the shots, (kicker again  )You asked me a whole slew of questions and never answered mine. Would you say the 2A protects the right to bare WMDs? Answer one more for me.... Background checks are not violating a law abiding person's right to own weapons. So why, for example, would it matter that it limits the rights of a person who was on the run for killing ten people in another state? |
I'm not saying a law stops anyone from getting a gun if they want it. Making it illegal for convicted felons from owning/purchasing firearms allows them to be prosecuted yet again if caught w/ a weapon. If they're off the streets for a couple years, less crap they can get into in public.. If a background check shows a convicted felon attempted to purchase a firearm, guess what, I'm sure the local PD would like to know his intents, and that's the easiest way to alert them. As for the idealist comment, I am in the final stage of the hiring process for the PD where I live, and I AM in the real world... I believe the laws are there for a reason and the background checks are there for a reason, but I also believe that we should be allowed to purchase/own whatever firearms we desire (the legal way). I've also been a firefighter for the past 5 years, an EMT for the past 4, and was a 911 Dispatcher for 1.5 years, so DO NOT assume that I know nothing about the real world. Would you like to elaborate any further into me being "idealist"?? |
So you support denying guns to people based on what they might do, and not just what they've done? |
It wouldnt matter anyway. Now all they say is they want these restrictions/bans/etc cause someone somewhere who might have a gun could do something at sometime that might be bad, and people eat it up |
|
I have to weigh in against background checks. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed firearms, they should be in prison. If a background check would disqualify someone, they shouldn't be out in society. On the flip side, when you have background checks, they can add more and more things that disqualify you. Gun ownership is no longer a right... it's a privilege to be granted to those who meet certain criteria. Then, the criteria begin to change. Like Lautenberg... years after the fact, they came back to thousands of people and said whoops, you never should have had a gun, turn it in or go to prison. |
Who would want to own a WMD? That's retarded. To answer your question thou, it is not expressly protected nor prohibited - if it makes me a hypocrite, that is one restriction that I can support, but that is it regarding the type of arms that are prohibited. Regarding background checks, it is part of bigger phenomenon of the modern day - the need for freedom and liberty to be constrained by the government. Rights are now privlidges. I don't agree with it. I should not need a government-endorsed permission slip to exercise the 1A, ergo I should not need a government-endorsed permission slip to exercise the 2A. Not to dodge your last question, but would a reasonable person be led to conclude that background checks likely prevent prohibited individuals from possessing arms? Dobutful, at best. Don't believe me - come & visit me in the DC metro area. I'll read the DC/Maryland police blotter to you over coffe at the IHOP. |
And created a greater demand for stolen guns. Anyone know where to find statistics on stolen firearms? I'd be willing to bet firearm thefts have increased since NICS came into being. |