The NEW Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun Poll!

[Beau]

page 5 pwned

Matt, does this mean that you believe this for felons also?

I do. If your free, your free. All rights should be restored. If you can't be trusted with a weapon in society then you shouldn't be in society. It's proven time and again that a felon, who wants to commit another felony, will do so. Regardless of what ""protections"" have put in place to keep us safe.

 

[Suprtek]

page 5 pwned


I do. If your free, your free. All rights should be restored. If you can't be trusted with a weapon in society then you shouldn't be in society. It's proven time and again that a felon, who wants to commit another felony, will do so. Regardless of what ""protections"" have put in place to keep us safe.

This is a little off topic, but I take it this means you are against the concept of parole or probation?

 

[McKinney19D]

I voted Yes.

If I have to put up with a 10 minute background check to buy a firearm, and thats it?!!? no problem. let's not make it that easy for a criminal with a record to legally buy a firearm.

yes, as stated a hundred times before, they can still acquire these firearms, but why not have a background check? its simple, easy and legal people buy legal guns.

is a 10 minute background check really the worse thing they can do to impede your liberty?? you are still buying a firearm, aren't you?! so I wouldn't be all that worried.

 

[MeAndMyXD]

The sad thing is that I think that you're actually serious.

You should try a little harder when you twist the Constitution. Present your case a bit more coherently and with at least a hint of reason.

Sorry I didnt respond to this post sooner. I have been working really long hours and dont get to visit here much.

It was a joke somewhat. I truly believe pedophiles have no right to live though. I also think that even as it is our right some people shouldnt own guns.

 

[JohnP82]

I voted NO

But the system would have to do a better job keeping violent offenders off the streets and not relesing them after a slap on the wrist or else it would probably turn out like the wild west!

 

[Tommy2Tone]

I voted yes before reading any posts. I agree with both sides of the story fully. It is a tough choice. As i was reading i thought, 'if someone commits a crime they gave up their right to own a gun, its their fault.' But then i thought, 'Well, we are talking about an AMENDMENT. You cannot take an Constitutional right away from someone.' So, i am going to stick with my vote, realizing its not as easy as yes/no.

 

[Sigblaster]

I voted Yes.

If I have to put up with a 10 minute background check to buy a firearm, and thats it?!!? no problem. let's not make it that easy for a criminal with a record to legally buy a firearm.

yes, as stated a hundred times before, they can still acquire these firearms, but why not have a background check? its simple, easy and legal people buy legal guns.

is a 10 minute background check really the worse thing they can do to impede your liberty?? you are still buying a firearm, aren't you?! so I wouldn't be all that worried.

What about when someone gets delayed? Just how long of a delay would be acceptable to you without it becoming an infringement?

 

[finity]

Once again, you're wrong. NICS checks came in after the downward trend was well under way so it certainly didn't cause it.

Ok.

Once again you show that you can't RTFP. If you want me to translate that I will but I'll get an infraction for language - similar to RTFQ.

Now, I'm also not saying that the reason for the decline in the crime rate is the NICS system. Just like you can't justifiably say that the reason for the (mythical, non-existent) rise in violent crime is due to NICS, either.

Notice the bolded part. I never said that the NICS system was the cause!

I simply said that YOU can't blame the NICS system (as just one more restriction) that caused higher crime. We don't have higher crime. We have LOWER crime.

You implied that crime is higher & we are less safe now than before. That's not true.

More Guns, Less Crime. The period from the late '60's (post-GCA) through the late '80's were when the restrictions were the greatest and also the highest crime period in the nation's history.There has been nearly a universal expansion in shall-issue carry laws in the same period and the decline came after the shall-issue explosion and post-FOPA.

I agree with that - mostly. There's no real evidence (crime stats) to say that the 60's-80's were the "highest crime period in the nations history". The 20's & 30's were as much, if not more violent than the period you pointed out.

Some evidence has also been seen that our country (along with western society in general) has become overall less violent over the centuries. The world is a lot less brutish than it was when every conflict was settled by the duel & people don't have to worry as much about running into highway bandits at every turn.

Can you point to the reason why the crime rate was lower in, say, the 40's than the 20's that was related solely to less gun restrictions? There are a lot of reasons but less gun restrictions was not one of them. Remember NFA '34? Isn't that still in effect?

Also, the prohibitions on carrying guns in public started well before then (after the civil war). Those restrictions didn't start reversing until just recently so they couldn't have been a factor in the relatively peaceful 40's & 50's.

 

[bighop1]

i voted no do need any help from government on firearms

 

[acase20]

I voted yes.... My wife bought me a ruger p95 yesterday it took longer for me to pick out my gun than it did to do the background check on me....its not a big inconvenience....now my brother went to buy a twelve gauge and his took three hours because there are three guys locally with the same name and one is a felon, he was annoyed it took that long but it wasnt a big deal in the big scheme of things. just my take

 

[CarmelHP]

Ok.

Once again you show that you can't RTFP. If you want me to translate that I will but I'll get an infraction for language - similar to RTFQ.

Right back at you, bucko, I never "blamed NICS," never even mentioned it until you brought it up.

Notice the bolded part. I never said that the NICS system was the cause!

I simply said that YOU can't blame the NICS system (as just one more restriction) that caused higher crime. We don't have higher crime. We have LOWER crime.

If you're not saying NICS is the cause, why bring it up, I didn't mention it.

You implied that crime is higher & we are less safe now than before. That's not true.

No, I think it's your reading comprehension that's the problem. I said that crime was greater as restrictions were added on. I think post 1986 we've seen a great loosening of laws. I remember having to pay over $20 for a box of 50 rds 9mm in the early '80's and had to be bought from a dealer and signed for, no mail order anything, not even a single cartridge case. Most states had may-issue carry laws if they allowed carry at all, no surplus guns to speak of.

I agree with that - mostly. There's no real evidence (crime stats) to say that the 60's-80's were the "highest crime period in the nations history". The 20's & 30's were as much, if not more violent than the period you pointed out.

The violent crime rates started heading up around 1960 and peaked in the early to mid-1980's at the highest point at least in the 20th century. The previous peak was lower and of shorter duration, mostly coinciding with the duration of alcohol prohibition.

Some evidence has also been seen that our country (along with western society in general) has become overall less violent over the centuries. The world is a lot less brutish than it was when every conflict was settled by the duel & people don't have to worry as much about running into highway bandits at every turn.

It's also less violent than before the invention of firearms, at least in terms of homicide, so it's still not the guns, and has been decreasing through the rise of the firearms trade long term.

Can you point to the reason why the crime rate was lower in, say, the 40's than the 20's that was related solely to less gun restrictions? There are a lot of reasons but less gun restrictions was not one of them. Remember NFA '34? Isn't that still in effect?

It's more likely that's it was alcohol prohibition.

Also, the prohibitions on carrying guns in public started well before then (after the civil war). Those restrictions didn't start reversing until just recently so they couldn't have been a factor in the relatively peaceful 40's & 50's.

Everyone understood before the civil rights era that those laws were meant only for the black minority. Whites carried, if they wished, regardless of the Jim Crow gun laws. After the civil rights movement changed that, around 1960, then the laws started being enforced more evenhandedly to avoid charges of racist application. They were still driven by fear of blacks for the most part, especially in the large cities, but now had to be applied to everyone.

 

[Keith_Indy]

I voted yes. I don't look at it as a restriction for the law abiding at all. If you are not prohibited by law from buying a firearm, in most cases, you will be able to buy one, right there, right then.

Interestingly I looked up the definition of infringe.

If something infringes on/upon someone's rights or freedom, it takes away some of their rights or limits their freedom

If you're still able to purchase the firearm, has your rights been taken away? Has your freedom really been limited?

I don't think in our imperfect world there's an easy answer to this. Our other rights have limitations on them as well.

Also, don't forget that it's illegal to sell a felon a firearm. So how would a store verify that?

I have no problem with laws that prohibit criminals or otherwise unfit individuals from possessing firearms. I also realize that the definition of "unfit" can be another debate all to itself.

However, I should not be required to prove that I am a "good guy" in order to exercise my God-given rights. It should be the governments responsibility to prove otherwise. IMO, these requirements, along with others (like requiring a LTCH) violate more than just the 2nd Amendment. They also violate the 4th.

Isn't that exactly what the NICS is for, to allow the government to say you are not a "good guy."

There are a whole host of alternate realities presented here with with some of the no votes, tougher sentencing, etc... I would add to that list, there are to many crimes classified as felonies.

However, we don't live in those alternate realities where the law is always upheld, sentencing is tough, and violent criminals are walked out to the hanging platform after a guilty verdict is passed.

So I'd rather felons and those who are mentally unfit, not be allowed to walk into a retail business and buy a firearm. Sure, felons can go to any street corner and purchase a whole arsenal. I'm guessing the mental disturbed have a harder time, once they're in the system.

I have no problem with restricting violent felons from legally purchasing, or possessing firearms. They still have the right to defend themselves, they've just given up the right to use the most effective means of defense. The number of crimes that are felonies is what is egregious.

 

[Sigblaster]

I voted yes. I don't look at it as a restriction for the law abiding at all. If you are not prohibited by law from buying a firearm, in most cases, you will be able to buy one, right there, right then.

Interestingly I looked up the definition of infringe.



If you're still able to purchase the firearm, has your rights been taken away? Has your freedom really been limited?

Same question for you. What about when someone gets delayed? Just how long of a delay would be acceptable to you without it becoming an infringement?

 

[Keith_Indy]

Same question for you. What about when someone gets delayed? Just how long of a delay would be acceptable to you without it becoming an infringement?

As a practical matter 3 business days seems reasonable, which is the law as it is now.

It ought to be possible to permanently resolve any identity similarities, and have some way of ensuring quicker response from then on.

Interesting factoid: More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

Now, how many of those denials were later reversed isn't listed.

And note, you can appeal denials, which is important. I would say, the prohibitions listed below are more extensive, and I would change a crime, to a crime of violence (rape, assault, murder.)

These prohibitions apply to any person who:

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (1)
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year 18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (2)
Is a fugitive from justice
18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (3)
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (4)
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (5)
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (6)
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (7)
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (8)
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (9)
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
18, U.S.C. §922 (n)
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Some interesting statistics here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/denials-1

507,495 - number of people sentanced to more than 1 year who still tried to buy a firearm through an FFL
6,103 - number of people adjudicated as mentally unfit who still tried to buy a firearm through an FFL

That's over 12 years, so let's say around 2 mentally unfit people a day try to buy a firearm through an FFL. YIKES

 

[CarmelHP]

As a practical matter 3 business days seems reasonable, which is the law as it is now.

It ought to be possible to permanently resolve any identity similarities, and have some way of ensuring quicker response from then on.

Interesting factoid: More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

Now, how many of those denials were later reversed isn't listed.

And note, you can appeal denials, which is important. I would say, the prohibitions listed below are more extensive, and I would change a crime, to a crime of violence (rape, assault, murder.)

Some interesting statistics here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/denials-1

507,495 - number of people sentanced to more than 1 year who still tried to buy a firearm through an FFL
6,103 - number of people adjudicated as mentally unfit who still tried to buy a firearm through an FFL

That's over 12 years, so let's say around 2 mentally unfit people a day try to buy a firearm through an FFL. YIKES

So, in order to sift through what amounts to statistical noise, we've made purchases, and business operations more onerous for how many countless customers and FFL's and spent how much treasure in doing so? And just how many convictions have resulted of people who actually were adjudicated to have attempting to evade the law? And how many got illegal guns through other channels? More safety theatre.

 

[Beau]

This is a little off topic, but I take it this means you are against the concept of parole or probation?

Parole, no. Probation, depends on what for. If we are discussing violent offenders. If the board decides they can be released, then give them their rights back as well. If they commit a violent offense again, send them back for life or the needle.

 

[redpitbull44]

Skipping the opinions so they don't taint my own...

I voted yes, and I will tell you why.

I feel like there should be regulation on the judicial system's end, that involves life sentences for criminals who use weapons, and the death penalty for those who have murdered. And that death penalty should come as swiftly as possible, preferably within one week. And forget all the millions spent on drugs and special rooms, we need to start hanging people again.

I believe each gun purchase SHOULD include a background check, but only after the system to ensure guns aren't being sold to criminals is revamped. I don't believe it should be a law, but a resource to all people, to determine criminal conviction so that the seller can decide for himself.

I feel that there needs to be a conclusive database of convicted felons. Anything less than a felony would never make it on that list. I feel like said database should be an itemized list of a person's crime, degree of said crime, and date convicted.
Also, diagnosed mental illness or handicap needs to be documented, and the mentally ill and handicapped should be on a list along side convicted felons.

I know this sounds a lot like invasion of privacy, but to me, instead of taking a man's right to own a firearm, you are making him accountable for his metal state, intelligence, and actions.

 

[sgreen3]

I voted yes only once, I dont want any joe blow having a hand gun. Although these gun laws are like having a screen door on a submarine, it really dont work. And gives law abiding people like all of us a big headach. If a fellon wants a gun they will get a gun.

 

[Sigblaster]

As a practical matter 3 business days seems reasonable, which is the law as it is now.

Please explain why 3 days is reasonable, but 4 days is not.

 

[Beau]

Please explain why 3 days is reasonable, but 4 days is not.

or 5..........6...................7. Why not a month?