What's wrong with having background checks for gun ownership?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
Methinks the “country club” atmosphere of prisons is overblown by conservatives.

I have never been to prison, however, the expectation at least here in TX is that prison is a living hell.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Depends on the prison, I suppose. I suspect that the minimum security jails where many of the “white collar crimes” gang go are pretty nice, with cottages, etc. OTOH, I’ve only ever seen the visitors’ room at the local prison and that was more than enough for me. I know visiting prisoners is an act of mercy but I only toughed it out for about 4 visits and then I couldn’t take it anymore.

I can’t even imagine what hell it would be like to be incarcerated at a Penitentiary.
 
In defense of everyone who “freaks out” at the thought of gun control (not specifically background checks), Chicago is a mess. So is LA and New York. Pretty strict gun control, I hear, and the only people with guns are the bad guys and the cops (who are hopelessly undermanned).

And mass shootings occur more often than not in so called “gun free zones”.
 
Thom18 said:
In defense of everyone who “freaks out” at the thought of gun control (not specifically background checks), Chicago is a mess. So is LA and New York. Pretty strict gun control, I hear, and the only people with guns are the bad guys and the cops (who are hopelessly undermanned).

And mass shootings occur more often than not in so called “gun free zones”.
Click to expand...
Canada has strict regulations, yet we don’t have the mass shooting problems you guys have. 🤷
Our national homicide rate is also half of the US national average.
 
Robert_Sock said:
attn.com/stories/8813/president-obama-addresses-gun-control?utm_source=beingliberal&utm_medium=fbpost&utm_campaign=influencer

Obama said that the U.S. needs “common sense” gun laws that allow citizens to own guns but also prevent the wrong people from getting access to them. He said that the only way to reach that balance is to have better conversations about gun laws that don’t result in arguments about the “destruction of the Second Amendment.”
Click to expand...
That’s an example of “Obamaspeak.” He doesn’t want the 2nd Amendment to be part of the conversation because he knows that what he wants is to violate the Amendment.

Imagine if someone were to say “we want to have a conversation about censorship that doesn’t result in arguments about the destruction of the 1st Amendment.” Good luck with that.

Background checks for retail sales are a good idea. Really, no one wants a felon convicted of armed robbery (several times given the revolving doors on our prisons) to be able to simply walk into a shop and buy a gun as if he were buying a loaf of bread.

The real problem, the difficult question, is how to define the difference between a retail sale and simply a private transfer.

For example, let’s say that I have an old hunting rifle that my grandfather left to me. My brother (an upright, law-abiding citizen) wants it and I decide to give it to him. No reasonable person would say that this should be defined as a crime.

The question becomes “where do we draw the line?” How do we define that middle ground between the 2 extreme examples that I just posted?

The simple truth is that Obama doesn’t really want “common sense gun laws.” What he wants is to completely overturn the 2nd Amendment. He really wants every possible gun law he can get. When he says “common sense” what he’s really saying is that he’ll take whatever he can get given the current political climate, while continuing to push to completely eradicate the right to keep and bear arms.

Whatever he doesn’t get today, he still wants it tomorrow.

History proves this. Every time a new gun law is proposed or enacted, we’ve heard the same speech “all we want is (this) and nothing more.” Until they get it. Once they get it, we hear the same thing again “all we want is this…”
 
twf said:
Canada has strict regulations, yet we don’t have the mass shooting problems you guys have. 🤷
Our national homicide rate is also half of the US national average.
Click to expand...
Because weapon laws, in a country that allows freedom of movement (both .ca and USA) are pointless unless nationwide. Half-baked state and local measures are useless when someone can simply go to another county or state to arm themself.

So I fully agree that city-based gun control is worthless. To have teeth, any kind of control must be federal.

ICXC NIKA
 
FrDavid96 said:
Background checks for retail sales are a good idea. Really, no one wants a felon convicted of armed robbery (several times given the revolving doors on our prisons) to be able to simply walk into a shop and buy a gun as if he were buying a loaf of bread.

The real problem, the difficult question, is how to define the difference between a retail sale and simply a private transfer.

For example, let’s say that I have an old hunting rifle that my grandfather left to me. My brother (an upright, law-abiding citizen) wants it and I decide to give it to him. No reasonable person would say that this should be defined as a crime.

The question becomes “where do we draw the line?” How do we define that middle ground between the 2 extreme examples that I just posted?
Click to expand...
The middle ground is to have a background check whether it’s a private transfer or a retail sale. Why should a known felon be allowed to acquire a gun in a private transfer when he couldn’t acquire one in a gun shop?
 
I’m a fairly conservative gun owner, but those loopholes need to be closed. We used to have a neighbor who was a felon & mentally unstable (drugs & who knows what). He was able to get guns - whether legally or illegally, I don’t know. I was never so happy as on the day he moved!

I’m not happy, either, about open carry which is legal here. I see someone packing a gun & I stay as far away as possible!
 
GEddie said:
Methinks the “country club” atmosphere of prisons is overblown by conservatives.

I have never been to prison, however, the expectation at least here in TX is that prison is a living hell.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
So, you’ve never been to a prison, yet you think you know what they’re like.

Interesting methodology there.
Phemie said:
Depends on the prison, I suppose. I suspect that the minimum security jails where many of the “white collar crimes” gang go are pretty nice, with cottages, etc. OTOH, I’ve only ever seen the visitors’ room at the local prison and that was more than enough for me. I know visiting prisoners is an act of mercy but I only toughed it out for about 4 visits and then I couldn’t take it anymore.

I can’t even imagine what hell it would be like to be incarcerated at a Penitentiary.
Click to expand...
Yes, it depends on the prison. Very much so.

I have been to several prisons, of different kinds across the board.

I have been to a federal prison for low-level offenders most of whom were soon to be released. No cottages there, but still not such a bad place considering that it is indeed a prison. The food in federal prisons is decent (again, considering the context). The inmates in that particular prison have many privileges and much freedom of movement. During the day, the door isn’t even locked. It’s low-security because the inmates there understand that it’s in their own best interest to just wait things out and not try anything. An inmate once told me something along the lines of “in 3 more days, I’ll be released, so what’s the point in trying to escape today?”

I’ve also been to low, medium and high security state prisons, including a state prison for the “worst of the worst.” A very bad place indeed.

So yes, it very much depends on what type of prison.
 
The problem with background checks is that bureaucrats have a way of abusing regulatory powers in the name of political agendas. Lois Lerner and the IRS anyone? The way the EPA literally persecutes small farmers by huge over-interpretations of regulations. It’s easy to imagine gun “background checks” creeping into things like minor traffic offenses (“If he can’t keep to a speed limit, maybe he won’t obey gun laws.”); political speech (maybe an angry letter to the editor about some social problem, especially if expressed in politically incorrect terms, might “disqualify” someone). In this era of everything ending up findable on the Internet, there’s no telling what behavior, statement, or political association (“This guy was photographed at a Tea Party rally!”) could be used against a gun purchaser as regulatory creep expands like crabgrass.
 
Phemie said:
The middle ground is to have a background check whether it’s a private transfer or a retail sale. Why should a known felon be allowed to acquire a gun in a private transfer when he couldn’t acquire one in a gun shop?
Click to expand...
Because simply put, he’s going to get one anyway.

Criminals are not going to perform background checks when they give or sell firearms to each other. It’s quite ridiculous to think that they would abide by background check laws.

So the end result is a law that only effects law-abiding citizens. The only real purpose of such laws is to harass and intimidate people who have no intention of committing a crime in the first place.

Take the example of me giving that old hunting rifle to my brother.

The process is complicated and expensive. I have to find someone who has a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and who is willing to do this. First, the rifle gets transferred to the FFL holder (it becomes his property), then he sells it to my brother, but only after doing a background check. We have to pay both government fees and pay the FFL for his services on both sides of the transaction. So when I give my grandpa’s old hunting rifle to my brother, we have to pay $100 or more to do it legally. The total cost is going to depend on how much the FFL charges for his services, and since most of them are in the retail business, that’s only fair.

So why should I have to pay $100 to give my brother a rifle when the real bad guys (the ones who are supposedly prevented by such laws) are going to completely ignore the laws anyway?

Really, think about it. If a gang member in Chicago is going to trade some cocaine to another gang member in exchange for a gun, does anyone really believe those two are going to say “wait a minute, let’s go do the federal background check thing.” ???
 
FrDavid96 said:
Really, think about it. If a gang member in Chicago is going to trade some cocaine to another gang member in exchange for a gun, does anyone really believe those two are going to say “wait a minute, let’s go do the federal background check thing.” ???
Click to expand...
You have a point. So now I’m split, and there is no way to go with both. 😦
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
The problem with background checks is that bureaucrats have a way of abusing regulatory powers in the name of political agendas. Lois Lerner and the IRS anyone? The way the EPA literally persecutes small farmers by huge over-interpretations of regulations. It’s easy to imagine gun “background checks” creeping into things like minor traffic offenses (“If he can’t keep to a speed limit, maybe he won’t obey gun laws.”); political speech (maybe an angry letter to the editor about some social problem, especially if expressed in politically incorrect terms, might “disqualify” someone). In this era of everything ending up findable on the Internet, there’s no telling what behavior, statement, or political association (“This guy was photographed at a Tea Party rally!”) could be used against a gun purchaser as regulatory creep expands like crabgrass.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I had the misfortune of living in Massachusetts for a short time. The state government makes it nearly impossible for honest citizens to buy firearms.

Where I lived, there was a single point of contact just to start the process of owning a gun. That was one state trooper who was assigned to the territory (my county, I think it was, or maybe a state police district of some sort). Good luck finding him. He had an office phone number which was just an answering machine that says “I’m not in the office.” I tried for weeks to contact him. When he finally did answer the phone and I said I wanted information on how to buy a hunting rifle his response was to ask in a very accusatory tone “why would you want to do something like that?”—making it very clear that he already decided that I should not have one. Thankfully, I don’t live there anymore.

The point is that these laws which might seem innocent enough are used to intimidate honest gun owners (or would-be). That’s really all they achieve.
 
Since it has come up again in this thread … The “lawbreakers paradox” (e.g., criminals don’t follow laws, so why have them) is not a real argument. This reasoning could be applied to argue against any law, and to absurd ends.
 
We have background checks for guns. We have laws that prohibit convicted felons from having guns. Very few people are against ‘common sense’ gun laws. But what exactly are common sense gun laws? In my southern state, which I certainly don’t think is liberal, you are required to get a permit to purchase each and every pistol. The permit is provided by the sheriff who does a background check.
"I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U.S. citizens, and we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun.
Click to expand...
This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer. And if he wants to walk in to a gun store or a gun show right now and buy as much — as many weapons and ammo as he can, nothing’s prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is." — President Barack Obama
Click to expand...
The right to travel has been trashed. Faceless bureaucrats can ban you from traveling. If a man has committed a crime convict him in court and then you at least have a potentially just system. The current FBI gun check includes drug users, mentally ill people, illegals, indicted individuals, felons, stalkers, and people convicted of domestic violence. What more needs to be added? It sounds like by common sense Obama means people the government suspects of being a criminal at some point in the future.
 
No background checks should be required for any sort of gun sale for the following reasons.
  1. Criminals who are the ostensible targets of this law will not be affected by it.
  2. The intent of these laws is to harass, intimidate, and inconvenience lawful gun owners.
  3. Simply transferring a firearm does not create a victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime.
  4. Selling a firearm to a person prohibited by law from possessing a firearm is already a crime. Anyone selling a firearm has enough incentive to ensure that they are not giving weapons to criminals.
 
jesucated said:
Since it has come up again in this thread … The “lawbreakers paradox” (e.g., criminals don’t follow laws, so why have them) is not a real argument. This reasoning could be applied to argue against any law, and to absurd ends.
Click to expand...
You’ve misunderstood the paradox.

Criminals are already breaking other gun laws, the ones proposed will only impact the law abiding in a negative way.
 
RPRPsych said:
C
A gun is a weapon. It cannot simply be classified as a tool. No one purchases a gun to use as a tool. (A knife, on the other hand, is more ambiguous; you can use a knife for anything from cooking to violent assault. :D)
Click to expand...
How do you classify sporting equipment then? Shooting is an Olympic sport, do not those athletes purchase their guns as tools?

Hunting is a sport, hunters purchase their firearms as tools to harvest game.

So I would say your point is in error, guns can be (and are) classified as tools.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
When Socialists speak of “common sense gun laws” they mean we (government and those politically connected) have guns, and you don’t.

The general public has caught onto this and is why restrictive legislation is defeated in all except socialist states.
Click to expand...
The one socialist in the presidential race, Bernie Sanders, who is actually a democratic socialist, is NOT so tough on gun restrictions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top