INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[dailylc]

NO! Way to keep track of guns and who owns them. Oh! and they will keep track. Now, if you run a check with no refferance as to what is being sold and there would never be a ban on any guns/ magazines, I would consider it.

 

[the1kidd03]

I vote NO. Law abiding citizens are seldom involved with violence using firearms. I do feel the use of a firearm while committing a crime should have an automatic 10-year minimum prison sentence, with a 2nd. Conviction being Life.

INDEED

AT LEAST 80 MILLION law abiding gun owners at last accurate count with only ~12k gun homicides = OVER 99% non-violent and law abiding...hence no reason for MORE regulations on them

 

[88E30M50]

I voted other. Each of us has a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands those that should not have them but it need not involve the government.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I vote NO. Law abiding citizens are seldom involved with violence using firearms. I do feel the use of a firearm while committing a crime should have an automatic 10-year minimum prison sentence, with a 2nd. Conviction being Life.

Really? Is being robbed or murdered with a knife or a blunt instrument superior to being robbed or murdered with a gun?

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

No. I do not believe that background checks should be mandatory. However I believe that a store owner should have the option to run a background check before selling a gun to a customer.

 

[Bill B]

Such a law would be totally uneforcable without concurrent registration.

 

[David]

I realize that this is moot, quaint, archaic.....but the 2nd amendment prohibits the federal government from engaging in firearms regulations, period. If we still had a binding Constitution, that's all that would need to be said.

 

[Davegrave]

What is a "proper person"? If they're not in jail, they should be allowed to own a firearm. It's a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. If they're too dangerous to own a firearm, why'd you let them out of prison? Either they've paid their debt or they haven't.

This is like the 30'th time I've read one of your posts, agreed 100%, went to Rep you, and then realized it's you. I usually just read down the list without checking names.

But yeah...what Scutter said.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Didn't like the wording. Figured I would be misunderstood since I am no writer by any stretch of one's imagination.

Good choice, I disagreed with everything you had typed.

 

[RustyHornet]

I voted no, because I like the idea of purchasing a gun without it going into the system.

 

[indytiger]

California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people - latimes.com
California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people


Pass another law when they don't enforce the ones we have.
Makes sense. NOT.

 

[eldirector]

I believe most gunowners want more background checks. Anything for that warm fuzzy feeling Big Brother can give you.

The only problem with warm-fuzzies, is that in order to "get" one, it has to be inserted through an orifice. I can't think of a single orifice through with I would like something warm and fuzzy inserted by Big Brother.

Background checks are not useful, and do little to nothing to prevent crime. They are easily skirted by criminals. They only impact otherwise law-abiding citizens.

So, maybe if we have more? It'll work this time? Do folks really believe this, or are they so desperate for that warm fuzzy?

 

[Bunnykid68]

The only problem with warm-fuzzies, is that in order to "get" one, it has to be inserted through an orifice. I can't think of a single orifice through with I would like something warm and fuzzy inserted by Big Brother.

Background checks are not useful, and do little to nothing to prevent crime. They are easily skirted by criminals. They only impact otherwise law-abiding citizens.

So, maybe if we have more? It'll work this time? Do folks really believe this, or are they so desperate for that warm fuzzy?

They really believe that

 

[SSGSAD]

I know it might be kind of a pita but would actually make me feel more comfortable about making sure I'm selling to a proper person

THIS is why I want to see a In. DL, AND LTCH, NO MATTER what kind of firearm, I am SELLING !!!!! The person meets the STANDARD, set by the STATE, of In., then it is good enough for ME !!!!!

 

[maxmayhem]

i vote no but i would like to be able to see if a gun is stolen as reported on a database or get a background check for free...i dont like the ffl fees so i usually ask to see id and the pink

 

[the1kidd03]

i vote no but i would like to be able to see if a gun is stolen as reported on a database or get a background check for free...i dont like the ffl fees so i usually ask to see id and the pink

A LEO can run the numbers for you if you ask, but they will have to confiscate if it comes back in the negative...

 

[Knight Rider]

If we truly believe the 2A is absolute then what other position to take but NO. I'd rather defend myself against a few felons and crazies than be defenseless against tyranny.

 

[LEaSH]

NO

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If we lived in an ideal world where universal background checks would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, where it would actually make us safer, than yes. Since we live in the real world where the measure will be largely unenforceable, won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals any better than existing laws, and I can't fathom it making us safer, I have to say no.

Furthermore, I can't think of any viable way to enforce it that doesn't require a firearm registry. For multiple reasons, again including the "ideal vs real" argument as above, that's another reason to say "no".

 

[chezuki]

I want to be able to go to a local gun store and buy a machine gun and leave like I had just bought an ice cream cone