In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Do you support background checks?
SG
Member Posts: 7,548
I don't.
Comments
mind them [:0][^]
If you already own a firearm, a background check serves no purpose. You've already got a gun...What's the point on checking again?
Any felon that had committed a crime of violence should never own or possess a gun again.
Not sure how to accomplish that with out checking on SOMETHING somehow. Maybe a open system where a seller could check on a person's felony record with out Nanny state knowing would be best but Lord knows there is no way Government would keep its prying nose out of that deal.
I do because look at how many criminals have gone out of business since background checks have been required.
I don't like the idea of being guilty until presumed innocent.
DING DING DING...
I think if you have a CC license just show it and done ( I think some states do it that way ) and I also think the CC license is BS
there is way too many laws infringing on our rights about firearms any time you have to ask for permission its not a right
As mark christian said if you already own a gun the background check serves no purpose, but unless my government is lying to me they have no way of knowing if I own a gun.
As bpost said violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but to my knowledge nobody has come up with a way to stop them. It could be done but not retaining any semblance of a free country.
To answer the question, I don't support background checks for the purposes of gun ownership.
lets look at two checks done on two different men named John.
John #1= well known actor, lived in the town for years. Never had trouble with the law or any authorities. Soon to get married to a socialite woman of wealth.
John #2= Just moved to town from out of state farm where he has illegal workers. The Federal government is looking for him for high treason. Attends radical meetings to plan the overthrow of the government.
John #1 {Wilkes Booth} passes the check, and kills President Lincoln.
John #2 {Hancock} fails the check, and writes the Declaration
Of Independence.
I don't see any way around that w/o making a BGC a moot point. as i understand it now, paperwork on what you buy today from a ffl is only kept on record for 1 year.
If you already own a firearm, a background check serves no purpose. You've already got a gun...What's the point on checking again?
You can never have enough.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Background checks??
lets look at two checks done on two different men named John.
John #1= well known actor, lived in the town for years. Never had trouble with the law or any authorities. Soon to get married to a socialite woman of wealth.
John #2= Just moved to town from out of state farm where he has illegal workers. The Federal government is looking for him for high treason. Attends radical meetings to plan the overthrow of the government.
John #1 {Wilkes Booth} passes the check, and kills President Lincoln.
John #2 {Hancock} fails the check, and writes the Declaration
Of Independence.
Well done.
Background checks??
lets look at two checks done on two different men named John.
John #1= well known actor, lived in the town for years. Never had trouble with the law or any authorities. Soon to get married to a socialite woman of wealth.
John #2= Just moved to town from out of state farm where he has illegal workers. The Federal government is looking for him for high treason. Attends radical meetings to plan the overthrow of the government.
John #1 {Wilkes Booth} passes the check, and kills President Lincoln.
John #2 {Hancock} fails the check, and writes the Declaration
Of Independence.
True! But,what if the firearm I own was a gift for my 10th birthday?quote:Originally posted by mark christian
If you already own a firearm, a background check serves no purpose. You've already got a gun...What's the point on checking again?
OK, so you have owned a gun for a presumably long time. How does that change the next gun you are attempting to acquire?
I mean, you know, YOU ALREADY OWN A GUN!
If you are going to do harm to someone, you already own a gun. Sure you might be able to improve your ability to do harm with a better gun, but if the gun you already own is that bad, I am sure you can come up with another way to do someone harm.
Of course, if you are NOT planning on doing harm to someone. You just want to own another gun - and the background check for the purchase of your second gun is denied because you can't own a gun - for whatever reason - well, YOU ALREADY OWN A GUN!
I suppose the "authorities" could provide you with a phone number to call in order for you to turn in the gun you already own, since, you know, you can't own a gun - even though you ALREADY OWN A GUN!
Background checks??
lets look at two checks done on two different men named John.
John #1= well known actor, lived in the town for years. Never had trouble with the law or any authorities. Soon to get married to a socialite woman of wealth.
John #2= Just moved to town from out of state farm where he has illegal workers. The Federal government is looking for him for high treason. Attends radical meetings to plan the overthrow of the government.
John #1 {Wilkes Booth} passes the check, and kills President Lincoln.
John #2 {Hancock} fails the check, and writes the Declaration
Of Independence.
I get the point......but the Declaration of Independence was written by a guy named Thomas....
As to the original question: No to background checks. They serve no useful purpose.
But almost everyone at the meeting had input, so I believe ALL wrote it.
Beat me to it[:D]
Gun control laws are all based on the premise that guns are the problem and control is the solution.
I reject this premise.
[:o)]I'm in favor of NICs for ATF. That would be for Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. A NICs check would give all information on these three without ATF knowing which one the NICs is for. This would make it harder for ATF to work on gun registration. This would also keep ATF busy with less time to cause trouble. The tobacco NICs would exclude minors, persons with delinquent child support payments and welfare recipients from buying tobacco, hookahs, pipes and chewing tobacco. All pipes and hookahs would be only manufactured by licensed manufacturers and have serial numbers. The alcohol NICs would exclude minors, anyone with out a driver's license or learner's permit, without insurance, convicted of eluding the law(car chase), convicted of hit and run, and three DUIs from owning a vehicle.[:o)] [}:)]Remember it is for the children.[}:)]
Actually, there was 5....The committee included Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman.
But almost everyone at the meeting had input, so I believe ALL wrote it.
You can believe whatever you want, but Jefferson alone locked himself in a room while he wrote the rough draft. Adams some input as far as editing went, according to both him and Jefferson. Again, according to Adams, the other 3 made no input at all.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jefferson.htm
History in the Making
The Declaration of Independence stands with Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address as one of the noblest of America's official documents. In 1822, John Adams wrote a letter to Timothy Pickering responding to Pickering's questions about the writing of the Declaration of Independence. Adams' letters were published in 1850:
"You inquire why so young a man as Mr. Jefferson was placed at the head of the committee for preparing a Declaration of Independence? I answer: It was the Frankfort advice, to place Virginia at the head of everything. Mr. Richard Henry Lee might be gone to Virginia, to his sick family, for aught I know, but that was not the reason of Mr. Jefferson's appointment. There were three committees appointed at the same time, one for the Declaration of Independence, another for preparing articles of confederation, and another for preparing a treaty to be proposed to France. Mr. Lee was chosen for the Committee of Confederation, and it was not thought convenient that the same person should be upon both. Mr. Jefferson came into Congress in June, 1775, and brought with him a reputation for literature, science, and a
ADVERTISMENT
happy talent of composition. Writings of his were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression. Though a silent member in Congress, he was so prompt, frank, explicit, and decisive upon committees and in conversation - not even Samuel Adams was more so - that he soon seized upon my heart; and upon this occasion I gave him my vote, and did all in my power to procure the votes of others. I think he had one more vote than any other, and that placed him at the head of the committee. I had the next highest number, and that placed me the second. The committee met, discussed the subject, and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draft, I suppose because we were the two first on the list.
The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said, 'I will not,' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not? You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be your reasons?' 'Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, 'if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.' 'Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.'
A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal, for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document; but as Franklin and Sherman were to inspect it afterwards, I thought it would not become me to strike it out. I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration.
Thomas Jefferson
We reported it to the committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticized anything. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson's handwriting, as he first drew it. Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published. I suppose the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery.
As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights and the violation of those rights in the Journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams."
While I was standing at a table trying to purchase a rifle, two black guys walk up and ask to buy a mac-10. The dealer handed them the paperwork. After the first guy failed, the second guy tried his luck. NO GO. They then proceeded to go outside and get their babies mama to try her luck. As she was filing out the paper work, the dealer asked her twice, are you buying this gun for you or those two clowns???? She said it was for her. He then explained a straw purchase and the time she would have to spend in jail for committing this crime. She got up from the table, grabbed her DL and said, I think I am going to pass. The two morons were standing a table away watching what she was doing. I walked outside and she was getting an * chewing for not going through with the deal. I think, in my opinion, a few lives were saved from a simple background check. If you see some of the people carrying guns at these shows, you would be all for background checks.This is just one sample and I am sure they just went and got one off the streets somewhere.
I don't like the fact that they want to know all my info to use against me to come take my guns away, but sometimes it just sucks to be an honest gun owner. Oakie
[}:)]Remember it is for the children.[}:)]
I can't help but wonder why so many of us want the children to grow up under the thumb of a totalitarian 'big brother' government.
Maybe it's a good idea at that. Repression brings revolution.
No Background Checks for folks that have a CWP in SC.
Really. How do you get the CWP?
Brad Steele
serf
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html#effective-date