Gun Purchase Without Background Check | What's Your Stance?

most probably gun purchase without background check can improve the situation?

 

wasn't me...............this is the Libs plan that failed, not mine. Wasn't my guns either. These stupid asses asserted their stupid Lib agenda on innocent children, then announced a Gun Free Zone, knowing that it would attract a broken mind. Libs like to have painted targets to achieve their point. They are the ones that should be put on trial, and have their rights stripped from them.
Why don't we take away your 1st Amendment Rights, then you wouldn't be able to say squat. Or may be take away your 4th Amendment Rights and kick your door in looking for guns and drugs... and maybe take your computers away to check and see if you are a pedophile....... yeah, that sounds about right........
or maybe you aren't American and you don't have Rights, just privileges like a King's subject.

 

How, pray tell, could that have been predicted? You some sort of rocket scientists with a crystal ball that sees into the future? Stupid Libs...that killer did try to make several purchases just days before and was refused. That law stopped his purchases. His ignorant mother was the source and she paid for it with her life. What more justice can be had since the source and the killer paid for it with their lives? You on a witch hunt? Wanna blame more people than the killer? Then carry the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing blame yourself..................Your promotion of gun free zones only sets families up as targets. You're responsible for herding people in for target practice. Kind of like when folks were tossed in the Roman ring for entertainment, only you want to see unarmed people set up for slaughter and fed to the sick minds of the world. You would rather see them undefendable and dead than possibly alive and safe.
There are too many guns out there to even begin to think you can just talk the criminals into giving them up. And now you're gonna throw your hand in with a meglomaniac and start hunting witches.....(*)(*)(*)(*), that's real progressive thinking there, bub.....
BTW, are you a firearm expert? You ever fire a gun? Did it make you wet your pants when you heard it pop? To terrified to look at one? What's your emotional heritage with the fear of guns?
Only rude people want to take guns away from people, that way they can continue to be rude and obnoxious without fear of reprisal.

 

Uncle Suckemoff, new national icon. To hell with background checks between
individuals. Established dealers at gun shows do instant background checks.

 

Both are private property, I don't see the distinction I'm afraid.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" - 4th Amendment.

Seems pretty open and shut really. Screw all the silly interpretation done by the openly fictitious Supreme Court, the amendment says what it says.

Why is it that rights the state in general likes are always interpreted as broadly as possible, yet the ones it doesn't are marginalized to the point of meaning nothing? The meaning of the constitution is self evident given the definitions of the words used at the time of printing. In observation the judiciary's review power has been used far more to warp the original meaning of the words than to interpret them in an accurate way. The fact is that the court has hardly ever said anything that isn't a reflection of the times and of the political establishment.

 

No! its very terrifying!

 

Heck I posted a poll about criminal background checks to collect welfare payments and the liberals dodged it like the plaque. Why let people with out standing warrants or parole violations xolect welfare. Lets background check them.

 

They have slaughtered many more. They are all part of the war machine.

 

laws don't stop crime... they attempt to deter crime. A background check is a deterrence/prevention measure meant to ensure legal ownership, in the same way armed presence in a school is a deterrence/prevention measure meant to ensure safety. I'm willing to bet you'd advocate the latter...

 

If you want to run background checks of welfare payments then go right ahead. I don't think that taxing people to pay for it is at all acceptable, but that problem remains regardless.

The problem when it comes to guns is that it's a private transaction. You shouldn't have any more ability to stop a serial rapist who is openly about to kill someone than you should anyone else. In both cases you should have no ability at all. Not just you should make no edict, not even the ability to make a decision at all. The transaction is justified nonetheless because it's merely an isolated agreement to exchange goods. It is completely separate from anything that happens after that. It shouldn't be the fault of the shopkeep, he was merely exchanging goods and realizes that he is responsible for his own actions, not those of others.

The responsibility is placed solely in the murderer committing the crime rather than distributing it throughout the number of people he bought weapons from who were only performing a simple trade, he never agreed with the man to go and kill the person, he never endorsed that view. Are we going to end up in a world where you get prison time for selling murderers knives? What about if you feed him? Surely you're enabling the murderer to the same extent as the gun shop owner - you declining isn't going to do anything he'll just shop around.

Prohibition doesn't work and isn't liberal.

 

First the above picture is of people browsing a gun dealer's tables at a gun show. Those guns would require a background check to buy under current law. (anybody selling more than a handful of guns needs a Federal Firearms License).

Second, most criminals get their guns either stolen or from straw purchasers. Neither of those are stopped by a universal background check.

 

Rights can be lost due to due process (i.e. convictions or other court actions). That is the only reason that we can imprison or execute people. Being convicted of a felony causes you to lose various rights by due process. Among those are the right to vote and the right to bear arms.

- - - Updated - - -

Rights can be lost due to due process (i.e. convictions or other court actions). That is the only reason that we can imprison or execute people. Being convicted of a felony causes you to lose various rights by due process. Among those are the right to vote and the right to bear arms.

 

When did the NRA start advocating getting rid of the current background checks? It didn't..

 

we are a country of second chances, once a person has done their time, they should not be denied the right to protect their homes and families

can you imagine if we took away religious rights or free speech rights... they are rights.. not privileges

background checks were not just for people that committed past crime, but also for people with disabilities.. or alleged disabilities

background checks would be to guns what the classification system was for the war on drugs, it means changes no longer need to go through a vote
.

 

We can take away lives, property and basic liberty in the court system. Life is the most fundamental right, yet the government can take it away (capital punishment). If we can take life away for the commission of felony, we can take any other right away for the commission of a felony.

Yes, but if those disabilities are enough to cause involuntary incarceration (i.e. committment to a mental hospital), the right to own guns can be lost.

I don't deny it. I'm not posting in favor of background checks. I'm posting that the right to own a gun can be lost due to criminal actions. the thing is, we currently have background checks in place. You cannot buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer without going through background checks today. The amendment that was voted down would have extended that to almost all sale of guns, including from private individual to private individual. In the years since 1998, we've had that background check. It hasn't gotten more encompassing, and can only check for things that are specifically in the 1968 law. (i.e. felonies, dishonorable discharge, involuntary comittment ot mental hospital all exclude one from owning guns).

 

this is not happening in the court system, they have been punished and have done their time, now if you put them on life time probation you would have a point, but that is for the courts to decide

- - - Updated - - -

no it's not or they would not be out roaming free buying a gun...

I have no doubt the intentions of this law are good, I just think it would be abused....

the bad guys will always get guns, laws like this only effects the honest guys

.

 

Not allowing felons, dishonorable military discharges, and the involuntarily incarderated to own guns has been law of the land since 1968.

 

Background checks are required to purchase from an FFL. I'm satisfied with the NICS as it is. I think running a NICS for a private sale is a good idea especially when selling to a stranger, but I don't think it should be mandated by law because it's impossible to enforce.

 

If someone really can't be trusted with a gun, should they be allowed to roam free in our society?

 

I was actually surprised that the law didn't pass the Senate because it was nothing more than a feel good measure by the Democrats so that they could grandstand. It had a provision in it that exempted "friends and acquaintances" from having to go through background checks. Gee........that isn't vague.

 

It was much to vague. How do you determine what internet sales are? Your friend used the internet to sell you a gun would it be between friends or internet sales? Did this open up transfer across State lines without an FFL because you sold it to a friend? Right now in State sales are determined by State law and interstate sales by Federal law. Would Federal law override States rights? Would it be constitutional?

 

WTF do we need a back ground check for? It has not done squat to reduce any criminal activity. And selling weapons to mexican drug and weapons runners are good for the us economy.

Explain to me where any background check has stopped the kinds of killings they think background checks are suppose to stop? ZERO

Angry people with a vengence will get their 15 min of fame no matter the amount of back gound checks you impose. And criminal felons who do drive byes and roberies will still get on americas most wanted. And that suicidal husband that is going to kill his whole family and mother in law, will still make the 6PM news.

Nothing will change an angry vindictive persons' behavior. Nothing.

 

Not what it's designed to do. Background checks exist to halt the unlawful purchase of firearms by people deemed unfit to do so. Without background checks, criminals have a legal gateway to commit atrocity. If you have children, you don't argue against background checks for day care providers because "people will find a way to rape your kid anyway".

Justify drug laws.

 

Then we can assume you are willing to pay for the firearms background checks?

Which means it should be none of your business as opposed to welfare payments which are not private but public transactions of taxpayer money and the taxpayer has the right to insure the person receiving the temporary assistance is able and ready to take gainful employment and pass a drug test when that job is offered.

So if background checks are constitutional then certainly we can apply them to those living on taxpayer money instead of through their own labor.

 

Huh? I'm against background checks for guns dude. Any and all.

That's what I was saying. A firearms purchase is a transaction between two private parties, but with welfare one party is the government, so obviously they can alter the terms of the transaction in that case.