Do you support universal background checks?

People just don't think. They act, and vote, impulsively. They're lead by emotion.

People don't break it down far enough. They don't think critically of the ideas that they use to make decisions. They don't figure out what it utlimately means.

If you really think about it, the only way a person can rightfully mandate background checks is if they can first, and independently of the check, rightfully prevent, without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, the sale of the firearm. If they don't first have the right to stop the sale, the right doesn't magically appear when they decide background checks are a good idea. Even if mandatory, universal background checks were a good idea, <insert name of individual human being that happens to hold government office> doesn't have the right to stop the sale of a firearm in order to first perform such a check.

The disconnect between moral base and principle and law is still widening. No longer is moral base and principle needed to enact law, only charisma, a white smile, and a silver tounge. Too bad for the legislators that while those bases may no longer be required to pass idiocrasies into law, enforcing those idiocrasies is another story all together, eh?

Edit: I guess it's really always been that way. Just the degree has changed?

The people who vote yes are refusing to admit that "universal" background checks are impossible, no matter how strongly worded the law or severe the punishment for failure to comply.

True. Those universal checks will only work for those willing to follow the law--and they don't need to be checked!

Laws that "prevent" crime only hassle the law-abiding. They don't slow even one iota those willing to break the law.

eye95 said:

...Laws that "prevent" crime only hassle the law-abiding. They don't slow even one iota those willing to break the law.

Click to expand...

Hell, it's CHEAPER to not follow the damn law!

The necessity for background checks is a problem created by those that intend to deny rights to citizens not in the actual custody of the state. In jail/prison no background checks are necessary.

We can't incarcerate someone for life for one of the many misdemeanors and felonies which would keep an individual from owning a firearm, because it would be cruel and unusual punishment. However, we can sentence them to a life deprived of the right to self defense. Well, trying to control people outside of state custody is hard to do so... we'll need to bring everyone into custody.

Sure, why not. Who cares, its just a 4473 that is never saved or put in a database.

I've nothing to hide from my Bi-partisan overlords.

georg jetson said:

The necessity for background checks is a problem created by those that intend to deny rights to citizens not in the actual custody of the state. In jail/prison no background checks are necessary.

We can't incarcerate someone for life for one of the many misdemeanors and felonies which would keep an individual from owning a firearm, because it would be cruel and unusual punishment. However, we can sentence them to a life deprived of the right to self defense. Well, trying to control people outside of state custody is hard to do so... we'll need to bring everyone into custody.

Click to expand...

I like your articulation.

Asking the question is anti-liberty because the citizen asking the question submits to the false premise that there is some validity to the notion. The background checks that are conducted that stop a sale affect only those law abiding citizens who were not law abiding in the past. They are law abiding now because they submit to the background check. The issue of mental competency or physical capacity is being interjected into the background check "debate." The state is slowly closing the circle and once closed it will not be torn asunder. The reality today is some form of a background check is here to stay. No further expansion of that anti-liberty process must be entertained.

Mental exercise: Replace gun with vehicle and then ask the question regarding background checks.

OC for ME said:

Asking the question is anti-liberty because the citizen asking the question submits to the false premise that there is some validity to the notion. The background checks that are conducted that stop a sale affect only those law abiding citizens who were not law abiding in the past. They are law abiding now because they submit to the background check. The issue of mental competency or physical capacity is being interjected into the background check "debate." The state is slowly closing the circle and once closed it will not be torn asunder. The reality today is some form of a background check is here to stay. No further expansion of that anti-liberty process must be entertained.

Mental exercise: Replace gun with vehicle and then ask the question regarding background checks.

Click to expand...

The ole switch Gun with Vehicle argument. First, we must agree either Gun ownership, and Vehicle driving/ownership is a Right, or a Privilege.--So, which is it?

DrakeZ07 said:

Sure, why not. Who cares, its just a 4473 that is never saved or put in a database.

I've nothing to hide from my Bi-partisan overlords.

Click to expand...

Except your going to have to pay a ffl dealer to do the check for your private sales. You can have fun with that, I for one will not be.

Beretta92FSLady said:

There are three who voted "yes." ----->B92FS (voted once...just like the last election)

I wonder if any of the others who voted Yes, will admit to it.

Click to expand...

So you think EVERY sale including private transactions, and gifts to family, and friends should have to require a trip to an FFL to complete along with whatever fee the FFL wants to charge you for this "service", when you have no choice to pay it no matter how outragiouse it is (in some areas of the country it's impossible to find any FFL within I days drive who charges less than $200 for transfers already)? you think the government should have a record of EVERY transaction they can use to make a backdoor registry? You seriously believe a criminal who buys his gun illegaly is going to follow this law (you know like how he follows the laws against armed robbery, assault, and murder so well)?

.

I dislike breaking up posts...but I will, just this once.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

So you think EVERY sale including private transactions, and gifts to family, and friends should have to require a trip to an FFL to complete

Click to expand...

IMO, Private transfers to family members, and non-family members, ought not be regulated; Sales through an FFL ought be regulated.--it's not a private transaction.

along with whatever fee the FFL wants to charge you for this "service", when you have no choice to pay it no matter how outragiouse it is (in some areas of the country it's impossible to find any FFL within I days drive who charges less than $200 for transfers already)?

Click to expand...

FFL sales are regulated by the State, and ought to have a cap on BC's required within a certain period of time (say: 90 days), if the individual had a BC, they can purchase, without a further BC, whatever, how much ever, firearms they wish, without havening to pay for another BC; FFL's ought not be permitted to charge whatever they want; the Fee ought to be, across the board, nominal.

you think the government should have a record of EVERY transaction they can use to make a backdoor registry?

Click to expand...

No, the Federal Government ought not have a record of every transaction by FFL; outside of verifying the FFL followed the regulation in place. I may be wrong about this, but, purchases are only kept, with the FFL, for a set period (90 days?)...someone on here is better equipped to answer that.

You seriously believe a criminal who buys his gun illegaly is going to follow this law (you know like how he follows the laws against armed robbery, assault, and murder so well)?

Click to expand...

I have never, and would never assert that criminals are going to follow any laws. Laws are reactionary; regulation is an attempt at mitigating.--I am in no way asserting that regulation mitigates absolutely, nor regulation necessarily has any mitigating effect on it's intended end.

Yes, robbery (primarily poverty issue, IMO), Assault (primarily poverty issue, IMO), Murder (primarily poverty issue, IMO), do occur; and will always occur.

Can't vote since I'm on the phone, is there a "depends" option?

I say that because, if I were an FFL, I would welcome a background check IF doing so prevented me from being charged or sued for selling to a bad guy. That is, some hincky guy walks in and I don't want to sell to him. I make the call because, to be honest, I'm afraid that if I just say "no way, Jose", he will either sue me for discriminating or attack me because I was right to refuse. The check says "no sale", and maybe even notifies his parole officer of the attempt, or it says "ok, do it!" and I sell the gun. Then, if it is used in a crime, I am covered, since as a well-regulated FFL, I did abide by the rules, I did not arbitrarily deny the buyer his 2nd amendment rights, but sh it happened.

That assumes that we continue to federally license FFLs, which we probably should not.

nonameisgood said:

Can't vote since I'm on the phone, is there a "depends" option?

I say that because, if I were an FFL, I would welcome a background check IF doing so prevented me from being charged or sued for selling to a bad guy. That is, some hincky guy walks in and I don't want to sell to him. I make the call because, to be honest, I'm afraid that if I just say "no way, Jose", he will either sue me for discriminating or attack me because I was right to refuse. The check says "no sale", and maybe even notifies his parole officer of the attempt, or it says "ok, do it!" and I sell the gun. Then, if it is used in a crime, I am covered, since as a well-regulated FFL, I did abide by the rules, I did not arbitrarily deny the buyer his 2nd amendment rights, but sh it happened.

That assumes that we continue to federally license FFLs, which we probably should not.

Click to expand...

I will vote for you. Vote: Yes?

nonameisgood said:

Can't vote since I'm on the phone, is there a "depends" option?

I say that because, if I were an FFL, I would welcome a background check IF doing so prevented me from being charged or sued for selling to a bad guy. That is, some hincky guy walks in and I don't want to sell to him. I make the call because, to be honest, I'm afraid that if I just say "no way, Jose", he will either sue me for discriminating or attack me because I was right to refuse. The check says "no sale", and maybe even notifies his parole officer of the attempt, or it says "ok, do it!" and I sell the gun. Then, if it is used in a crime, I am covered, since as a well-regulated FFL, I did abide by the rules, I did not arbitrarily deny the buyer his 2nd amendment rights, but sh it happened.

That assumes that we continue to federally license FFLs, which we probably should not.

Click to expand...

At the Exchange, we don't need a "Deny" to deny a sale. I will back 100% of my associates if they do not want to complete a sale. The managers above me have made it clear that they will also.

We had a guy scream at one of the managers because he wasn't getting served fast enough. We had an ice storm the night before. The two associates who were supposed to open the counter had not arrived yet. We had two managers and a supervisor from other departments behind the counter, trying to get it open when I arrived (early, BTW). This guy was yelling at the manager. She informed him that when it was his turn, she was not going to sell him a gun. That was that. I would have done exactly the same.

He left angry, but he left without a gun. If he tries to create a problem, we have a tape showing a reasonable manager and an angry jerk. Ain't no one gonna side with him.

eye95 said:

He left angry, but he left without a gun. If he tries to create a problem, we have a tape showing a reasonable manager and an angry jerk. Ain't no one gonna side with him.

Click to expand...

Side with him? Where? When?

I think you just lost a customer ...

should put a no jerk sign on your door ...

why not post the video for us to view? Cite in other words

Beretta92FSLady said:

The ole switch Gun with Vehicle argument. First, we must agree either Gun ownership, and Vehicle driving/ownership is a Right, or a Privilege.--So, which is it?

Click to expand...

Vehicle ownership is a right, anyone with the "cash" may purchase a vehicle, even my seven year old. Operating that vehicle on the public roads requires permission, just like carrying a concealed handgun requires permission (in most jurisdictions) after you have the right to purchase the handgun.

My confidence in your cognitive abilities is waning. Your ongoing vain attempts at provocation for the sake of provocation is becoming tedious....I am growing bored with you.

I do hope that you work to reverse this path you have chosen. I once valued your input on OCDO, now, not so much.

nonameisgood said:

Can't vote since I'm on the phone, is there a "depends" option?

I say that because, if I were an FFL, I would welcome a background check IF doing so prevented me from being charged or sued for selling to a bad guy. That is, some hincky guy walks in and I don't want to sell to him. I make the call because, to be honest, I'm afraid that if I just say "no way, Jose", he will either sue me for discriminating or attack me because I was right to refuse. The check says "no sale", and maybe even notifies his parole officer of the attempt, or it says "ok, do it!" and I sell the gun. Then, if it is used in a crime, I am covered, since as a well-regulated FFL, I did abide by the rules, I did not arbitrarily deny the buyer his 2nd amendment rights, but sh it happened.

That assumes that we continue to federally license FFLs, which we probably should not.

Click to expand...

As a private citizen, conducting a private sale, even with a FFL, can not infringe upon another citizens 2A right. You, as a private citizen, can not discriminate where the sale of a firearm is concerned. You may choose to sell or not sell a firearm as you see fit.

In Missouri we even have a statute that addresses this very issue.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000014.HTM

read the entire statute to understand the law. Then see if your state has a similar law.

I vote absolutely not!! No No No!!!

IMO this issue is so ridiculous it's disgusting and very disheartening that people that are supposedly trustworthy and honorable enough to be leaders would even entertain such foolishness!!

1) lets bring in more government to regulate our life's!! Yeah that's liberty at its finest!!!:banghead:
2) what part of liberty do these idiots not understand!!
3) not only does the bill of rights 2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"(what part of that is so hard to understand the shall not or the infringed part), but the 5A says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and legislation is NOT due process.
4) not to mention the right to keep and bear arms is a natural God given inalienable right!!
5) if the laws of the constitution mean nothing then what good is any law?
6) only people that may not agree with the laws but respect them obey the laws, so are these the people that need to be checked? Criminals will never submit to the law that's why they are called criminals!!
7) it's been said by many gun grabbers and supporters of gun control laws that they "respect" the 2A but then they support BS like UBC, they obviously have no idea what respect is!!