INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[Darral27]

I voted no. If there must be one they should accept our LTCH and IN DL as a proper background check.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I voted no. If there must be one they should accept our LTCH and IN DL as a proper background check.

Not even that.

Hi, my name is Alan, I want that gun right there, here is the money, have a nice day.

 

[NomadS]

Secondary poll: what percentage of INGO members are progressives or statists? I'm guessing 16%

 

[IndyDave1776]

Haha! Not entering all the quotes here but a simple response. I voted yes, and respect the opinion not to sell to me. But rest assured within my company we share some like minded thoughts such as living within the confines of the law and would welcome your company and not hold it against you.

The Amendments are not literal, its been proven time and time over.
Drive your car across state line and any LEO will reference you ASAP. Were already on the grid, if you pay taxes, voted, or signed up for selective service as prescribed by law. Google has more info on most of us than our govt. It is a criminal check and affects non of us. It is an ounce of prevention. Society changes and what was applicable in the past may not fully apply today. No one is taking our guns away.

I'm a registered Republican from Tx. I dont subscribe to the curent Presidential administration however, I keep my state, senate and local reps. Informed of my stans

I'll say it again the system is broke. It will not affect me unless certain firearms are restricted but I have done my part by writting letters for myself and on behalf of my 6 children.

1. What do you mean proven? Just because Franklin Roosevelt managed to pack the Supreme Court with ideologues who put ideology over the Constitution, that doesn't mean a thing other than that the court was corrupted.

2. It doesn't affect us? Wrong on five counts. It is a violation of the Second Amendment. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. As more activity is criminalized, you among others including your children and grandchildren may be reclassified as criminals without any changes in your behavior. Every time this is done, we are left with nothing but the word of the feds that they are not keeping records. When a confiscation comes as the predictable final result of fools compromising our rights I don't think you are going to get much mileage out of telling them that they weren't supposed to have records indicating that you have guns. Last, but certainly not least, CRIMINALS, BY DEFINITION ARE PEOPLE WHO DISREGARD THE LAW. Do you really expect them to buy their guns from a proper vendor following federal procedures of any kind?

3. The entire purpose of the Constitution, particularly the first ten amendments, is to prevent the whim of society from defining our rights.

4. No one is taking our guns away? Perhaps you should tell 'them' that. They seem not to have received the memo.

5. I don't doubt that you are from Texas. While its values are more congruent with our than someplace like New York, California, or Illinois, it is to a great extent the same substance with a different attitude in that right-wing statism rather than left-wing statism seems to be de rigueur there.

6. You apparently don't care about infringements as long as they don't affect you personally withing the parameters you have chosen for yourself. Thanks for throwing the rest of us under the bus. With friends like you we sure don't need any enemies.

 

[GREEN607]

There are SO many reasons to be fully opposed to mandatory background checks. But to me, the real 'deal breakers' are two....

1. As has been so rightfully stated, again and again in this thread..... it will do NOTHING to stop criminals or would-be criminals from obtaining guns, AND, it will do NOTHING to lower or stifle the crime rate in America.... which is the sole faux purpose of the Feds proposed legislation.

2. Again, and this is most important, UBC's would absolutely be an infringement on our inalienable rights as recognized in the U.S. Constitution. And giving in to even the smallest infringement is the doorway to the possibility and distinct likelyhood of other legislation that will erode OTHER rights we take for granted, in ways you cannot imagine. To use the worn out phrase, "That is a slippery slope" that we do NOT want to start down.... particularly in this recent avalanche of socialist ideas being put forth by the 'progressives' in our nation. To falsely believe that it wll end there, is folly.... and a supremely dangerous game to play with our Constitutional rights.

For those here who believe as Obama and many others do, that our Constituion is an out-dated, irrelevant document in 'modern' times.... I am glad that your ancestors enjoyed the liberties that they did; but if you want now to give up yours, DO NOT DO SO ON AMERICAN SOIL. Kindly just move yourself to Great Brtain or better yet, North Korea.... and quit messing with my Liberty.

 

[billybob44]

Now I have to worry about infractions on INGO

Yea, I got ONE of those here.
I ask the price of something in a WTT post!! Bad Boy-Bad Boy--Oh well the Mod that made that IMPORTIANT decision is now retired.

There are "Like Minded" people in Local, State and Federal positions that determine your right to own a firearm or NOT...Bill.

 

[Caleb]

Big brother doesn't need to know what all is going on in my life

 

[ar15]

That would create even more of a back log... I think the system now is fine... There is no reason for us to be further regulated than we are already!

 

[LP1]

I'd settle for at least nothing. Accepting BG checks is a net loss, a surrender with nothing in return, a net loss. It's LESS than nothing.

You missed at least two points. Accepting background checks is not a net loss or a surrender with nothing in return if it prevents a greater loss of rights. And the "nothing" part of "all or nothing" doesn't mean that nothing happens; it means that the loss of rights is greater than it otherwise might be.

Note: I haven't voted in the poll, and I haven't said that I'm in favor of submitting to background checks or any of the proposed restrictions. My point has always been that we need to choose our battles wisely and present ourselves as thoughtful and reasonable; sadly, I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who have posted replies on this thread.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You missed at least two points. Accepting background checks is not a net loss or a surrender with nothing in return if it prevents a greater loss of rights. And the "nothing" part of "all or nothing" doesn't mean that nothing happens; it means that the loss of rights is greater than it otherwise might be.

Note: I haven't voted in the poll, and I haven't said that I'm in favor of submitting to background checks or any of the proposed restrictions. My point has always been that we need to choose our battles wisely and present ourselves as thoughtful and reasonable; sadly, I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who have posted replies on this thread.

It would be just another compromise to the left, what have they offered us?

 

[Caleb]

It would be just another compromise to the left, what have they offered us?

Nothing and they never will unless it benefits them in some lewd and deceptive way...

 

[billybob44]

I voted yes, but they have to do it right. First, if a state does a complete background check to issue a LTCH and requires a gun safety course (current LTCH's grandfathered and military/police exempt), then that LTCH is good anywhere in the US and is all that is needed with picture ID to purchase a gun. Second, LTCH numbers are put into a national database with expiration dates. Lifetimes would have a date of 99/99/9999. Third, any seller of a gun would have to have a LTCH and use their number to access the database to verify the LTCH of the purchaser and that they also checked valid picture ID. Fourth, FFL's would still need to keep records of sales. Fifth, anyone deem incompetant or convcted of a felon would be required to surrender their LTCH and it would be removed from the database. Sixth, the database should be accessible from any computer, tablet, smartphone.

In effect, you purchase a lifetime LTCH, keep your nose clean, you only need one background check.

I'm sure that there is a hold or two here, but it would only take a few of us to iron them out in a short time.

I voted NO, but I kind of like ^^^ idea.
This MUST-MUST-MUST- be ONLY a record on the persons-Buyer+Seller!!
No-ABSOULTY NO record of the make, model, or serial # of the firearm purchased.
This would give the "Powers that Be" no record for registration, leading to confiscation of any certain firearm down the road.
To ME--this MAY be workable...Bill..

 

[Light]

You missed at least two points. Accepting background checks is not a net loss or a surrender with nothing in return if it prevents a greater loss of rights. And the "nothing" part of "all or nothing" doesn't mean that nothing happens; it means that the loss of rights is greater than it otherwise might be.

Note: I haven't voted in the poll, and I haven't said that I'm in favor of submitting to background checks or any of the proposed restrictions. My point has always been that we need to choose our battles wisely and present ourselves as thoughtful and reasonable; sadly, I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who have posted replies on this thread.

You mean a "compromise" like Romney made in Massachusetts? You read their laws lately?

You have to have a permit to purchase a firearm. Handgun or Long Gun.
10 round magazine limit.
"Assault Weapons" are prohibited.
NFA items are prohibited.

Apparently pro-gun groups SUPPORTED his assault weapon ban as a compromise for getting gun permits and carry permits renew period lengthened.

Any compromise is another compromise. When there is another shooting, they'll call for more enforcements, because the first one was not enough. And they'll ask us to compromise yet again, and again, and again, until finally there is no more ground to take and they decide to confiscate.

The worst part is that they will never accept that they were wrong. Do you ever see the government removing the NFA and coming out and saying that they were wrong? No. Do you ever see them coming out and saying that you should be able to buy a handgun at 18 and that they were wrong? No.

So if they enact a AWB or blanket background checks, do you ever think they will decide that they were wrong? Never. If the law isn't working, the left just say "we didn't take it far enough this time." Look at the UK. It was done little by little per shooting.

 

[johnny45]

No.

Further, background checks should be abolished.

 

[RobyG78]

I voted No but probably not for the reason most people did.

1 This in MHO includes BB Guns so I buy a BB-Gun give it to my 10 yo for his/her birthday and now I am guilty of a straw purchase.
2 What is the legal definition of a firearm does this only include weapons the use combustion to propel projectiles?
3 Who says I am incapable or unfit, friends, family, LE, Courts, pseudo mental doctors who tell me I have this or that give me pills that then make me more homicidal and send me home? Experts Right!
4 We don't require people to get background checks to buy a car, even run for office far more dangerous IMO then guns.

I would support current law enforcement and IQ, and lie detector tests for politicians

EDIT:
Oh yeah and ACCOUNTABILITY!!

Rob

 

[Giddaltti]

1. What do you mean proven? Just because Franklin Roosevelt managed to pack the Supreme Court with ideologues who put ideology over the Constitution, that doesn't mean a thing other than that the court was corrupted.

2. It doesn't affect us? Wrong on five counts. It is a violation of the Second Amendment. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. As more activity is criminalized, you among others including your children and grandchildren may be reclassified as criminals without any changes in your behavior. Every time this is done, we are left with nothing but the word of the feds that they are not keeping records. When a confiscation comes as the predictable final result of fools compromising our rights I don't think you are going to get much mileage out of telling them that they weren't supposed to have records indicating that you have guns. Last, but certainly not least, CRIMINALS, BY DEFINITION ARE PEOPLE WHO DISREGARD THE LAW. Do you really expect them to buy their guns from a proper vendor following federal procedures of any kind?

3. The entire purpose of the Constitution, particularly the first ten amendments, is to prevent the whim of society from defining our rights.

4. No one is taking our guns away? Perhaps you should tell 'them' that. They seem not to have received the memo.

5. I don't doubt that you are from Texas. While its values are more congruent with our than someplace like New York, California, or Illinois, it is to a great extent the same substance with a different attitude in that right-wing statism rather than left-wing statism seems to be de rigueur there.

6. You apparently don't care about infringements as long as they don't affect you personally withing the parameters you have chosen for yourself. Thanks for throwing the rest of us under the bus. With friends like you we sure don't need any enemies.

WoW Indydave! Having never met, I’m not sure how I struck a chord with you? I'm guessing based on your comments, a discord with current events may have taken a better part of you. I trust you have written your gov't officials as I have. Change is inevitable. I care greatly, and I will always choose formyself, it's my right. I will cease here respectfully.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Secondary poll: what percentage of INGO members are progressives or statists? I'm guessing 16%

This irked me. I will address this, and other fallacies of thought, as soon as possible.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I voted yes, and with a resounding affirmation.

I am of the belief that universal background checks (BC) would certainly have an effect on criminals. The reason that they aren't very effective now, is due to poor administration, and the ease of circumventing have a BC conducted (ie private sales).

In 2010, tens of thousands of persons were blocked from purchasing firearms, due to criminal convictions or mental status. Is one to believe that these persons who either have proven themselves, at least once, to disregard the law, or being mentally infirm are simply going to obey the law and NOT get a firearm? Obviously, the hurdle thrown up via a BC is easily thwarted with a simple trolling of a local gunsite, or attendance at a local gun show. Currently, there is absolutely ZERO reason for an "improper person," to buy a "roscoe," by inclandestine means.

And this is the part many are overlooking. "We" should want our criminals to buy their weapons from "non-official" sellers. The more they sell, the better the chance we have to catch them, and end their "business" habits.

To those that sy that BC wouldn't work, there are two infamous examples, off the top of my head that prove otherwise. Both the VT and the Tuscon shooters were considered mentally ill, and had purchased their guns legally. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to conclude that if their BC's were taken seriously (which appears to be frequently, not the case) the wouldn't have been able to obtain their firearms at a reputable dealer.

And what with all this "no infringement" talk? I get tired of hearing all this revisionist history. There not a single point in American History that, what we call today, as "infringing on the 2nd Amendment," didn't exists. Note, I said "what we call today."
There is no indication in the ACTIONS of the founders that support what many of us believe the 2nd Amendment stands for. You can quote me writings 'til you're blue in the face, but words pale to actions.

If the NRA existed in 1776, the Foundering Fathers would have a solid F rating.

 

[jbombelli]

I voted yes, and with a resounding affirmation.

Figures.

 

[CarmelHP]

You missed at least two points. Accepting background checks is not a net loss or a surrender with nothing in return if it prevents a greater loss of rights. And the "nothing" part of "all or nothing" doesn't mean that nothing happens; it means that the loss of rights is greater than it otherwise might be.

Note: I haven't voted in the poll, and I haven't said that I'm in favor of submitting to background checks or any of the proposed restrictions. My point has always been that we need to choose our battles wisely and present ourselves as thoughtful and reasonable; sadly, I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who have posted replies on this thread.

How's that? Don't be a damn fool. If you have a whole cake and give away a quarter to appease those who want to steal a half, it's a NET LOSS. And, now that they know how "reasonable and thoughtful" you are, they'll be back net week for the rest.