INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[Bunnykid68]

Which basically, is a belief in the "what might happen." I, can honestly appreciate the notion, but at the end of the day it is tantamount to "pre-crime."
A background check does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way; at least in how it was originally concieved and practiced, by the founders.

They did background checks back then? Or did they expect every able bodied man to own a firearm for defense of ones self and nation.?

 

[Kutnupe14]

We're talking about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Not laws and court decisions that came later. You said it's in the Constitution. Now quote the part of the Constitution that supports what you say. Not some BS court decision or legislative act that came later that says "...shall not be infringed" means "...may be infringed."

QUOTE THE CONSTITUTION.

Otherwise all you're doing is proving that you're not the only one who believes in revocable privilrges instead of rights, which is what this discussion is actually about. You don't believe in rights, and are just fishing for support from others who also believe as you.

That's exactly what we are talking about. Surely you aren't so intellectually dishonest with yourself, that you don't see the hyprocrisy in the same men who signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Constitution, ignoring the observation of these natural rights.

Simply put, I judge a man on his actions rather than his words. You can write all the noble words on a piece of parchment as you want, but they mean absolutely nothing if you fail to put them into practice.

 

[jbombelli]

That's exactly what we are talking about. Surely you aren't so intellectually dishonest with yourself, that you don't see the hyprocrisy in the same men who signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Constitution, ignoring the observation of these natural rights.

Simply put, I judge a man on his actions rather than his words. You can write all the noble words on a piece of parchment as you want, but they mean absolutely nothing if you fail to put them into practice.

So now you're insulting them instead of backing up your claims that they believed something other than what they specifically wrote. The fact that not everybody was treated equally back then does not mean "...shall not be infringed" means "...may be infringed however we want."

I'm still waiting for you to provide those quotes from the Constitution. After all, you said it is obviously in there.

I'll bet you've never actually even read it. If you had, you wouldn't be making such stupid claims

I'm intellectually dishonest? ME??? Lololololololololol.

I'm not the one who believes they meant something other than what they said when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I'm not the one who claims to believe in rights, but actually believes in revocable privileges. As far as the words on the parchment go, YOU ARE THE ONE FAILING TO PUT THOSE INTO PRACTICE. Not me. YOU.

And like I said before... What is the point of arguing this with you? You're never going to give up your love of government control. You're never going to accept rights over privileges. Ever.

We both know it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So now you're insulting them instead of backing up your claims that they believed something other than what they specifically wrote. The fact that not everybody was treated equally back then does not mean "...shall not be infringed" means "...may be infringed however we want."

I'm still waiting for you to provide those quotes from the Constitution. After all, you said it is obviously in there.

I'll bet you've never actually even read it. If you had, you wouldn't be making such stupid claims

I'm intellectually dishonest? ME??? Lololololololololol.

I'm not the one who believes they meant something other than what they said when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I'm not the one who claims to believe in rights, but actually believes in revocable privileges. As far as the words on the parchment go, YOU ARE THE ONE FAILING TO PUT THOSE INTO PRACTICE. Not me. YOU.

And like I said before... What is the point of arguing this with you? You're never going to give up your love of government control. You're never going to accept rights over privileges. Ever.

We both know it.

Very. But you will have you "proof."

 

[jbombelli]

Very. But you will have you "proof."

This, from the man who can't even back up what he says. The man who believes in the Bill of Revocable Privileges.

 

[Meister]

Once again, this devolves into personal attacks.

It's all about common sense gun control. Oh wait, that's an oxymoron. Just like the statement that we need background checks to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals don't buy legal guns. They don't fill out 4473's. They don't care about any law on the books or your politically correct outlook. They will kill you, rape you and steal everything you have with impunity. Adding a gun charge means nothing. Maybe without it he gets 220 years instead of 225.

There is no constitutional jurisdiction for them to be able to enact this law. A private sale between 2 parties for a legal item is the jurisdiction of the state, not the feds. There is no interstate commerce!

Anyone who wants the feds to pass a law is the reason our country is sliding down the poop slide into the toilet bowl of democratic history. A constitutional republic is a form of government where the people cannot enact laws to control inalienable rights. It's the only reason our country has lasted as long as it has, yet these idiots in office are doing just that. These laws passed in deference to the constitution are illegal, regardless of what the (bought and paid for) black robes say. I'm no fool and the constitution was written in simple language. No interpretation necessary.

You can't slap me on the face then tell me I fell. I'm not buying it. If you prefer socialism, head south, it's working great in Mexico.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This, from the man who can't even back up what he says. The man who believes in the Bill of Revocable Privileges.

Riiiiiight. I would love to see you make that case.

 

[jbombelli]

Riiiiiight. I would love to see you make that case.

You already made it for me, like you've done many, many times on this forum.

 

[GREEN607]

Once again, this devolves into personal attacks.

It's all about common sense gun control. Oh wait, that's an oxymoron. Just like the statement that we need background checks to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals don't buy legal guns. They don't fill out 4473's. They don't care about any law on the books or your politically correct outlook. They will kill you, rape you and steal everything you have with impunity. Adding a gun charge means nothing. Maybe without it he gets 220 years instead of 225.

There is no constitutional jurisdiction for them to be able to enact this law. None. None. NONE! A private sale between 2 parties for a legal item is the jurisdiction of the state, not the feds. There is no interstate commerce!

Anyone who wants the feds to pass a law is the reason our country is sliding down the poop slide into the toilet bowl of democratic history. A constitutional republic is a form of government where the people cannot enact laws to control inalienable rights. It's the only reason our country has lasted as long as it has, yet these idiots in office are doing just that. These laws passed in deference to the constitution are illegal, regardless of what the (bought and paid for) black robes say. I'm no fool and the constitution was written in simple language. No interpretation necessary.

You can't slap me on the face then tell me I fell. I'm not buying it. If you prefer socialism, head south, it's working great in Mexico.

FIFY-

A spot-on post, tho.

 

[NomadS]

You should read this.

The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse » WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS THE WAY WE REGULATE GUNS

excellent

 

[88E30M50]

The problem we have is that we are forced into one of two possible choices. We can either allow no background check, or we can allow a background check that records information that could be used to develop a gun registry database. Neither are perfect, but the latter is down right dangerous to our liberties.

We need to think outside the box with this. What if there was some way for an individual to determine if someone was a proper person that did not have to be linked to firearms. If that check were opened up to employers to verify application information or for other purposes, then it would be useless for any type of registry, while still affording someone the ability to determine if a buyer is a proper person. Maybe something similar to how a credit check works.

Few people want to knowingly sell to someone that cannot legally possess a weapon, but the current system provides no support for a seller to verify the buyer. Similar to how nobody wants to buy a stolen gun, but there is no simple way to verify that a gun was not stolen. The police have methods, but they will not open them to the public.

The very idea of a gun registry is repugnant to gun owners, but so is the idea that they guy they sell a gun to is a criminal, just out of jail and looking to settle a score. There must be ways to verify a proper person without the possibility of a transaction being recorded.

 

[Meister]

The problem we have is that we are forced into one of two possible choices. We can either allow no background check, or we can allow a background check that records information that could be used to develop a gun registry database. Neither are perfect, but the latter is down right dangerous to our liberties.

We need to think outside the box with this. What if there was some way for an individual to determine if someone was a proper person that did not have to be linked to firearms. If that check were opened up to employers to verify application information or for other purposes, then it would be useless for any type of registry, while still affording someone the ability to determine if a buyer is a proper person. Maybe something similar to how a credit check works.

Few people want to knowingly sell to someone that cannot legally possess a weapon, but the current system provides no support for a seller to verify the buyer. Similar to how nobody wants to buy a stolen gun, but there is no simple way to verify that a gun was not stolen. The police have methods, but they will not open them to the public.

The very idea of a gun registry is repugnant to gun owners, but so is the idea that they guy they sell a gun to is a criminal, just out of jail and looking to settle a score. There must be ways to verify a proper person without the possibility of a transaction being recorded.

Anyone who wants to check a buyer can easily spend 25 bucks and have them fill out a 4473 at a gun shop or show proof of it in another manner.

 

[indytiger]

I voted Yes. Not because I believe their should be background checks on all purchases, but this is an area I am willing to concede, if this is the only thing I have to.

I do not agree with conceding on an AWB, mag restrictions of any types, registration, etc. I also think there should be no restrictions or registrations for Suppressors, SBR's, Machine Guns, etc.

But as a law abiding citizen, if they want to use a background check not to register my purchase, but to prove I'm not a felon or reported crazy, I'll do it.

How many time have you used the service at $16 a pop.

 

[Jeremiah]

I will not be content until I can mail order suppressed machine guns and ammo,

 

[88E30M50]

Anyone who wants to check a buyer can easily spend 25 bucks and have them fill out a 4473 at a gun shop or show proof of it in another manner.

But, that's my point. There is no way for you to do a background check without it being recorded possibly. Maybe there is a way to allow consensual background checks that do not get recorded, or have them available to a multitude of uses so there is no way to separate the firearms checks from the other checks. Maybe there's a way to do the checks that incorporate an encryption scheme that has a timestamp component.

The current system is open to abuse. It should not include firearm info such as whether or not the purchaser is buying a handgun or long gun.

 

[Beau]

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

Right, because only people that have previously committed crimes can commit more crimes. There is no way that someone who could pass a background check would commit a crime, right?

 

[jbombelli]

Mandatory background checks are meaningless without registration with 100% compliance, and forcing every gun owner to regularly verify the firearms he possesses to the government. Otherwise, how would they ever know if someone sold one or bought one without that check?

They won't. This is all crap. Except of course for those people around here who believe in privileges instead of rights. To them it makes perfect sense. They really think we'll all comply.

 

[tackdriver47371]

I will not be content until I can mail order suppressed machine guns and ammo,

That's right. Just like in those old Bronson movies.

 

[Light]

Maybe if they had a license that was given to everyone for very cheap that would say you were legal, essentially like an LTCH but for the sole purpose of showing that you have had a background check done before. Revoked on the same terms as an LTCH, but only used to verify that the other person is legal in a FTF sale. Could have a number on it that you could call, give their ID number, and get a confirmation that it is a real number and the name registered to that ID.

As long as there was no requirement for it, I think it would work. Only place for infringement is if they made them hard to get, but if they aren't required then that wouldn't change how we currently buy and sell any.

I'm HELL NO for gun control though.

 

[jbombelli]

Maybe if they had a license that was given to everyone for very cheap that would say you were legal, essentially like an LTCH but for the sole purpose of showing that you have had a background check done before. Revoked on the same terms as an LTCH, but only used to verify that the other person is legal in a FTF sale. Could have a number on it that you could call, give their ID number, and get a confirmation that it is a real number and the name registered to that ID.

As long as there was no requirement for it, I think it would work. Only place for infringement is if they made them hard to get, but if they aren't required then that wouldn't change how we currently buy and sell any.

I'm HELL NO for gun control though.

And what if somebody decided not to comply? How would the government know if I sold you a gun and you didn't have the piece of paper, or I didn't make the phone call?