View Poll Results: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    1 1.67%
  • YES but only with certain conditions/exemptions

    10 16.67%
  • NO

    49 81.67%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: POLL: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    POLL: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

    Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

    YES

    YES, provided in exchange the state abolishes the pistol registry and record keeping is prohibited, and there are exemptions for CPL holders, transfers between family members, and loans to friends

    NO under any circumstances

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    The question is 'would you Support or Oppose' but the available options are Yes/No, could be confusing.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 04-30-2013 at 01:37 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    I voted 'no'. Although, if the bill is unenforceable (i.e. voluntary), abolishes the registry, records, etc then a qualified yes may come forward as a strategy...

    Dave we have had this conversation in person and you know my stance.
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Depends soley upon what you mean by "universal background checks" This is like Obama asking our Legislatures to Support Obama Care and just sign it with out reading it.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Depends soley upon what you mean by "universal background checks" This is like Obama asking our Legislatures to Support Obama Care and just sign it with out reading it.
    +1

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Depends soley upon what you mean by "universal background checks" This is like Obama asking our Legislatures to Support Obama Care and just sign it with out reading it.

    it is pretty widely known evidently you were napping at the time that "universal background checks" means no gun transactions without a background check. Gun Shows, private transactions between family members, friends etc; they'd all be included.

  7. #7
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    it is pretty widely known — evidently you were napping at the time — that "universal background checks" means no gun transactions without a background check. Gun Shows, private transactions between family members, friends etc; they'd all be included.
    Actually Dave, it's not widely known as you suggest as there are different versions floating around and waiting to be proposed. My statement of wanting more information before committing is what each of us need to be asking instead of assuming what another means. Asked Cantwell and Murray if they Support the 2nd Amendment and they will tell you yes, but in their view they do and in our view No Way In H$LL Do They.

    Improving the background checks to ensure all information is available, YES.
    At Guns Shows for those who sell there as a business YES, for those private citizens coming to sell or trade an item/s from their private collections then NO.
    Private Transactions as a requirement for background checks then NO but offer a way for citizens to have background checks ran, YES.

    The recent attempt by SAF, Gottlieb and Yourself promoted, is playing with fire, and likely came out a little singed from it.
    Anytime you offer up a bill, there is no guarantee that the end result will be what you want it to be so keep it simple, direct and both sides of the isle need to stop piling on garbage and just muddying up the issues.
    Last edited by BigDave; 04-30-2013 at 05:46 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    nice poll .... cannot figure out what yes and no means ... and no maybe vote allowed ...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    The question is 'would you Support or Oppose' but the available options are Yes/No, could be confusing.
    "Did you walk to work or pack your lunch?"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1

    Exclamation What's the point

    It will always be "NO". The laws we already have (fed and state) are not enforced so why make new ones to not enforce. Besides, I think the authors of the Bill of Rights assumed they were making their point clearly and would be appalled at how it is now parsed. The amendments (including the 2nd) were only written down to entice those colonies who REALLY mistrusted government to join the federation. Most people just assumed them. Pretty silly, I know. It should be clear by now that when you write stuff into law you just give those who oppose you a point of argument. It never settles anything. If you want to see that process speeded up so you can really appreciate it, just give up your rights as spelled out in the BoR. You will be enslaved so fast you won't know what hit you. "NO", because I don't know what cut we are on but, I think it's closing in on 1,000 (and lights out). It's getting really frustrating to see people trying to be reasonable in dealing with those who would enslave us. Call me extreme and marginalize me.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    634

    What ShanLi said...,

    Quote Originally Posted by ShanLi View Post
    It will always be "NO". The laws we already have (fed and state) are not enforced so why make new ones to not enforce. Besides, I think the authors of the Bill of Rights assumed they were making their point clearly and would be appalled at how it is now parsed. The amendments (including the 2nd) were only written down to entice those colonies who REALLY mistrusted government to join the federation. Most people just assumed them. Pretty silly, I know. It should be clear by now that when you write stuff into law you just give those who oppose you a point of argument. It never settles anything. If you want to see that process speeded up so you can really appreciate it, just give up your rights as spelled out in the BoR. You will be enslaved so fast you won't know what hit you. "NO", because I don't know what cut we are on but, I think it's closing in on 1,000 (and lights out). It's getting really frustrating to see people trying to be reasonable in dealing with those who would enslave us. Call me extreme and marginalize me.
    +1000

    sidestreet

    Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

    we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    Had to put down a NO for this. Not one more inch, is where I am hanging my hat right now. I dont think they can make enough concessions to make me line up for it.
    Last edited by Sparky508; 04-30-2013 at 09:09 PM. Reason: cuz speling is inportent

  13. #13
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    No.

    Even if you got them to put in a provision to "abolish" the registry you couldn't trust them to do it, it would be kept somewhere.

    When was the last time a civil servant got held accountable by a DA for harassing a law abiding citizen? Besides, the feds would clone that registry from the state anyway, it's there for good, no way to get rid of it.

    My eyes have been opened a lot this last year by Obama and his cronies and I don't trust the government anymore than I can throw it, which isn't far. I made a huge mistake thinking gridlock in WA could work and protect us, and I got sucked in by Inslime's lies that he didn't think we needed any more gun laws and I because I thought McKenna was a RINO who would sacrifice gun rights to the left to get what he wanted. I know now that I was for sure at least half wrong, guess I'll never find out if I was also wrong about McKenna. I'm prepared to eat huge crow for that too, but I won't make that mistake twice. Next ballot the GOP needs to get someone like Rossi.

    IMO, attempts for "compromise" like what Gotliebb and others are doing are a wasted effort. The gun grabbing left won't be happy until they get every gun out of every American's hands. They use words like "compromise, reasonable, moderate, middle ground" but you know that if they get anything at all, in a few years when the new laws have failed to prevent the next mass shooting, they'll just ask for more restrictions.

    No more compromise.
    Last edited by Alpine; 04-30-2013 at 09:44 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    No.

    Even if you got them to put in a provision to "abolish" the registry you couldn't trust them to do it, it would be kept somewhere.

    When was the last time a civil servant got held accountable by a DA for harassing a law abiding citizen? Besides, the feds would clone that registry from the state anyway, it's there for good, no way to get rid of it.

    My eyes have been opened a lot this last year by Obama and his cronies and I don't trust the government anymore than I can throw it, which isn't far. I made a huge mistake thinking gridlock in WA could work and protect us, and I got sucked in by Inslime's lies that he didn't think we needed any more gun laws and I because I thought McKenna was a RINO who would sacrifice gun rights to the left to get what he wanted. I know now that I was for sure at least half wrong, guess I'll never find out if I was also wrong about McKenna. I'm prepared to eat huge crow for that too, but I won't make that mistake twice. Next ballot the GOP needs to get someone like Rossi.

    IMO, attempts for "compromise" like what Gotliebb and others are doing are a wasted effort. The gun grabbing left won't be happy until they get every gun out of every American's hands. They use words like "compromise, reasonable, moderate, middle ground" but you know that if they get anything at all, in a few years when the new laws have failed to prevent the next mass shooting, they'll just ask for more restrictions.

    No more compromise.
    That is where I am as well, done.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    POLL: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

    No.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  16. #16
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Look I lived 38 years in Oakland, CA. They have universal background checks, and it does nothing to stop gun crime. In Oakland 60% of the guns used in crime were traced back to Traders sporting good store in the nieghboring city of San Leandro. A large part of the purchases were Straw. There was a $35 fee for every transfer.

    I don't care about this. I care about them trying to ban my assault weapons and high capacity mags, you know thats next on their agenda, and I'm not going to tolerate that.

    I am going to be paying attention to the people that are funding this ballot item, and they are being funded by this guy, Nick Hanauer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hanauer

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
    Last edited by jsanchez; 05-01-2013 at 03:24 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    Dave,

    With all due respect: while the meanings of "universal" and "background check" may be quite clear, the meaning of "transfer" is certainly not.

    Unless that meaning were defined within the bill as meaning only the permanent transfer of ownership, then we would be right to exert the utmost efforts to oppose it. (And this is not random paranoia--some of the federal proposals defined "transfer" to cover just about any kind of temporary physical possession.)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419
    Dave....

    NO

    And here are a few reasons why-

    1.it would only effect law abiding citizens which prevents no crimes since they are not the ones committing them.
    2.criminal will never check their firearms and will not get them legally in the first place.
    3.it would REQUIRE a national or state gun registry with gun confiscation as per the justice departments own research study.
    4.it is yet another unjustified and ineffective crime prevention tactic that is an infringement on our rights- both private property and second amendment.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Either a poorly worded question or one that people are just not comprehending.

    Would I support OR oppose 'universal background check?'

    Yes, I would support or oppose this.

    Everyone else is ignoring the question and saying, "NO." Which in the context of the question means that they would sit on the sidelines doing not caring one way of the other.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    poll: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'


    • Yes (I support universal background checks) or (I oppose universal background checks)
    • Yes but only with certain conditions/exemptions (I support universal background checks with certain conditions/exemptions) or (I oppose universal background checks with certain conditions/exemptions)
    • No
    Rephrase the question please.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    No (meaning I oppose). And it will always be no in handing more power to government. Every time you ask for a law you are asking for more violence by the government.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-01-2013 at 08:48 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Make NICS available to all

    Why not just open NICS up to eveyone who wants to sell a firearm so they can get a "YES" or "NO" on their prospective buyer.

    How many here won't sell without a "bill of sale", seeing a D/L and/or CPL? I can't see anyone here actually wanting to provide a firearm to a prohibited person but the system is pretty much set up so only commercial sellers have any means to check one's current status.

    As for me, mandatory checks will translate to "registration" either from the beginning, or very shortly thereafter.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by ShanLi View Post
    It will always be "NO".
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    if they get anything at all, in a few years when the new laws have failed to prevent the next mass shooting, they'll just ask for more restrictions.[/B]
    No more compromise.
    This is Truth!


    And I noticed that this is ShanLi's first post. Welcome to OCDO mate.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    the wording of the question could be considered a little confusing but I will never support any law that would impose any kind of firearm restrictions of any kind. Back ground check, magazine capacity, gun free zones, I do not care what you call it I will not support it as it is in a direct violation on my 2nd commandment rights
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    the wording of the question could be considered a little confusing but I will never
    support any law that would impose any kind of firearm restrictions of any kind. Back ground check, magazine capacity, gun free zones, I do not care what you call it I will not support it as it is in a direct violation on my 2nd commandment rights
    What connection do background checks have with the 2nd commandment?

    You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •