Background Checks

[NightSwimmer]

I see and hear a lot of support lately for the idea of background checks as a requirement for purchasing a gun. Funny thing is, none of the supporters of background checks seems to know exactly what would be the criteria for passing such a "check".

I am of the opinion that these background checks would disproportionately exclude those who cannot afford the very best in legal services from gun ownership, thereby creating an elite class of armed citizens and a second class of citizens for whom gun ownership would become illegal.

I would rather make private gun ownership outright illegal than to create an elite class of armed citizens. Many proponents of background checks would also prefer to make gun ownership outright illegal for everyone -- they simply understand that they wouldn't garner nearly as much support for their position, were they to express it honestly.

 

[GordonGecko]

Some NRA types say they support background checks....but want them so watered-down or exclusionary to be useless. Trap for instance doesn't want them to be implemented for "private sales" because he "fears it will lead to registration".

It's like when they talk about 'keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill".....but if you add "paranoia" into the list of mental illnesses that disqualify you from getting a weapon?

You eliminate half of the Gun Right.

 

[NightSwimmer]

You could eliminate just about anyone that you wanted to once the law was put into place. I get the impression that some folks look at gun control legislation as a government sponsored club with which they'd like to bash in the heads of anyone who desires to own a gun. That's why public opinion has been so anti-regulation for so long. The NRA isn't nearly as powerful as some pretend. There would be plenty of opposition to gun control legislation even if the NRA didn't exist. This gun control issue has probably driven away more potential Democratic voters than have any of the other social wedge issues pushed by the GOP.

 

[GordonGecko]

NS, what do you think most Americans want on gun control after seeing 20 dead kindergartners?

 

[marvin martian]

We gotta go "gun free" like Chicago, Washington, DC and Detroit. It works!

 

[GordonGecko]

We gotta go "gun free" like Chicago, Washington, DC and Detroit. It works!

marv you have ZERO solutions to anything...ever. Except the vague generalities of a ditto-head.

So move along.

 

[marvin martian]

marv you have ZERO solutions to anything...ever. Except the vague generalities of a ditto-head.

So move along.

Do you care to address the sky high gun crime rates in EVERY "gun free" city in America, or just level personal attacks?

Also, you should be looking to your limp dick elected officials to provide solutions, not me...

 

[888888]

You could eliminate just about anyone that you wanted to once the law was put into place. I get the impression that some folks look at gun control legislation as a government sponsored club with which they'd like to bash in the heads of anyone who desires to own a gun. That's why public opinion has been so anti-regulation for so long. The NRA isn't nearly as powerful as some pretend. There would be plenty of opposition to gun control legislation even if the NRA didn't exist. This gun control issue has probably driven away more potential Democratic voters than have any of the other social wedge issues pushed by the GOP.

The only people who are anti regulation are gun nuts who think it's about them, and maybe it is. But please tell us how this would eliminate almost anyone? Most people who own guns are not nuts, but most nuts own guns.

 

[888888]

Do you care to address the sky high gun crime rates in EVERY "gun free" city in America, or just level personal attacks?

Also, you should be looking to your limp dick elected officials to provide solutions, not me...

Just a thought Marvin, but have you ever thought that it could be a lot worse if there weren't any gun restriction?

 

[RickWA]

Logically/pragmatically, the optimal policy would be the same independent of a specific, tragic, emotionally-charged event. And such events ought not be reflexive springboard to state policy.

Frankly, these emotional sidebars are likewise not terribly rhetorically compelling either.

Let's do the right thing, cooly, rationally, and effectively.

The death of those children makes me sick to my stomach. I am not indifferent to this by any stretch. We don't need to constantly fan that flame when discussing policy, however. Too much PR campaigning and heartstring appeals and not enough robust engagement of gray matter.

 

[NightSwimmer]

NS, what do you think most Americans want on gun control after seeing 20 dead kindergartners?

I think that many want to be patted on the head and told that the big bad monster will be made to go away. Some obviously want to hear jingoistic, bumper sticker bullshit like what's been posted between your comment and mine.

I just want to see effective legislation that reduces the potential for gun violence while maintaining our rights and freedom. I am afraid that we'll get a lot of watered-down, "bi-partisan" nonsense instead. That would be par for the course.

 

[connieb]

Yes! Exactly Rick.

 

[Drumcollie]

Background check

1. Do you beliong to a political party that gives guns to drug cartels so they can kill a border agent?.....no.....yes

2. do you belong to a political party that allows people to come here illegall?...no.....yes

3. do you belong to a political paty that allows embassy workers to be killed?...no.... Yes

4. did you think it was ok for Teddy Kennedy to commit murder....no...yes

if you answered yes to any of these you are a democrat...and you cant have a gun.

 

[marvin martian]

Just a thought Marvin, but have you ever thought that it could be a lot worse if there weren't any gun restriction?

The restrictions only apply to LEGAL ownership. The criminals still obtain and use guns, knowing their victims are unarmed. So, no, it wouldn't be worse if the victims had the opportunity to defend themselves...

 

[RickWA]

I think that many want to be patted on the head and told that the big bad monster will be made to go away. Some obviously want to hear jingoistic, bumper sticker bullshit like what's been posted between your comment and mine.

I just want to see effective legislation that reduces the potential for gun violence while maintaining our rights and freedom. I am afraid that we'll get a lot of watered-down, "bi-partisan" nonsense instead. That would be par for the course.

Huh. Not merely insult out of nowhere - but an odd, cockeyed reference to jingoism where no comment regarding patriotism, nationalism, or chauvenism exists. Bizarre stuff.

Oh well...you fellas have a good night. Try to be nice for a change (what the heck).

 

[NightSwimmer]

Huh. Not merely insult out of nowhere - but an odd, cockeyed reference to jingoism where no comment regarding patriotism, nationalism, or chauvenism exists. Bizarre stuff.

Oh well...you fellas have a good night. Try to be nice for a change (what the heck).

Sorry Rick. I certainly wasn't referring to your comment. It wasn't present on my page when I posted.

As for your comment -- I couldn't agree more with what you said.

 

[888888]

Lief changed once the women left the home to provide(help) for their families. This came at a cost to kids and our society as a whole. Can someone tell me why this had to happen?

 

[Jen]

I'm pretty sure that background checks have been legally imposed (or there anyway even if not imposed) for a long long time.

I have no problem with background checks, however, if someone wants a gun and cannot pass that sort of check, I am quite certain that there are ways of getting a gun anyway. And that is one of the reasons we have problems in this country. The guns are out there. No way to haul them all in. What we need is hefty and mandatory sentencing for anyone committing any sort of crime with a gun or a gun in their possession.

That wouldn't have stopped crazy people like the fellow that killed the kids in Sandy Hook. As far as I can tell, everything there was on the up and up and his mom would have passed a background check to get her guns.

 

[RickWA]

Sorry Rick. I certainly wasn't referring to your comment. It wasn't present on my page when I posted.

As for your comment -- I couldn't agree more with what you said.

Ok - I'm sorry (now I feel like a jerk).

If the shoe fits, I guess.

Have a good night.

 

[Arkady]

I see and hear a lot of support lately for the idea of background checks as a requirement for purchasing a gun. Funny thing is, none of the supporters of background checks seems to know exactly what would be the criteria for passing such a "check".

I am of the opinion that these background checks would disproportionately exclude those who cannot afford the very best in legal services from gun ownership, thereby creating an elite class of armed citizens and a second class of citizens for whom gun ownership would become illegal.

I would rather make private gun ownership outright illegal than to create an elite class of armed citizens. Many proponents of background checks would also prefer to make gun ownership outright illegal for everyone -- they simply understand that they wouldn't garner nearly as much support for their position, were they to express it honestly.

If the background checks were set up so that many would be ineligible, thanks to broad, grey-area judgments that could be subject to legal challenge, then I suppose there's some risk it would mean a two-class system for gun ownership. But if it were set up so that few would be ineligible, and only according to clear, bright-line criteria, that's not a serious concern. For example, how about only those who have been convicted of a violent crime and those who have been involuntarily committed to a custodial mental institution. There would be few mistakes in making such clear calls, and the mistakes could be challenged pretty easily without the need for a lawyer or costly legal proceedings. So, no two-class system.

As for your assertion that "many proponents of background checks would also prefer to make gun ownership outright illegal for everyone," could you please cite some of them? I know lots of people who support background checks for gun ownership, and I'm not sure I know anyone at all who supports making gun ownership illegal for everyone. Do you know those people? Or are you just assuming they exist?

The Internet being what it is, I'm sure you can find some example somewhere of someone insisting guns should be illegal for everyone. I can probably find some example of someone somewhere who is turned on by pornographic fan faction involving Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney Fife. But advocacy of banning all guns outright doesn't strike me as something "many" want to do.