And so it begins...

[RobertNashville]

Like several others, i'm having a bit of a problem trying to understand how a background check should be a requirement for the purchase of anything (...guns included...).

It's nothing more than an attempt by the Nobama machine and other anti-gunners to whip up sentiment for stricter gun laws at a time when support for stricter gun laws is at an all time low. I see this as a "non-starter" for the Demorats and the anti-gunners.

As i remember, Laughtner (...nutty as he is...) could legally own a gun and had probably passed a "background check". In a free society; you simply cannot "anticipate" the actions of the nutty and plan for the unplanned. Criminals dont bother to legally buy guns; they steal or trade in them. No system would have picked up Laughtner because he was not a felon at the time; only a trouble making nut. The local authorities well knew that Laughtner was at the minimum; a troublemaking nut. He didn't need a background check for that; the "authorities" already knew that.

Dont ever concede the ground that says that "background checks" should be anything other than an abridgement of your second amendment rights. If we are going to institute background checks; lets check the background of potential auto buyers for reckless driving, computer users for evidence of "bad computer use" habits like saying bad things on internet forums and message boards, and other equally foolish tripe.

The fact is that this idea is a looser and Nobama is busy making himself a one term president (...thankfully...) and marginalizing the Demorats as a real political party (...thankfully...). More and more people are coming to the conclusion that the world is a dangerous place and that when you need help in a deadly situation in a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away.

I say these clowns need to keep on talking and exposing themselves for what they really are.

Leroy

With regards to Jared Loughner, I believe he purchased his Glock illegally - while he did "pass" his background check, we know he used drugs and it's been reported that he lied on his application form when it came to that question...had he told the truth the sale would have been denied.

The problem is, criminals including those who intend to become criminals, are as unlikely to tell the truth as they are to obey a "gun free zone" sign.

Background checks won't solve the problem...more efficient/intense background checks won't solve the problem...trying to strengthen the background check system will have a much impact on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals/potential criminals as denying the sale of a handgun to anyone names "Jared" would have in preventing another Tucson shooting.

[Guest mikedwood]

I don't know if this is true or not, but earlier I read on the internet that people were killing other people before guns were invented. Yeah I know it sounds crazy but...

Also in England they are looking at banning kichen knives.

If someone wants to kill someone bad enough they will. Guns are just the most thought of method but if one were inventive enough I'm sure you could take someone else out with a marshmellow some how.

9/11 was pulled off with box cutters. In Iraq and Afghanistan is IEDs.

I was reading a book written by a Vietman sniper and he said they could fight all day with guns and no one was that much worse for the wear but if you really needed to clear an area call in artillery.

Then considering that off all gun deaths in America each year near half are suicide.

Just rambling now but I don't like rights getting chipped away at cause sooner or later the levy breaks.

[Guest db99wj]

Background checks keep people that are for the most part law abiding citizens that screwed up once upon a time and crazy folks, in theory, from getting a gun, oh and idiots that really don't have a clue that their record will stop them. I'm fine with the system currently, after working in a gun shop, I understand and have seen a few. The main problem IMO, has been said on here over and over, the criminals that want one, will get one. Doesn't matter.

This is just a step by the liberal govt, to get closer to taking away rights. No matter how "innocent" it looks. I wouldn't be surprise though if we do see the gun shows restricted out of existence in the next 5-10 years, if not sooner. Which would be awful.

[gregintenn]

So, we're on a gun site and background checks is winning in the polls. I think we ought to pass background checks for all our rights. Want to post on the internet? Background check! Want to go to a religious service? Background check! Want to keep the government from entering your house without a warrant? Background check! Want a jury of your peers? Background check!

A limited right is in effect a privilege and if they take this right away, all the others will follow.

I'd like to offer my services for screening people before they vote.:screwy:I can't believe this poll is this close.....on a gun forum!!!!

DO you have any idea how many thousands of dollars I've wasted being background checked? It's ridiculous. I'll likely pass the next one or one hundred. It has NOTHING to do with safety.

Edited March 14, 2011 by gregintenn

[Mike.357]

the .gov should not infringe my rights in any manner at all. It is pretty simple.

I may be wrong but I am pretty well convinced that Free Speech has killed more people than guns in the hands of private citizens ever will.

[kieefer]

DO you have any idea how many thousands of dollars I've wasted being background checked? It's ridiculous. I'll likely pass the next one or one hundred. It has NOTHING to do with safety.

Seems like a bar code on a carry permit could dismiss you from further BG checks? Simply could be revoked if you violated the law.

[Guest bkelm18]

So, we're on a gun site and background checks is winning in the polls. I think we ought to pass background checks for all our rights. Want to post on the internet? Background check! Want to go to a religious service? Background check! Want to keep the government from entering your house without a warrant? Background check! Want a jury of your peers? Background check!

A limited right is in effect a privilege and if they take this right away, all the others will follow.

We elect these folks. Keep that in mind.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

The key phrase in this is "reward states that keep the best data". That can mean almost anything, none of it good. But remember, it's for the children.

I find this quote very interesting... what it tells me is "Follow the Money", this is another way that someone can get all the records on who owns a gun, and who does not, and also go around and collect the guns from those that lawfully own them, just as they did in England. The government paying states a finders fee is what this is!

This is an interesting read... Sound Familiar ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

And Now..... The Rest Of The Story............

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was

no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences... Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars..

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Yup... if they scan the bar code on your permit, (and if it was previously, and still "currently" revoked), it should display "Revoked" when scanned, and that should be a red flag to stop the sale. BUT... then the government would not make any money on the background checks for each sale.

Hmmmmm...

Edited March 15, 2011 by RobThatsMe

[gregintenn]

Seems like a bar code on a carry permit could dismiss you from further BG checks? Simply could be revoked if you violated the law.

Or we could just have the mark of the beast imbedded into our hands and heads, lest we wouldn't be able to trade??!!? C'mon guys, think this through.

[RobertNashville]

I too find it a bit disheartening that the poll is so close.

If near 50% of a predominantly pro-firearms crowd is willing to accept "background checks" what chance do we have of preventing more draconian impediments to firearm ownership?

Is this acceptance of background checks by the enthusiast community a result of familiarity with the this system that we've had since the 80's? If so, who is to say that in another 10 or 20 years all private sales of firearms will be outlawed and accepted as "normal" by enthusiasts?

Whether our rights are taken away in one legislative action or one "minor" law at a time; the end result will be the same.

[Guest Red5]

No. For all the reasons mentioned above but mainly because gun laws/restrictions are totally ineffective when it comes to their intended purpose; to save lives.

I'm sick of hearing "If it saves just one life, it is worth the sacrifice". That's crap. As others have said, if you want a gun and cannot legally own one, you will illegally own one. If you intend to commit a crime and don't have a gun, you will bring a hatchet, a knife, or even a nice pointy stick.

I know, let's all make the sacrifice of getting rid of our cars. That will save way more lives in a year than any law making it more difficult for law abiding people to buy a gun.

How about fast food? Again, in the past year I'll bet you could link more deaths to McDonald's than to Smith & Wesson. Let's have a background check before you can Super Size your #3 combo. Step on the scale. Sorry sir, your BMI exceeds the legal limit.

While ineffective, I can live with the current background check system. It will suck though if in 20 years we look back and view it as just a stepping stone on the path to more restrictions, total handgun registration, etc. etc.

[Guest GunTroll]

I'm pro check. That being said to check the same person over and over is simply another way the Gov has figured to impose a tax on us. I have a customer that has me transfer more than a few firearms a month for his collection. I try to push him to stock me up with them and do a few at a time to avoid the fees but...

Anyways the criteria for who and how we get a check should be looked at. Me being a FFL holder I have to wonder why I have to check myself. Seems dumb if I want to sell myself a firearm. I can't have my FFL if I were a felon and I log onto TBI often. Same for someone who just had a check yesterday and then buys another today...what a waste and clear burden. Anyways.....its about money plain and simple.

[dlm37015]

but for most of you it was ok to have to have a script for cold tablets

this is the same is it not

[leroy]

...but for most of you it was ok to have to have a script for cold tablets

this is the same is it not ...

Bingo!! We have a winner!!! dlm is exactly right.

It is, INDEED, the exact same. We shouldn't be tolerating this either. Either make pseudpephedrine based medicine a prescription item or catch the dammed methhead thugs making it. My guess is that we'll do neither. Too much money to made in both areas.

Keep up the good work.

leroy

[mk19]

I'm against gun control, but I am for background checks. Why? Because we don't want crazy, unstable or criminal people getting hold of guns, then doing something stupid and thus given politicians a reason to coem up with more restrictive laws.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What? No papers? Come with me.

[mikegideon]

What? No papers? Come with me.

That's about the size of it. No matter what Obama says (or really intends), this latest will be nothing more than another attack. The NRA refused to play. I'm with them.

[Guest Jamie]

I'm against gun control, but I am for background checks. Why? Because we don't want crazy, unstable or criminal people getting hold of guns, then doing something stupid and thus given politicians a reason to coem up with more restrictive laws.

But... background checks don't prevent crazy, unstable, or criminal people from getting their hands on guns. They never have.

Matter of fact, usually the first reliable, 100% certain sign that someone is crazy or unstable in a violent sort of way is that they go on a rampage of some kind. Until then, there's almost nothing that a court or doctor would be willing to lock them away for, or find grounds to infringe on their rights in any manner.

As for criminals... they're gonna have guns when the rest of us don't... and that too is pretty much a proven fact.

Sorry, but background checks being useful, or preventing much of anything, is just an illusion. Or delusion, actually.

And by the way, this statement... "I'm against gun control, but I am for background checks"... is contradictory, since you are obviously for some form of gun control. Just remember though, that historically, a little eventually turns into a LOT.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Jamie

[1gewehr]

If you have to have the government's permission to do something, it is not a right, it's a privilege. As many have said, background checks serve no purpose whatsoever in reducing or preventing crime. They just get the people used to asking "Mommy, may I?" when exercising their rights.

[Guest Jamie]

I've come to the conclusion that there are too many Zumbos in our midst... People who, through either fear or ignorance, are willing to forfeit some or all of everyone else's rights, in order to attempt to protect some aspect of their own...

[Guest Red5]

I'm against gun control, but I am for background checks. Why? Because we don't want crazy, unstable or criminal people getting hold of guns, then doing something stupid and thus given politicians a reason to coem up with more restrictive laws.

And who should determine if you are crazy, unstable, or criminal? By my definition, I work with crazy people every day and some of those people probably think the same of me. There is no law against being crazy and I am not for denying someone of their rights based on what is essentially an opinion. I liked the movie Minority Report, I don't want to live it.

As Jamie said, a criminal act is often the the first solid indication. By then it is of course too late but that is why I choose to carry in the first place. I much prefer dealing with this risk as opposed to the risk that someone, somewhere could "decide" that I was unfit to have a gun.

[mikegideon]

THIS is why I continue to support the NRA. Their official response to the Barry show...

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

[gregintenn]

Our government gave us the background checks we have today with the expectation that it would lead to a safer society. Why is it that so many otherwise rational people keep buying the old trick of "if we just do this one more thing, everything will be great"?

As far as the other saying: "if it only saves one life...", we could save thousands of lives if everyone would quit driving cars. Are you willing to do that to "just save one life"?

[RobertNashville]

And who should determine if you are crazy, unstable, or criminal? By my definition, I work with crazy people every day and some of those people probably think the same of me. There is no law against being crazy and I am not for denying someone of their rights based on what is essentially an opinion. I liked the movie Minority Report, I don't want to live it.

As Jamie said, a criminal act is often the the first solid indication. By then it is of course too late but that is why I choose to carry in the first place. I much prefer dealing with this risk as opposed to the risk that someone, somewhere could "decide" that I was unfit to have a gun.

Agreed...we don't and hopefully never will punish someone or take away someone's rights because of what they "might" do. There is no "law" that will EVER stop a criminal from plying their chosen profession and that includes "background checks". The only answer to criminals obtaining/having/using guns; in fact the best answer to "crime" of any kind and that's to make the "cost" of crime so obnoxiously high that few people will chose to be a criminal.

Severe, swift and CERTAIN punishment can be a huge deterrent to a would-be criminal. But today, punishment is not severe, is rarely swift and almost as rarely certain to happen EVEN when the criminals are caught!

Those who commit any serious crime should be in jail for a VERY long time...so long that by the time they get out they will be too old to be a danger to anyone...we can't be totally draconian about it; felons that are for non-violent (white collar) crime and such can perhaps be treated differently but most criminals should be put in jail for decades or for life, not given a 30 years sentence and then out on parole after 5 or 10 years.

Unfortunately, such actions are too harsh for many people to stomach and/or they are unwilling to spend the money necessary to keep these animals locked up.