Background Checks

[Queen Titania]

Blah, blah, blah.

Well, Big Government is a danger isn't it ?

 

[Drumcollie]

Blah, blah, blah.

another equally intelligent response that compares with its long winded responses...neither is very usefull

 

[JackDallas]

I would like to make it illegal for any head of household NOT to own a gun and be trained to use it.

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.

 

[JackDallas]

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.

The only people who are pro regulation are gun-control psychos who have been deluded into believing Liberal bullshit that making guns illegal will stop crime.

 

[888888]

The only people who are pro regulation are gun-control psychos who have been deluded into believing Liberal bullshit that making guns illegal will stop crime.

Before you get that passed, let me know, I want to buy some stock if that is going to get passed.
Gun makers, amo makers, uniform makers of police outfits, casket makers, and burial sites. May throw a couple
stocks for funeral homes and places that burn you to hell.

 

[888888]

What we should do is put people to work, let people who are in jail for pot use and other non harmful drugs out and other minor violations and put criminal away who use guns or harm people in any way during a crime.
But this will never happen because the conservatives in govt want to convict, but they don't want to pay for the incarceration of the criminal.

 

[freyasman]

I don't know... I just wonder if it really is worth it. We write and propose and implement all these laws and regulations because they're supposed to have some effect on reducing crime, but they always seem to cause a great deal more trouble to the law-abiding than to the criminal. Maybe just focus on the actions of the criminal, rather than what he had in his possession at the time. Murder is murder no matter the tool, as is assault, robbery, etc.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Fair enough. In the same sense I don't accuse people like you of openly wanting to make it legal to shoot anyone who speaks out against gun rights -- I just think you secretly want to reach that goal in baby steps, but you fear that exposing your true ambition would not be so effective a tactic for attaining that goal.

It is your right to hold that opinion, as it is my right to hold mine. The only salient question here is whether one of us holds an opinion that is actually true.

I will not call out any PJ posters in this, or any other thread. I don't see that accomplishing anything. They know who they are.

 

[JackDallas]

Before you get that passed, let me know, I want to buy some stock if that is going to get passed.
Gun makers, amo makers, uniform makers of police outfits, casket makers, and burial sites. May throw a couple
stocks for funeral homes and places that burn you to hell.

Get what passed?

 

[middleview]

I would like to make it illegal for any head of household NOT to own a gun and be trained to use it.

Makes as much sense as anything else you post.....which is none.

 

[middleview]

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.

How is it that poor people would fail background checks in disproportionately? Could that be because poor people disproportionately commit crimes?

 

[middleview]

If a guy owned a gun legally then he passed a background check. So say somebody at work sold him a gun and didn't feel like going to get a BC on him. That would have been stupid on the sellers part, since he wouldn't know if the gun might be used in a crime and the seller would be complicit in the crime, but in any case the buyer could then take the gun down to the gun shop to get an APL. Let's say that within the first two years of passing the legislation you could get an APL, no problem, just pass the APL. After that there could be some kind of additional repercussion....perhaps a ballistic check on the gun to see if it had been used in a crime....if for no other reason as to provide an incentive to get an APL as soon as possible as well as to provide a disincentive to those who'd hold off on getting an APL for some nefarious reason....

 

[middleview]

The only people who are pro regulation are gun-control psychos who have been deluded into believing Liberal bullshit that making guns illegal will stop crime.

and most people who are anti-regulation are the ones who think the only gun control being discussed involves confiscating guns and making private ownership illegal for all citizens.....people like you who are unwilling or unable to actually think about the facts.....

 

[middleview]

I don't know... I just wonder if it really is worth it. We write and propose and implement all these laws and regulations because they're supposed to have some effect on reducing crime, but they always seem to cause a great deal more trouble to the law-abiding than to the criminal. Maybe just focus on the actions of the criminal, rather than what he had in his possession at the time. Murder is murder no matter the tool, as is assault, robbery, etc.

Are you really suggesting we do away with background checks? I'm in favor of making it harder for a criminal or someone who has been committed to psychiatric care to get a gun....how does that impact people who aren't in those two categories?

 

[middleview]

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.

Do you belong to a political party that thinks Fast and Furious was the policy of the Democratic Party? Y/N?
Do you belong to a political party that thinks republicans did a better job than the current administration at rounding up illegals or guarding the border? Y/N?
Do you belong to a political party that has Fox News as it's PR wing? Y/N?
Do you think Ted Kennedy committed murder the night his car went off a bridge? Y/N?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are probably too far gone to vote, but go ahead and put in the paperwork for your background check to get a gun....none of these questions have anything to do with that.

 

[middleview]

I would have no problem with requiring background checks that were thusly limited in scope. Are you aware of any documentation to indicate that either existing or proposed background checks are/would be limited in such a manner? I'm not. It worries me that so many support the idea of background checks without any knowledge whatsoever of what they actually entail.

I'd like to know more about your definition of "violent crime". Would that include having been arrested for getting into a fist fight with your obnoxious brother in law? Does "committed to a mental institution" include a woman being involuntarily held in a hospital to monitor for depression after having suffered a miscarriage? These things are all black&white in the abstract. Real people are not always so simple.





I personally know some, and I have inferred that others fit this description based upon the totality of their commentary on the subject.





I probably could, but what would be the point. I wasn't referring to those who openly advocate for the elimination of private gun ownership, but those who would like to reach that goal in baby steps, fearing that exposing their true ambition would not be so effective a tactic for attaining their goal.

So tell me, how was it that someone was involuntarily committed due to depression? That generally means that they attempted to hurt themselves or someone else. It isn't like you come to the attention of the police when you are in a bad mood or frown too frequently. Something else happened. We aren't talking about someone who simply tells her doctor she's depressed and stays in the maternity ward an extra day. We are talking about someone committed by order of a court.

Got in a fist fight? If it was enough to get you convicted of assault, yes.

 

[trapdoor]

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.

If you're going to cite my position, cite it accurately. I didn't say doing a background check on private sales would "lead to registration." I said I saw no way to enforce it without registration. There's a difference.

 

[NightSwimmer]

So tell me, how was it that someone was involuntarily committed due to depression? That generally means that they attempted to hurt themselves or someone else. It isn't like you come to the attention of the police when you are in a bad mood or frown too frequently. Something else happened. We aren't talking about someone who simply tells her doctor she's depressed and stays in the maternity ward an extra day. We are talking about someone committed by order of a court.

I know a young lady whose doctor had her committed to a mental illness ward against her will for one week after she had her second consecutive miscarriage. There were no police involved, although I suppose it could have come to that had she offered adequate resistance. Would she now qualify for gun ownership? Do you know?

Do you care?

 

[trapdoor]

I came up with a method of enforcing background checks in private sales without requiring registration. It's not as good as a full registration system, which I advocate, but it would be better than nothing.

He

re's how it works. Any person buying a gun would need to get a certificate authorizing the purchase. The certificate would be produced by a government computer system, which would run a background check on the purchaser. Assuming the background check was passed, the system would produce a certificate of authorization, which would include an authorization number that embedded into it encoded information about the identity of the owner, and the serial number of the gun. The government system would not store any of this information (thus no registration), and the mathematical algorithm for creating the authorization number would not be reversible (a simple thing to manage, mathematically).

And there would be a registry of the cards, no matter how carefully you policed the system. How do I know this? Based on what the BATF did with the Insta Check system during the Clinton administration. The Insta Check law specifically forbids the retention of Insta-Check-collected data in order to keep a registry, yet the BATF did exactly that as a means of "studying patterns of gun sales." It's just back-door registration.

Further, I own about 30 firearms. Under your proposed regimen, I'd hvae to carry a deck of cards just to purchase ammo or ammo components, let alone firearms. Other problems include "entering the serial number of the firearm." A lot of weapons made before 1968 didn't have serial numbers -- does that mean we can't own antiques anymore?

The whole process would only take a few seconds. However, when it was done, the purchaser would have a license that confirmed he was the authenticated owner of the gun with the serial number in question. Later, if he's found with the gun, the police can ask to see his license and confirm whether he's the authentic owner of it (by running the authentication app). If he loses his license, they can run his identity information through the app to make sure it could produce the authentication number associated with that gun. People who don't have a license to a gun they're in possession of would be guilty of a serious crime.

So you're saying there would be a computer-based way to determine that this person had legal ownership of this gun -- in other words, registration. You're saying it isn't but it is. Let's pick a different scenario. I own two shotguns, and I and my brother go quail hunting. He borrows one of my shotguns and we're at opposite ends of a 300-acre field. He gets stopped by a game warden. He doesn't have the authentication code -- now he's guilty of a serious crime?

It's far from the best solution, but it would be an improvement.

It's just a different form of registration.

 

[middleview]

I know a young lady whose doctor had her committed to a mental illness ward against her will for one week after she had her second consecutive miscarriage. There were no police involved, although I suppose it could have come to that had she offered adequate resistance. Would she now qualify for gun ownership? Do you know?

Do you care?

I know of no way that a doctor can order someone committed without either a court order or the patient agrees. If there were a court order, then the details of her background check would have to be discussed by people who know more than me if she'd be excluded from owning a gun. If judged to be a threat to herself or others, probably not.