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

[tom1025]

A license to drive is not a legal requirement to buy or sell a firearm.

A license to carry handgun is not a legal requirement to buy or sell a firearm.

But I understand some folks like to add their own prerequisites.

Maybe a blood and stool sample, DNA testing?

Perhaps a spinal tap to accompany their background check?

I vote no. Punish those who misuse firearms - specifically, the purchasers who do so.

Remove the ridiculous and useless burdens from licensed sellers and quit making up our own for FTF sales.

+1... Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Bond 281]

You see the heavy burden pro-gunners have when you can get this number of people on a gun forum to agree to infringements that have been proven to be so ineffective at their stated purpose.

I've been astounded at how many people here support useless infringements in spite of mountains of evidence they they do literally NOTHING to reduce crime, and instead are shown to INCREASE CRIME as more control is placed. About 40% of the forum it seems refuses to use a smidgen of logic, but instead echo the same Brady brainwashed trash about 'reasonable restrictions.'

"Shall not be infringed" leaves zero room for background checks. This is a very black and white issue. Background checks, waiting periods, licenses to carry, gun registration, magazine capacity limits....these are all infringement, plain and simple.

Anyone arguing for them ought to admit that they don't believe in the Constitution or Freedom. Because there's no such thing as 'reasonably restricted' freedom, all that means is you're on a longer leash.

 

[Grademan]

About 60% of voters so far, have apparently never been face to face with the true underbelly of society.

 

[Yeah]

About 60% of voters so far, have apparently never been face to face with the true underbelly of society.

Where've you had that experience?

 

[ATM]

I would love to be able to vote no. Unfortunately, in today's world that's not possible.

About 60% of voters so far, have apparently never been face to face with the true underbelly of society.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how the underbelly of today's world has so frightened you into believing the notion that essential liberty could or should be traded away in a futile attempt to purchase safety.

I'm one of the 60% that doesn't get that.

 

[shooter1054]

you should pass a backround check. I firmly beleive in the 2nd ammendment and exercise my rights often. However there are certian people who simply do not need to even look at a firearm let alone own one. People with mental issues, convicted felons, ex wives/girlfriends etc.

 

[Wabatuckian]

you should pass a backround check. I firmly beleive in the 2nd ammendment and exercise my rights often. However there are certian people who simply do not need to even look at a firearm let alone own one. People with mental issues, convicted felons, ex wives/girlfriends etc.

There's that "mental issue" thing again.

What, exactly, is a "mental issue"?

 

[Wabatuckian]

About 60% of voters so far, have apparently never been face to face with the true underbelly of society.

I have, and it only strengthens my resolve to always be armed and reduce gun control to what it states in the Indiana State Constitution.

Josh

 

[shooter1054]

mental issues: having multiple personalities, bipolar disorder, dementia of any kind, suicidal tendencies, etc.

 

[finity]

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

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

Because that was the original point of this thread - background checks.

You also stated:

I vote No, hell No. Can anyone say that crime is lower or society safer than the time before restrictions started to be piled on. No, in fact, the reverse is true. Prohibitory laws have been shown repeatedly to be ineffective at stopping or even reducing criminal traffic in contraband, but very effective at reducing legitimate use. Why would anyone support and seek to extend such backward, counter-productive failures as background checks and other feel-good restrictions. That a sizable minority of gunowners would support such ridiculous ventures demonstrates the idiocy infecting our culture.

You included background checks as one of the restrictions that have caused crime to increase. Background checks ARE NICS checks. You, therefore, DID mention NICS checks as an element that has caused crime to (supposedly) increase.

No, I think it's your reading comprehension that's the problem. I said that crime was greater as restrictions were added on.

& I have shown that that specific statement is completely false.

We did not have a large number of restrictions on our RKBA in the 20’s & crime was as high (or higher) than it is now. We had the first REAL restrictions on RKBA starting in 1934 but yet the 50’s were fairly safe where crime was concerned. Crime was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than in the 20’s & 30’s when there were almost NO RESTRICTIONS.

Crime was already increasing in the late 60’s when GCA ’68 was enacted & crime was already peaking & leveling out when GCA ’86 was enacted. Crime started to fall sharply after the AWB & NICS checks were instituted in ’94. But crime has also not risen since the AWB has expired. (Don’t jump on me & try to say I want the AWB re-instituted. That’s not what I’m saying at all)

I think post 1986 we've seen a great loosening of laws.

We have seen a great loosening of CARRY laws. That I can agree with. I also agree that is probably the most likely cause of the reduction in crime we’ve seen since the mid 80’s. We pretty much still have all the other restrictions in place (esp. federal) that we had before OTHER THAN THE CHANGES IN CARRY LAWS.

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.

Yes & even now with MOST states requiring a license/permit to carry a handgun crime is still at its lowest point since the 50’s.

So, bottom line:

Your conjecture:

Can anyone say that crime is lower or society safer than the time before restrictions started to be piled on. No, in fact, the reverse is true.

My response:

There are many reasons why crime has increased & decreased over the last century but none of it correlates at all to the increasing (or lessening) restrictions on the RKBA.

The ONLY correlation is the easing of carry restrictions starting in the 80’s. That is only one element of those restrictions & has nothing at all to do with background checks – which is the point of this thread.

I've been astounded at how many people here support useless infringements in spite of mountains of evidence they they do literally NOTHING to reduce crime, and instead are shown to INCREASE CRIME as more control is placed. About 40% of the forum it seems refuses to use a smidgen of logic, but instead echo the same Brady brainwashed trash about 'reasonable restrictions.'

"Shall not be infringed" leaves zero room for background checks. This is a very black and white issue. Background checks, waiting periods, licenses to carry, gun registration, magazine capacity limits....these are all infringement, plain and simple.

Anyone arguing for them ought to admit that they don't believe in the Constitution or Freedom. Because there's no such thing as 'reasonably restricted' freedom, all that means is you're on a longer leash.

The whole argument against “reasonable restrictions” being that they are unconstitutional is ridiculous.

There is no Constitutional right that doesn’t have at least some form of restriction in place.

Would those of you who stick to the “shall not be infringed means zero restrictions” mantra be OK with the laws against, say, child pornography being done away with as an abridgement on someone’s First Amendment right to free speech? Or is it only because you agree that some, but not all, rights are absolute?

Just because I don’t really mind background checks (except that they are too restrictive where released felons are concerned but that is an issue of law not the background checks themselves, per se) doesn’t mean I’m anti-gun or anti-Constitution or anti-freedom (quite the contrary, actually).

Using that logic, if you are OK with ANY restriction on ANY right AT ALL, you are no different than the Brady bunch where guns are concerned.

Also, those that think that we need to get rid of all gun laws only for the reason that they solely impact the law-abiding then someone could make that same argument against ANY law. If someone is going to do something (ANYTHING) “wrong” (i.e. against public/others interests) then they will do it in contravention of any law that is written to prevent it. If they wouldn’t already do it then no law is needed to stop it in the first place. So EVERY law is a restriction on the “law-abiding” & has no effect on a “criminal” that would violate the “law” no matter what. An argument in that respect is an argument to get rid of all laws no matter what they are as “unnecessary”.

If you want to win in the debate over repealing the unnecessary gun laws you’ve got to come up with a better, more coherent argument than that.

 

[Wabatuckian]

mental issues: having multiple personalities, bipolar disorder, dementia of any kind, suicidal tendencies, etc.

So would you count in that habenaephobia?

Seriously, where does it stop? When does "cautious" become "paranoid/delusional"?

MOST importantly, who defines "mental illness"?

 

[ATM]

So would you count in that habenaephobia?

The fear of spicy peppers?

Absolutely. Those people are nuts.

 

[CarmelHP]

Because that was the original point of this thread - background checks.

You also stated:

You included background checks as one of the restrictions that have caused crime to increase. Background checks ARE NICS checks. You, therefore, DID mention NICS checks as an element that has caused crime to (supposedly) increase.

Saying that something has had no effect is not the same as saying it is a causative effect. Your "logic" fails.

& I have shown that that specific statement is completely false.

What? Your imagined statement? I'm sure your strawman was easy for you to knock over. You're very well practiced.

We did not have a large number of restrictions on our RKBA in the 20’s & crime was as high (or higher) than it is now. We had the first REAL restrictions on RKBA starting in 1934 but yet the 50’s were fairly safe where crime was concerned. Crime was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than in the 20’s & 30’s when there were almost NO RESTRICTIONS.

Did you entirely miss that discussion about prohibition?

Crime was already increasing in the late 60’s when GCA ’68 was enacted & crime was already peaking & leveling out when GCA ’86 was enacted.

There was no GCA '86. Show how GCA '68 with it's waiting periods and other folderol reduced crime and you may have a point. The state enactments of anti-gun and anti-carry laws started well before '68 and didn't begin to get rolled back until the early '80's.

Crime started to fall sharply after the AWB & NICS checks were instituted in ’94. But crime has also not risen since the AWB has expired. (Don’t jump on me & try to say I want the AWB re-instituted. That’s not what I’m saying at all)

Actually violent crime peaked and began to fall in '91-'92. How did the AWB and NICS cause it, again?

We have seen a great loosening of CARRY laws. That I can agree with. I also agree that is probably the most likely cause of the reduction in crime we’ve seen since the mid 80’s. We pretty much still have all the other restrictions in place (esp. federal) that we had before OTHER THAN THE CHANGES IN CARRY LAWS.

Mil Surplus rifles and pistols were unimportable before the mid-'80's. No ammunition could be sold unless it went through the hands of a dealer and prices were generally the same (pre'86 mind you, 25 years of inflation ago) that were not seen again until the first year of the Obama presidency. Those are significant changes. Trillions of rounds of ammunition and tens of millions of firearms sold were violent crime was plummeting.

Yes & even now with MOST states requiring a license/permit to carry a handgun crime is still at its lowest point since the 50’s.

Your point. Many, if not most, of those states required a license since the '30's except they were obtainable except for the politically connected.

My response:

There are many reasons why crime has increased & decreased over the last century but none of it correlates at all to the increasing (or lessening) restrictions on the RKBA.

The ONLY correlation is the easing of carry restrictions starting in the 80’s. That is only one element of those restrictions & has nothing at all to do with background checks – which is the point of this thread.

As I showed, you can't read a graph.

The whole argument against “reasonable restrictions” being that they are unconstitutional is ridiculous.

You talking to me. I said "ineffective" which is quite different than unconstitutional. Of course, I would like any gun laws to, at least, show a compelling state interest, that the imposition advances that interest, is narrowly tailored, and uses the least restrictive means possible.

Also, those that think that we need to get rid of all gun laws only for the reason that they solely impact the law-abiding then someone could make that same argument against ANY law. If someone is going to do something (ANYTHING) “wrong” (i.e. against public/others interests) then they will do it in contravention of any law that is written to prevent it. If they wouldn’t already do it then no law is needed to stop it in the first place. So EVERY law is a restriction on the “law-abiding” & has no effect on a “criminal” that would violate the “law” no matter what. An argument in that respect is an argument to get rid of all laws no matter what they are as “unnecessary”.

If you want to win in the debate over repealing the unnecessary gun laws you’ve got to come up with a better, more coherent argument than that.

You're argument so far seems to consist solely of "background checks haven't increased crime." If you want to win in the debate over imposing unnecessary gun laws you’ve got to come up with a better, more coherent argument than that.

 

[Grademan]

Perhaps you could elaborate on how the underbelly of today's world has so frightened you into believing the notion that essential liberty could or should be traded away in a futile attempt to purchase safety.

I'm one of the 60% that doesn't get that.

Nice speech. I know you're serious, but it's baffling to me.

I could elaborate, but other than the fact that it's none of your business, I'm certainly not going to in a public forum with strangers. I'm sorry you don't understand what's out there.

Surely we have leos on here. Why don't we ask their opinion?
Basically you're saying that this pos that shot and killed a cop in Indy should be able to purchase a gun without a background check.

 

[CarmelHP]

Nice speech. I know you're serious, but it's baffling to me.

I could elaborate, but other than the fact that it's none of your business, I'm certainly not going to in a public forum with strangers. I'm sorry you don't understand what's out there.

Well, you brought it up. I've seen the underbelly of society, know that gun restrictions won't clean it up, but may get a few good guys killed during the waiting out of a waiting period or during trying to get a false positive denial resolved.

Surely we have leos on here. Why don't we ask their opinion?
Basically you're saying that this pos that shot and killed a cop in Indy should be able to purchase a gun without a background check.

If you don't want to be asked to explain yourself, you really should keep quiet or you look like you're blowing hot air. How has NICS or any of the myriad of restrictions keep that cop alive? They didn't, maybe that's your answer.

 

[ATM]

...I'm sorry you don't understand what's out there.

I know what's out there. I'm not saying that living in a free society isn't scary.

Surely we have leos on here. Why don't we ask their opinion?

They give opinions here just like every other member.

Basically you're saying that this pos that shot and killed a cop in Indy should be able to purchase a gun without a background check.

Yes and No. I'm pointing out that he already can. If he's not supposed to have one, punish him if gets caught with one.
Let's just not pretend that we can keep him from getting one by supporting this ineffective program of background checks in order to buy from licensed dealers.

It's a silly notion that certainly didn't work on that pos you mentioned.

 

[Grademan]

Well, you brought it up. I've seen the underbelly of society, know that gun restrictions won't clean it up, but may get a few good guys killed during the waiting out of a waiting period or during trying to get a false positive denial resolved.

REALLY? That seems a bit of a stretch.

If you don't want to be asked to explain yourself, you really should keep quiet or you look like you're blowing hot air. How has NICS or any of the myriad of restrictions keep that cop alive? They didn't, maybe that's your answer.

You don't believe I've seen it. I don't believe you've seen it. I never said anything resembling: NICS would've kept the officer alive.

 

[CarmelHP]

You don't believe I've seen it.

What I said was if you don't want to discuss it, don't go swinging it around. Are you always this nonsensical?

I don't believe you've seen it.

I don't care. I don't mind talking about it.

I never said anything resembling: NICS would've kept the officer alive.

So, you agree it wouldn't have, and, in fact, didn't make any difference. So, what's you point then?

 

[Grademan]

I know what's out there. I'm not saying that living in a free society isn't scary.

Again, I don't believe you've seen it. You don't believe I've seen it.

They give opinions here just like every other member.

I would like to hear their opinions on THIS matter.

Yes and No. I'm pointing out that he already can. If he's not supposed to have one, punish him if gets caught with one.
Let's just not pretend that we can keep him from getting one by supporting this ineffective program of background checks in order to buy from licensed dealers.

It's a silly notion that certainly didn't work on that pos you mentioned.

Yes and No??? Wow. I've got to disagree with you there.
No one's pretending, FTFs are going to happen legal or not (as stated earlier).

 

[pinshooter45]

As much as I hate a big Governemnt, we need this safegaurd in place. Do you really want Scumbags like the guy who murdered Officer Moore able go in to a gun store and buy a gun? Granted it did not seem to take him long to obtain one illeagaly, but I just can't see getting rid of background checks. But I do worry about things like adding in something like mental illness. They could bend that into keeping you from buying a gun just because you saw a shrink a couple of times.