Should We Require Background Checks for All Sales?

donny said:

Yes. Any handgun purchase done anywhere should require a background check. I've always advocated for that and will continue to do so.

Click to expand...

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

25% percent of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You know who you are.

Here in Colorado, 5% of folks applying for BC turn up ineligible.

Click to expand...

And then what? If they really want a weapon they go around the corner. It prevented NOTHING.

I'm inclined to believe you're not participating because it's an open poll and you don't want anyone to know how you voted...

Click to expand...

How do I vote? None of the above.

Please explain to me, if background checks do not prevent criminals and the mentally adjudicated from getting weapons then what DOES it do? What exactly is the benefit of going through ANY rigamarole of a BC, whether it's cost or time?

Do I pay the $15 just so I know I'm a good guy?

Just so you know I DID read your post...

No, it wouldn't stop illegally-owned guns on the streets. In fact, it wouldn't put much more than a dent in it, as most of those are stolen

Click to expand...

Again my Question, "Then what IS the benefit?"

It would, however, help drive the exchange of such guns deeper underground, which makes it more costly for illegal sales to be conducted and therefore less likely to be conducted. Thus, it gives teeth to law enforcement to hammer sales of firearms either by criminals or to criminals. Put simply, it empowers them to hammer criminals.

Click to expand...

And of course you have statistics to PROVE this statement, or is it just your opinion?

Has anyone here ever heard of extremism? Are you aware our Founding Fathers were NOT extremists? Are you aware those who swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (oath of office for all military, LE, and all principle government officials) are NOT extremists?

Are you aware choosing the first answer is extremist, and to the extreme, at that?

Hmm...

xd shooter said:

And then what? If they really want a weapon they go around the corner. It prevented NOTHING.

Click to expand...

This is the fifth time I've read this sort of comment and this is the fifth time I've wanted to say "no kidding." You are not reading the OP or the replies, people. You're assuming, leaping to errant conclusions, and outright slandering, groundlessly, I might add. You're not responding to the posts, failing to consider the options, and not formulating any salient response. In addition more than two dozen logical fallacies have been committed.

xd shooter and others, I've already responded to this twice, the first time pre-sponded actually, in my OP, yet you continue to ignore my initial post and subsequent responses without addressing them directly. Instead of actually reading the same, which involves more than skimming - you actually have to think about it and respond appropriately, you're merely reacting, and very emotionally, at that. If this were a pscyh test, you'd all have failed, and that really ticks me off after spending thousands of hours defending (most of) the people on this forum as rational, intelligent, thinking and non-knee-jerk-reacting human beings.

What's next? Would you like me to start tearing down people's arguments using a logical taxonomy? I could, and it would pass full muster of those who understand logical discourse. However, among those who have responded thus far, I think I'd be ******* in the wind, as you've yet to show any appreciation for logical discourse to date. Instead, I suspect I'll leave this thread to die or dribble of as neverending cesspool algae and you'll be dancing around one another like painted football-player wannabees in row 47, hairy-back-slapping one another silly.

Only thing is, this isn't a football game, and "majority rules" do not win. The only winner is common sense, and as we all "know," common sense isn't very common.

I have modified number one a bit and will call it option 6.

option 6.) "I believe none. That is, I do not trust the government to pick and choose who can buy/carry/own a gun and who can't."

HandyHamlet said:

Maybe it's like the Manchurian Candidate and the Brady Bunch has activated all their sleeper agents at once.

Click to expand...

First, it's "have activated," not "has activated." If you massacre the English language, how can you possibly begin to understand logical discourse?

Gods forbid we have the ability to transact private business without government interference.

Click to expand...

Ah, a pantheistic anarchist. Hmm... My God, on the other hand, abhors anarchy, loves sound order and discipline, yet fully respects an individual's right to make whatever choice he or she wants to make. But he also respects the consequences of errant decisions i.e. "natural consequences."

Now that the religious weedwhacking is over, can we get back to the OP, which has absolutely nothing to do with religion, whatsoever?

Ok, what happened to the OPEN poll? It's enabled on these forums for a reason, and ALL members are fully aware their votes are seen. It says so, in black and white, every time they vote.

The admins switched it because one of you complained. I'm a counter-complainant, so in the interest of open discussion, I asked them to please switch it back.

We'll soon see if open, honest, informed discussion is held in higher esteem on this forum than the club-smashing kabosh on an idea that, to date, just 4 of the 25,784 (less than .000155%) members have opposed.

Again, hmm...

Well, re-visiting my first sentence this post, most of the responses to date have indicated respondents are not aware of the previous posts nor have actually read them, so perhaps the admins were trying to do some folks a favor by changing the open poll to a hidden poll.

OP, you still haven't clearly defined why ...

Why should the federal government make it more of a hassle for law abiding citizens to legitimately purchase a firearm, whether it is from a FFL or a private seller, when you admit that the impact on criminal sales would be minimal at best?

I'm flabbergasted. Since proposes more unenforceable government regulation, attacks those who disagree, and argues the use of plural versus singular use of "has" and "have" with the ambiguous proper name "Brady Bunch".

And he doesn't recognize that a group of old white men declaring independence from their distant monarchy were extremists.

The OP advocates for a position diametrically opposed to freedom. it calls for increased government interference in something which is enumerated as a right.

Bad people do bad things. There are laws which restrict the possession if firearms by certain persons. We do not need more laws making this "more illegal". If you want to be able to arrest people who sell guns illegally, simply make it illegal to sell them to prohibited persons. No one in their right mind and concerned with acting lawfully would transact a private sale to an unknown party.*

*not that advocate this, but it "solves" the problem.

END_THE_FED said:

I have modified number one a bit and will call it option 6.

option 6.) "I believe none. That is, I do not trust the government to pick and choose who can buy/carry/own a gun and who can't."

Click to expand...

Finally! A rational response!

Thanks, man.

I do have to ask if you actually disagree with all 13 of the justifications I mentioned? Please be advised agreeing to even 12 of the 13 in no way supports an agreement of all 13. On the other hand, choosing the first option and disagreeing with all 13, some of which are extremely Libertarian in nature, tends to paint one as an extremist.

r.j.s said:

Why should the federal government make it more of a hassle for law abiding citizens to legitimately purchase a firearm..

Click to expand...

It's not more. It's already here. I'm just trying to get the damned Brady's off our backs.

r.j.s said:

OP, you still haven't clearly defined why ...

Why should the federal government make it more of a hassle for law abiding citizens to legitimately purchase a firearm, whether it is from a FFL or a private seller...

Click to expand...

More of a hassle than with who? I contend that if any of us should have to jump through any hassles, it should be equal to each and every one of us. Not only does this consolidarity point of view tend to put more pressure on the feds, it tends to rally others around our cause.

...when you admit that the impact on criminal sales would be minimal at best?

Click to expand...

...when this statement indicates you among at least six others now have failed to read my OP...

You're amassing yourselves as fish in the barrel, r.j.s. I did not intend to reel you folks in, so please don't dive into it voluntarily.

Your arrogance is amazing. You post 13 personal beliefs -- opinions -- and then viciously attack anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, even dubiously picking apart their grammar and flaunting your understanding of "logical discourse."

In answer to your *beliefs*, my opinion is No. No background checks that infringe on the clear language of the 2nd Amendment that stipulates "...shall not be infringed."

Perhaps you would also be in favor of background checks for anyone who wants to buy a car. After all, many people are killed every year by drunk drivers, so perhaps we should require a background check to see if they have a history of DUIs before they are allowed to buy a car?

nonameisgood said:

I'm flabbergasted. Since proposes more unenforceable government regulation, attacks those who disagree, and argues the use of plural versus singular use of "has" and "have" with the ambiguous proper name "Brady Bunch".

And he doesn't recognize that a group of old white men declaring independence from their distant monarchy were extremists.

The OP advocates for a position diametrically opposed to freedom. it calls for increased government interference in something which is enumerated as a right.

Bad people do bad things. There are laws which restrict the possession if firearms by certain persons. We do not need more laws making this "more illegal". If you want to be able to arrest people who sell guns illegally, simply make it illegal to sell them to prohibited persons. No one in their right mind and concerned with acting lawfully would transact a private sale to an unknown party.*

*not that advocate this, but it "solves" the problem.

Click to expand...

In summary, by point claimed:

1. True, you are indeed flabbergasted.

2. False, I do not propose unenforceable regulation. In fact, I don't propose any additional regulation at all. I do propose an alternative to previously proposed regulation. If the responders would take have a minute to review the logs, they'd see we're headed to America, not the Bermuda Triangle.

3. False, I've not attacked anyone who as has disagreed, as no disagreement without substantiation should be considered as anything more than potshots.

Your response, nonameisgood, is but the second of qualified responses. So, we continue.

4. " argues the use of plural versus singular use of "has" and "have" with the ambiguous proper name "Brady Bunch".

That was a commentary as to the literal inadequacy of a third party, and as such as no bearing on the points you've made thus far.

5. "he doesn't recognize that a group of old white men declaring independence from their distant monarchy were extremists."

No, I don't. Neither did our Founding Fathers. They felt very much themselves as being normal, but having found themselves in extreme times that called for extreme measures.

They acted accordingly.

We are not now in extreme times nor am I advocating extreme measures.

I will thus act accordingly.

Our Founding Fathers were not extremists. I am not an extremist.

Onward....

"The OP advocates for a position diametrically opposed to freedom."

PPPBBSSPSPSGHGHHHHH!!!!!

I'm sorry, but such a grossly unsubstantiated comment deserves a similarly unsubstantiated response.

Furthermore, your comment is flat out totally out to lunch and wrong six ways to Sunday. If you can't see it, I wish you the very best luck throughout the rest of your life. You'll need it.

"Bad people do bad things."

Yes, they do.

"There are laws which restrict the possession if firearms by certain persons."

Yes, there are.

"We do not need more laws making this "more illegal".

If you'd read the OP or any of my subsequent posts, you'd have stumbled across the fact that I'm not advocating any such thing. This is simply one of the several erroneous conclusions you and others here lept to thinking you were right before you'd half-digest what I'd actually written. Back up half a spell and the answer's there for the taking. Forge ahead blindly and the brick wall of ineptitude awaits you with all the resilience of the Cliffs of Dover. Good luck...

"If you want to be able to arrest people who sell guns illegally, simply make it illegal to sell them to prohibited persons."

Wow. That looks precisely like the premise of my arguement: Make it illegal to sell to those to whom sales are illegal.

Why did it take this much discourse before we "came" to a similar conclusion? I refer the audience in general back to the ill-advised practice of jumping to conclusions.

"No one in their right mind and concerned with acting lawfully would transact a private sale to an unknown party.*"

Of course not. I'd like to say "none of us would," except for the fact that posts claiming "I checked his drivers' licence to be sure he was in state before I sold him my firearm" keeps burning its way towards the front of my mind. I've already covered in this thread why a valid CO DL has no bearing on the legality of a firearms sale. And no, it is not the sole responsibility of our government to ensure he was a legal buyer. So then how did you as a seller ascertain he was not prohibited from buying a firearm?

Hmm...

Uh-huh.

JamesCanby said:

Your arrogance is amazing.

Click to expand...

Please stop confusing arrogance with either knowledge or experience.

"You post 13 personal beliefs -- opinions -- and then viciously attack anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you."

Nope. I chose the 19 justifications for a reason, and they range from the most conservative to the most liberal of reasons. To date, I've only countered the fallacious attacks against whatever justifications people have put forth for not examining the justifications.

Given the fact that all voters have diametrically opposed any of them indicates one of two things:

1. The forum extremist bullies have attacked first and the usual respondents are waiting in the wings to see how the dust settles. To that I say to those waiting in the wings - stop waiting. Freedom isn't won in the chicken coop (i.e. "waiting in the wings - hiding in the chicken coop"). Step out and weigh each point on its own merit, while taking into consideration the "first responders" (who, yes, tend to be bullies).

2. The first responders are extremist knee-jerk reactionists who're far more concerned with beating down any perceived (whether actual or merely perceived) threat to their existence, than they are in genuinely debating any of the points thus offered.

3. The first responders are those who've read the OP, read the various points, have formed their own opinion based on the OP, subsequent comments and local, state, and federal law, and are actively pursuing that course of action.

...those who've bothered even dubiously...

Click to expand...

Why would anyone do anything "dubiously" on this forum? Contraindicated.

...picking apart their grammar...

Click to expand...

If they can't speak English, I have to wonder, "can they?" Enough said.

...and flaunting your understanding of "logical discourse."

Click to expand...

Logic, like engineering and physics is an active branch of mathematics. Many people claim "we should be able to go back to the Moon!" while failing miserably with respect to the engineering (minimal) and the cost (substantial) hurdles of doing so. Eschew logic if you will, but in doing so it's only to your own demise, much the same as claimaints of a "150-mph gasoline additive." That defied the laws of physics in the 70s, yet millions of Americans bit off on it. Logic is tireless. It never quits, yet fallacies in this thread abound. All they serve is to point to the originator of the fallacious logic. The more you tender, the more you're highlighted.

In answer to your *beliefs*, my opinion is No. No background checks that infringe on the clear language of the 2nd Amendment that stipulates "...shall not be infringed."

Click to expand...

This is really the heart of the issue, where I struggle the most. Much of the rest of window dressing.

Can we in fact hold true to the original in every respect? Criminals? Mentally incompetant? What about John Doe who sees a pistol, buys it, loads it, then starts shooting at everyone in town. He misses! It's taken away, so... his slate is somehow clean? He can buy another and run the serious risk of killing someone with the full knowledge of the townspeople?

Cut to the "protectionist" thirties, where Capone was beyond reproach, but his many gang members were not, if only the laws were in place to curb their behavior at the time.

Perhaps you would also be in favor of background checks for anyone who wants to buy a car

Click to expand...

Nope.

After all, many people are killed every year by drunk drivers, so perhaps we should require a background check to see if they have a history of DUIs before they are allowed to buy a car?

Click to expand...

Nope. If you're driving and shouldn't be, the book should be thrown at you. The different between firearms and automobiles is that it's dang difficult to stuff an automobile in your pocket before you head off to use it in while committing a crime!!!

THINK, people. Yes, there are huge similarities, which I've mentioned many times before in my own posts (search people, search).

But there are also differences.

- since9

OC for ME said:

Uh....dude, by definition, revolutionaries are extremists.

Click to expand...

Uh...dude, no. In fact, not at all.

Our nation's revolutionaries represented normalcy. That's WHY they revolted. It was the King's onerous actions that were extreme i.e. "not normal."

There is a reason I like those extremists.

Click to expand...

King George and his men, ok, whatever floats your boat. I disagree.

Dude, if the oppressors weren't the extremists, there'd have been no justifiable reason for the revolution. Stop mixing up your sides and fly right.

By the way, I love the quote you brought to the table:

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. - Patrick Henry

Click to expand...

I would argue those who would use firearms for dishonest gain (criminals) as well as those who would use them insanely (mentally incompetant) are the "unable" about which Patrick Henry was speaking.

Do you honestly believe they had neither criminal nor mentally incompetent back then? Of course they did! Terms like "everyone who is able" was the vernacular of the day with respect to saying "criminals should not possess firearms ; the mentally incompetent should not possess firearms." The criminal and mental elements were not "able."

Is this starting to hit home, ring true, or must we continue?

For the rest, if you're willing to actually read through the posts and respond appropriately instead of employing mindless, knee-jerk reactionism, be my guest! If the latter is all you're interested in doing, however, please divert your attention here.

Thanks.

1) why are these people on the street? And if they wanted a gun, they would get one and skip the BC. Its not hard to do.

2) What is the purpose of a BC, if the person simply buys a weapon anyway from somewhere else?
I think its silly, to be honest.
People who want a gun to do bad things will acquire one, legally or illegally. Whats stopping me from going on a rampage tomorrow just because I wanted to?
A BC won't stop that now will it?

3)Well, if someone wants to get a BC check on someone that's fine. Requiring it before you buy a gun is silly.

4) Yes, I just love the government in my private business. :banghead:

5) I don't agree on the BC at all.

6) BC should not be required at all, but if it is why not just give something similar to a CCWL but but for skipping the BC. If you do something stupid it gets revoked.

7) So, if I wanted to buy my wife a gun as a present she has to get a BC, what about my kids?
That's just stupid.
Its the responsibility of the GUN OWNER to make sure the gun is not used in a illegal manner and stored safely.

8) Yep, I can't trust my wife, or my mom now can I?

9) What a joke, people can own a firearm legally but can't sell and trade amongst them self's and are fined for doing so?
What amount of funding will it take to enforce this? Its absurd.
Yes, lets jump through more government hoops.

10) Why not punish the seller for selling a firearm to a person who passed a BC but killed people?
The seller should have known.

11) Ill give you this one I guess.

12) why should that be public knowledge, and not everything else? Nothing should be submitted to the public when it comes to a private sale.

Frankly, I like the idea, for a couple of reasons. No, it wouldn't stop illegally-owned guns on the streets. In fact, it wouldn't put much more than a dent in it, as most of those are stolen.

Click to expand...

Then why try to enforce all these new laws, when it won't even affect the sale of guns to people who do bad things?

It would, however, help drive the exchange of such guns deeper underground, which makes it more costly for illegal sales to be conducted and therefore less likely to be conducted.

Click to expand...

And judging by the mountain of proof you showed to support this claim, I don't believe it at all.

Thus, it gives teeth to law enforcement to hammer sales of firearms

Click to expand...

To anyone at anytime, mostly the LAC and not the criminals.

It's nothing more than a minor inconvenience: When I purchased my current carry piece two years ago, my BC cost $15 and took less than 20 minutes to clear.

Click to expand...

That stops nothing, and does nothing. So why have it?
When I got my first handgun the BC took less than 5 minutes, and cost me NOTHING.

This is one topic I think I am going to avoid with the exception of a few opinions I'll offer.

I do not like the fact that we have to fill out transfer forms (4473 plus the state equivalents) at all. And I like what Virginia has; no forms or BC's for private sales or gifts. As for as background checks as they currently exist, I have mixed feelings about them.

I see nothing in the Second Amendment which authorizes such activity by a dealer or a governmental entity other than the case where a dealer may wish to refuse the sale at his discretion. The Second Amendment is clear in my view and certainly does not include anything approaching "reasonable restrictions"... once again, in my opinion. So since I lean towards a more strict reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, background checks seem to be an infringement to me. Or are they?

I do not like the idea of selling firearms to those who have criminal records which have not been expunged by the court, persons with a history of mental illness, those with a history of drug problems, non citizens, or illegals. I don't see these criteria as violations of the Second Amendment, and I would tend to believe they are not based upon some of the writings of the Founders, which takes me back to background checks.

Before the Brady Bill was enacted into law, Virginia had an instant check system in place. This is what I would prefer... keeping the feds out of it and just going with the issue as a states' rights thing. If they want a background check in please, so be it. If they wish to have purchase permits issued before a resident can buy a handgun, then that should be their prerogative. Waiting periods, one gun a month, background checks on all sales and giftings; leave this to the states. Yes it would seem to be contrary to what the Second Amendment clearly states, however the Second Amendment restricts the federal government from infringements, not the states. The states have their own constitutions by which they are obligated to follow (read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights). The ultimate decision left to the people is then, in which state do they wish to reside... which state best suits their beliefs.