Mandatory Background Checks

[Englebert]

Do you believe mandatory background checks should be applied to all gun purchases? Or any gun purchases?

If you answer yes, please articulate what questions should be answered to determine a person's qualification to exercise their second amendment right. Also, please describe why these qualifications will curb gun violence without curbing an individual's right to self protection.

And a third part of the question, if you think that a person is unqualified to own a gun, should that person also be unqualified to vote?

I have a gut feeling there won't be much response to the latter parts of this question, especially from the anti-gun side. But please make your best attempts.

 

[Englebert]

And another question I would like answered, do you support an assault weapons ban?

If yes, please define what an assault weapon is and why these weapons should be banned but not all other firearms.

[BS Wildcats]

Although I am definitely against the government trying to take away the right to bear arms, I do feel a background check for all gun purchases is a good thing.  As far as what should be checked far, I'm not sure.  A convicted felon, or an American citizen would be a start.  No matter what is checked, if a criminal wants a gun, they will still be able to get their hands one.  So, background checks, in my opinion will really do no good.

 

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, BS Wildcats said:

Although I am definitely against the government trying to take away the right to bear arms, I do feel a background check for all gun purchases is a good thing.  As far as what should be checked far, I'm not sure.  A convicted felon, or an American citizen would be a start.  No matter what is checked, if a criminal wants a gun, they will still be able to get their hands one.  So, background checks, in my opinion will really do no good.

 

I agree, so why go through the trouble and cost for something that admittedly does nothing?

And I'm curious as to why you think a convicted felon should lose his second amendment right? Should someone that lies to Congress be stripped of their ability of personal protection? And if a convicted person serves his sentence, should he then have his second amendment rights restored?

[BS Wildcats]

Maybe we should look at the type of crime a felon was convicted of.  If it was an overt violent crime or one that involved a gun, then I feel they should lose their right to bear arms. I guess you could look at less violent felon crimes differently. As far as having their rights restored, it would still depend on type of crime committed.

[Englebert]

7 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Maybe we should look at the type of crime a felon was convicted of.  If it was an overt violent crime or one that involved a gun, then I feel they should lose their right to bear arms. I guess you could look at less violent felon crimes differently. As far as having their rights restored, it would still depend on type of crime committed.

I agree with you on the type of crime.

My main issue is with background checks. We agree that they do no good. But these will be used by anti-gun zealots to deny as many people as possible. If you think Lois Lerner and the IRS targeted people... I can't even imagine the scope that will be employed by the anti-gun nuts to write prohibited language into the background checks. A current Congressman has already proposed banning guns for anyone going through a divorce.

[BS Wildcats]

17 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I agree with you on the type of crime.

My main issue is with background checks. We agree that they do no good. But these will be used by anti-gun zealots to deny as many people as possible. If you think Lois Lerner and the IRS targeted people... I can't even imagine the scope that will be employed by the anti-gun nuts to write prohibited language into the background checks. A current Congressman has already proposed banning guns for anyone going through a divorce.

Has to be a Democrat.  That is absurd.  I agree with what you said about background checks being used to deny as many ppl as possible the right to own a gun.  It is a slippery slope.

[Englebert]

Just now, BS Wildcats said:

Has to be a Democrat.  That is absurd.  I agree with what you said about background checks being used to deny as many ppl as possible the right to own a gun.  It is a slippery slope.

This is exactly why we should stand up and say hell no to mandatory background checks.

[baddog]

I think everyone should own a gun. If I can't trust you to own a gun, then what are you doing on the street? You should be locked up. If you are a criminal, you already have one anyway, so what good does anything do? Is a background check going to stop the guy from robbing the convenience store? 

 

[BS Wildcats]

17 minutes ago, Englebert said:

This is exactly why we should stand up and say hell no to mandatory background checks.

I can agree to that

[BS Wildcats]

As far as your other question about an assault weapons ban, the problem with that is that Congress has no idea what they are.  I have seen to many times that hold up an AR-15 and call it an assault rifle.  I guess the idiots think that is what AR stands for.  So if they have no clue, how can they try to govern it.  

[Englebert]

12 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

As far as your other question about an assault weapons ban, the problem with that is that Congress has no idea what they are.  I have seen to many times that hold up an AR-15 and call it an assault rifle.  I guess the idiots think that is what AR stands for.  So if they have no clue, how can they try to govern it.  

You're exactly right. They have no clue what they're doing but yet feel the need to tell people what to do. I have much respect for some Congressmen. Some need never be allowed to be in charge of anything more than Kindergarten nap time. Some are just corrupt to the bone and need to be in prison.

I saw a video a while back in which some anti-gun group (can't remember who) was trying to imitate Diane Feinstein's town hall assault gun presentation. Feinstein had several firearms placed on a pegboard in the background, all ominous looking "assault rifles", while proposing an assault gun ban. This group tried to duplicate her stunt. But someone snuck a hammer onto the pegboard. When the leader of the presentation started speaking, someone stood up in the crowd and hollered, "Which weapon on that pegboard was used in more murders in the last 5 years?" The presenter turned around and saw the hammer. (She apparently knew the stats.) She stumbled and bumbled halfway through a clearly unrehearsed and untruthful answer. It was one of the most comical things I have ever saw. I tried to find the video but to no avail.

[PAMFAM10]

I think background checks for guns is a good idea. As far as rights go. If you don't wanna get ban from parks, schools, etc. don't be a pedophile if you abuse your kid you lose the right to be their parent if you charged with violent assaults you should lose the right to bear arms. If your a law abiding citizen I shouldn't affect you.

will criminals still have guns yes but we have to try something to decrease the number of bad guys with guns.

Will banning Muslims make us terrorist free no but we have to make common sense logic. Something is better than nothing. In both cases if your a legal non violent citizen you will not be affected.

[LumRaiderFan]

20 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

I think background checks for guns is a good idea. As far as rights go. If you don't wanna get ban from parks, schools, etc. don't be a pedophile if you abuse your kid you lose the right to be their parent if you charged with violent assaults you should lose the right to bear arms. If your a law abiding citizen I shouldn't affect you.

will criminals still have guns yes but we have to try something to decrease the number of bad guys with guns.

Will banning Muslims make us terrorist free no but we have to make common sense logic. Something is better than nothing. In both cases if your a legal non violent citizen you will not be affected.

Background checks will not decrease the number of bad guys with guns.

[BS Wildcats]

2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Background checks will not decrease the number of bad guys with guns.

Just make it a pain in the arse for the honest man

[Englebert]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 1:55 AM, PAMFAM10 said:

I think background checks for guns is a good idea. As far as rights go. If you don't wanna get ban from parks, schools, etc. don't be a pedophile if you abuse your kid you lose the right to be their parent if you charged with violent assaults you should lose the right to bear arms. If your a law abiding citizen I shouldn't affect you.

will criminals still have guns yes but we have to try something to decrease the number of bad guys with guns.

Will banning Muslims make us terrorist free no but we have to make common sense logic. Something is better than nothing. In both cases if your a legal non violent citizen you will not be affected.

So if background checks are a good idea, what questions should be asked on the background check to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights?

[77]

If you buy from a lic. gun dealer you get a background check now. If I am selling my gun to my brother its ridiculous to think  I should do a background check.

 

 

 

[Englebert]

What do these background checks entail? That is, what questions are asked now?

What questions should be asked?

And who gets to decide what questions get asked to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights?

 

[77]

you have to fill out a form with all your info and the govt. does the check to see if any warrants felonies etc.

[Englebert]

4 hours ago, 77 said:

you have to fill out a form with all your info and the govt. does the check to see if any warrants felonies etc.

Thanks. I think we might be moving back to the intent of this topic.

These questions are for everyone, not just 77.

Why does the government need this information?

Who decides what questions make up a background check? Should the government require you to also share this information when you register to vote?

If current background checks verify that the purchaser has felonies or warrants, should that preclude that purchaser from owning a gun? If a home owner is selling a house, should he have to run a background check on the potential buyer to see if that person has felonies or warrants?

Should the gun purchaser also be given this same background check to vote?

And lastly, who will get to decide what (more) questions are asked, and who appoints these omnipotent deciders? 

[BLUEDOVE3]

On 8/6/2016 at 7:38 PM, BS Wildcats said:

Although I am definitely against the government trying to take away the right to bear arms, I do feel a background check for all gun purchases is a good thing.  As far as what should be checked far, I'm not sure.  A convicted felon, or an American citizen would be a start.  No matter what is checked, if a criminal wants a gun, they will still be able to get their hands one.  So, background checks, in my opinion will really do no good.

 

I have a question: If a  criminal wants a gun,  why is he still able to get one? 

[BS Wildcats]

2 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

I have a question: If a  criminal wants a gun,  why is he still able to get one? 

Like I said, if he wants it, he can get.  Same as trying to burglar proof your home, if someone wants to rob you they will.  No matter what type of gun laws the liberals want to pass, you will never keep them out if the hands of criminals.  As for as a criminal getting a gun, just rob a honest person that has a right to own a gun and does.

[LumRaiderFan]

10 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

I have a question: If a  criminal wants a gun,  why is he still able to get one? 

If someone wants illegal drugs, why are they still able to get them?

[BS Wildcats]

15 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

If someone wants illegal drugs, why are they still able to get them?

Good reply, it is not hard to see if a person wants anything illegal, they will use any means necessary.  Thought his question was really self explanatory.

[Englebert]

The original questions have yet to be answered. So again, what questions should be asked on a background check to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights?

And who has the auspicious task of determining what questions are actually asked to determine if one qualifies to exercise their constitutional right?

3 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

I have a question: If a  criminal wants a gun,  why is he still able to get one? 

The intent of this topic is to determine what qualifications should be applied to determine if one is qualified to exercise their second amendment rights. By your answer here, I gather that you feel that the current background checks are not sufficiently working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So please expound on this idea and tell us how you think background checks can keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on legal citizens exercising their second amendment rights.

And while your at it, please answer these questions. Is a criminal allowed to vote? Does a criminal have to pass a background check to cast a ballot? Does a criminal have to pass a six hour course on how to safely vote (and pay a substantial fee) to exercise their right to vote? And why does the second amendment include the phrase "shall not be infringed" pertaining to the right to bear arms, but not one of the other rights bear this caveat?