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

[Grademan]

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

Should I share my past with a complete stranger to justify my stance? That's nonsensical.

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

Right on. Lets hear it.

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

Point is: You're saying that this pos AND ALL OTHERS LIKE HIM should be able to purchase a gun without a background check.

 

[ATM]

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

I believe you've seen it.
I just asked why it made you scared enough to endorse something as ineffective as background checks. Strikes me as an emotional stance rather than rational.
But regardless, most people don't have to see things to know that they exist.

I would like to hear their opinions on THIS matter.

OK, guess you just need to figure out which of those who already posted are LEO.

Yes and No??? Wow. I've got to disagree with you there.

How so?
Yes, I believe that background checks are not necessary or useful.
...and No, I never said that he should be able to purchase a gun at all, only that he can (and obviously did). Yes and no.

No one's pretending, FTFs are going to happen legal or not (as stated earlier).

I call what some are clinging to here pretending. You may call it something else.

 

[Grademan]

A negative rep from CarmelHP. LOL

 

[ATM]

There's a thread for that: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/47467-neg_rep_roll_call.html

 

[bertenshaw]

No.
reasons
1 - 'The 2nd Ammendment'
2 - Villians don't submit to checks. They can even get guns in the 'gun-free' UK.
3 - If a gun can be bought 'privately' with no checks, what's the point?

 

[Sigblaster]

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

Let me guess- you're white.

 

[Grademan]

I believe you've seen it.
I just asked why it made you scared enough to endorse something as ineffective as background checks. Strikes me as an emotional stance rather than rational.
But regardless, most people don't have to see things to know that they exist.



OK, guess you just need to figure out which of those who already posted are LEO.



How so?
Yes, I believe that background checks are not necessary or useful.
...and No, I never said that he should be able to purchase a gun at all, only that he can (and obviously did). Yes and no.



I call what some are clinging to here pretending. You may call it something else.

Nothing here we haven't already discussed. Thanks for the civil argument and not resorting to the life altering negative rep.
We just disagree.

 

[Grademan]

Let me guess- you're white.

Let me guess- You don't know what you're talking about.
The underbelly I came in contact with existed nearly twenty years ago and happened to be 95% white. You're trying to make this racial?!? Never saw that coming.

 

[Sigblaster]

Let me guess- You don't know what you're talking about.
The underbelly I came in contact with existed nearly twenty years ago and happened to be 95% white. You're trying to make this racial?!? Never saw that coming.

Let me give you a clue- the roots of the most onerous gun control laws have always had their roots in the fear held by the the white man. Fear of brown skinned Hispanisc gangs, brown skinned Italian organized criminals, black groups like the Black Panthers, or just free black men in general.

I used to think it was just the scared white men in Congress that were the problem, but now I see that white fear is a grassroots gun control issue. It is pervasive in the white community.

The fact that background checks and their associated waiting periods are so widely supported by scared white men (as evidenced in this thread) has led me to believe that white fear is as widely prevalent in the conservative community as is white guilt in the liberal community. Regardless of the roots, however, the end result is the same- gun control. For both sides, the issue is one of control, as opposed to a belief in liberty and personal accountability.

If you want to surrender your rights piecemeal, by all means go ahead, surrender to your fear and make background checks voluntary. But keep your hands off my rights, as I hold them dear.

By the way, do you also support background checks for private sales?

 

[Grademan]

Let me give you a clue- the roots of the most onerous gun control laws have always had their roots in the fear held by the the white man. Fear of brown skinned Hispanisc gangs, brown skinned Italian organized criminals, black groups like the Black Panthers, or just free black men in general.

I used to think it was just the scared white men in Congress that were the problem, but now I see that white fear is a grassroots gun control issue. It is pervasive in the white community.

The fact that background checks and their associated waiting periods are so widely supported by scared white men (as evidenced in this thread) has led me to believe that white fear is as widely prevalent in the conservative community as is white guilt in the liberal community. Regardless of the roots, however, the end result is the same- gun control. For both sides, the issue is one of control, as opposed to a belief in liberty and personal accountability.

If you want to surrender your rights piecemeal, by all means go ahead, surrender to your fear and make background checks voluntary. But keep your hands off my rights, as I hold them dear.

No clues given here. I've heard and read everything you're saying many times before from multiple sources. Doesn't change my view.

By the way, do you also support background checks for private sales?

I've already stated the background check I think is important is the new purchase check. If you'd taken the time to read back a few pages you might know what you're talking about. You owe me an apology for insinuating racism was behind my stance.

 

[ATM]

I'm white.

And I play the violin.








Just kidding. I'm old, blind and Chinese.

 

[elpenguin0717]

i think only for their first purchase asking to do one for every other purchase is just a hassle and if they already own one gun thats enough to do damage if they wanted to so its not like there stoping anything if they denied them the second third and so forth..... dang even some well placed .22 rounds will take anything out i feel there should be just one extensive thorough background check

 

[sherwoody_77]

I don't mind having to go through a background check every time I buy gun, because I know that there are some people that should not own guns. Also if you just do it the first time they purchase a gun, what happens if they commit a crime after they bought there first gun?

 

[Richard Whitefeather]

I vote NO, again! I plead the second amendment!

Violent criminals like rapists, murderers, child molestors, should be put to death! Period! If its a second chance you think they should get, consider this.

Insert an explosive RFID microchip in their neck upon their release from prison. The microchip being activated by a simple device located at schools, gun stores, etc. wherever they are not supposed to be. Post signs to that effect. That is their second chance. If they violate it, Boom! No more criminal. May sound stupid, but it makes more sense than taking law abiding citizens rights away. No more criminal 2nd offenders, no more excuses to take away rights! Might be a good way to keep politicians in line too.LOL! Just sayin....

___________
Whitefeather

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I vote NO, again! I plead the second amendment!

Violent criminals like rapists, murderers, child molestors, should be put to death! Period! If its a second chance you think they should get, consider this.

Insert an explosive RFID microchip in their neck upon their release from prison. The microchip being activated by a simple device located at schools, gun stores, etc. wherever they are not supposed to be. Post signs to that effect. That is their second chance. If they violate it, Boom! No more criminal. May sound stupid, but it makes more sense than taking law abiding citizens rights away. No more criminal 2nd offenders, no more excuses to take away rights! Might be a good way to keep politicians in line too.LOL! Just sayin....

___________
Whitefeather

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but I disagree with your methods. The proper method of dispatch for a person committing a violent crime is termination at the scene by the victim or a bystander defending the victim. Consider that your solution could be turned right around and used on you, for whatever reason seems appropriate to the "authorities".
We don't need to give anyone the power to restrict anyone else's actions "for their own good" or "for the good of society"; society is best served when its citizens see to their own self-defense and refuse to either coddle or condone criminal undertakings in their midst.

 

[Wabatuckian]

The fear of spicy peppers?

Absolutely. Those people are nuts.

Fear of government. At least I think I got the latin right.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(Snipped )



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.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Second Amendment is the only one which states "shall not be infringed". "Congress shall make no law" is the start of the First Amendment, IIRC, but I can't think of any other of the Bill of Rights that has so positive a statement (or so limiting a statement, whichever you prefer).

Said restrictions of the law notwithstanding, I think the Second Amendment is pretty clear in its intent. As to child pornography laws? Have at it - but if you rape a child, expect to be killed for it. Laws that seek to "prevent" behavior are useless. It is only those laws which PUNISH prohibited behavior which can be reasonably justified under our Constitution. Once we let a bunch of lawyers start writing laws and splitting hairs over the meaning of words; then let one branch of government have the ultimate say over what interpretation of that hairsplitting is "constitutional", we let the reins of government slip out of our hands and now the monster is running away with us.

Speaking of coherence, you didn't present any "facts" to support your argument, either. Go sit in the corner and think about that.

 

[Popacap]

I love theory. In a perfect worldl...etc. Yes we wouldn't do backgrounds checks, due to pure 2nd amendment language.

The real issue in this country the majority of the people have become too "PC" and lost their depth, their ability to reason. At one time, in this country Americans (60's and prior) might not like what you were doing on your property, but as long as you were not breaking the law or hurting anyone, they would fight to the death for your right to do it! This mind set is evaporting at an alarming rate.

We have to do all do what we can to diminish the crazies (mentally ill) and socio-paths from doing carnage. The "simps" and weak politians taking the easy road will take away or weaken or 2nd amendment rights.

Therefore: (You said you wanted some justification)

I'd say Yes to background checks for firearms purchases.

Why, because I'd like to stop the dumb criminals. These are the dumb ones which don't know to buy a gun from another criminal, which stole the guns and later sold to the scub bag wanting the gun.

We need to reduce criminals getting guns even if it is a small percentage which tries to buy a new gun over the counter. The innocent death and carnage, needs to be reduced if at all possible.

In my humble opionion nationwide the checks should be changed to:

-domestic misdemenor for denial of purchase should revert back to prior legal status (possible time table after event?)
-all state mental reords nationalized and kept to be verifed for "mental adjudication" as part of background check.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't think the Founding Fathers were envisioning a "perfect world" when they wrote the Constitution and developed the principles of governance. They were very aware of the ways in which tyranny overtakes a republic; they had the examples of Rome and Greece, after all.

The idea that abrogating MY God-given rights of free political speech, right to self-defense against aggressors or my own government, freedom of association, freedom to be secure in my effects and property, etc is acceptable so that YOU can feel a bit of (phantom) safety over some issue is unjustifiable.

 

[Wabatuckian]

In other words, my friends, what happens when the government starts inventing mental illness to prevent the ownership of firearms?

I don't like to feel trapped. Claustrophobia. An argument could be made that a person would panic if trapped, pull his pistol and start shooting.

That's actually more realistic than a bunch of the crap they come up with these days.

Still... No answers to this argument?

OK, how about tyrannophobia? The fear of tyrants. This is an actual condition/diagnosis used.

You see where I'm going with this?

Can nobody answer the question?