against ALL background checks

[Markp]

I agree with background checks. It helps to protect our right to own firearms.
I honestly think that if they did not do background checks our rights would be banned because of how many people would of done crazy shit with a firearm they shouldn't have. When a criminal does something stupid we can at least say he shouldn't of even had the weapon instead of making us all look bad.

It doesn't help protect our right to own a firearm, that's already protected by the constitution.

I disagree with the usefulness or necessity of a background check. It hasn't worked to prevent criminals from getting guns in the past, and it won't in the future. Think about all those gun-walking guns, was a single one stopped because of the background check?

No.

Was the Newtown shooter stopped by a background check?

No.

Was ANY mass shooting in the US prevented by ANY gun law we have on the books?

No.

It's a false sense of security, how can you actually believe that a background check is useful except in catching the most inept of criminals? Maybe you haven't been paying attention, one can BUILD an AR or AK in their basement and never see a background check. One can buy any number of weapons with forged documents (FFL03 is easy enough to forge) without even any suspicion being raised.

Stupid stupid stupid...

 

[Mr H]

I guess I am the only one to see the irony.

If I need the governments permission to do something it's a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a natural right, not a privilege.

An example that might help...

The first time I took the wife into a gun shop, we were looking around for some things she thought might suit her for HD.

While we were looking, a couple came in. Sorry to say, he looked like an escapee from Cherry Hill, and she looked no better.

He was tralking with the counter guy, who was doing his best to probe-without-probing, and see what this guy wanted.

Well, as the conversation moved on, we hear, "What you mean I can' buy a gun if I gots a felony?" Needless to say, his girl-of-the-week was not impressed after all...

Yeah... I like background checks.

 

[Mr H]

Was the Newtown shooter stopped by a background check?

No.

Disagree...

According to reports (which are apocryphal, I admit), he attempted to buy a gun and was discouraged by not only the waiting period in CT, but the background check. Then--again, as we hear it--he stole the guns he used, in violation of existing law, making him a criminal.

Beyond that, I do agree that many of our current laws are not effective. But then, why the heck should criminals care, right???

 

[Kman]

I support background checks to the extent of the person's qualifications with nothing relevant to the firearm.
I worked at a gun shop in college and part time after graduating. We sold a .22 rifle, just filling out the old yellow form for the book. I think it was in 1990. He killed several people with that rifle and wound up getting the death penalty. He probably would have killed the people anyhow, but it would have been better to make it harder for him to get the rifle. He had an exyensive criminal background and was accidentally released from a MD prison early.

 

[Pale Ryder]

ALL checks ??? Seriously ?

Yeah, If you're mentally ill and cannot be trusted with a gun, then you probably should not be out on the streets, with access to many other dangerous things too.

If you're a felon and did your time and are out, I see no reason your 2A rights can not be restored. If you're to dangerous to be around guns, then you should still be locked up.

 

[vwluv10338]

Funny......... you guys.

So we can assume the country was much more dangerous before 1968? You know when you could order a pistol from the Sears catalog. How about before 1934 when you could buy a Thompson and dynamite at the hardware store?

Before the GCA of 1968 there were no background checks and some how the world went on.

 

[vwluv10338]

Yeah, If you're mentally ill and cannot be trusted with a gun, then you probably should not be out on the streets, with access to many other dangerous things too.

If you're a felon and did your time and are out, I see no reason your 2A rights can not be restored. If you're to dangerous to be around guns, then you should still be locked up.

Thank you. Sometimes I think I am the only person that understands this

 

[Mr H]

Funny......... you guys.

So we can assume the country was much more dangerous before 1968? You know when you could order a pistol from the Sears catalog. How about before 1934 when you could buy a Thompson and dynamite at the hardware store?

Before the GCA of 1968 there were no background checks and some how the world went on.

And before 1964? The 70s? The drug culture? Gang violence?

It's not a simple issue, and not a simple solution.

Until .gov decides to actually do something about the degenerates, I'll take background checks over nothing.

 

[Mr H]

Yeah, If you're mentally ill and cannot be trusted with a gun, then you probably should not be out on the streets, with access to many other dangerous things too.

If you're a felon and did your time and are out, I see no reason your 2A rights can not be restored. If you're to dangerous to be around guns, then you should still be locked up.

IIRC, "Restoration of Rights" is a separate issue altogether, and runs through the courts.

Personally, I'm not terrinbly comfortable handing a violent felon an early release, new clothes, and the right to own a gun... just cuz...

 

[Boom Boom]

If you're a felon and did your time and are out, I see no reason your 2A rights can not be restored.

Within reason for a one-time second chance, I agree, except for certain violent and sexual crime convictions. That way, repeat offenders stay in the same boat as now but most people who screwed up once eventually go back to life as usual.

 

[HardHatMan]

The right to self defense doesn't end when you are convicted of a felony. In fact, the Constitution doesn't give us our 2nd amendment rights every human is entitled to them. If you are a danger, you should be locked up.

Yep.

I'm ok with no background checks. But, I accept the fact that they will never go away.

 

[RealtorMatt]

When you are a convicted felon, you lose some of your constitutional rights like your right to vote as well as to possess a firearm...The 5th states that federal restrictions on a person's life, liberty and property may take place only upon due process of law.

I am personally fine with background checks to make sure guns stay out of the hands of criminals. Remember... we always joke about the 'not disapproved' status ... which lends itself to the fact that they are not 'approving' you for gun ownership (getting permission to own a gun), but rather that they are saying that you are not ineligible from owning one.

 

[VTHokie7]

This will probably upset a few here, but it is a forum after all where we share our opinions. I'm actually fine with ALL background checks, even on private transfers. To ensure criminals cannot get their hands on firearms. But I think they should be done instantly rather than the insanity here in Maryland.

 

[cxd213]

It doesn't help protect our right to own a firearm, that's already protected by the constitution.

I disagree with the usefulness or necessity of a background check. It hasn't worked to prevent criminals from getting guns in the past, and it won't in the future. Think about all those gun-walking guns, was a single one stopped because of the background check?

No.

Was the Newtown shooter stopped by a background check?

No.

Was ANY mass shooting in the US prevented by ANY gun law we have on the books?

No.

It's a false sense of security, how can you actually believe that a background check is useful except in catching the most inept of criminals? Maybe you haven't been paying attention, one can BUILD an AR or AK in their basement and never see a background check. One can buy any number of weapons with forged documents (FFL03 is easy enough to forge) without even any suspicion being raised.

Stupid stupid stupid...

To say the background check process has never deterred or prevented a crime from happening seems a bit short sighted... I mean those examples you provided actually happened - of course a background check didn't prevent them. If a 'mass murder' was or has been prevented due to the background check process you wouldn't know about it because it never took place.

I'll say that I am for background checks on all firearm purchases, but I believe that background checks should be made nearly instant with the technology available today. Sadly, I don't believe the current background check system is funded properly by the federal government, and thus data sources aren't able to be accessed in a timely manner, if at all. The problem with any system spread across hundreds of millions of citizens is that it cannot be applied fairly - some people who made mistakes in their past are marked forever as criminals and aren't given a second chance despite having turned into decent citizens, while others with a history of serious mental issues will slip through the system and commit heinous acts simply because they've never committed a crime before.

 

[vwluv10338]

And before 1964? The 70s? The drug culture? Gang violence?

It's not a simple issue, and not a simple solution.

Until .gov decides to actually do something about the degenerates, I'll take background checks over nothing.

I agree but I am talking about what is right. "Shall not be infringed". I'm not sure of your point about the dates you posted so I cant respond to them but how about leagalizing drugs to help eliminate the drug and gang violence? Its the exact same thing that happened with prohibition.

 

[HardHatMan]

This will probably upset a few here, but it is a forum after all where we share our opinions. I'm actually fine with ALL background checks, even on private transfers. To ensure criminals cannot get their hands on firearms. But I think they should be done instantly rather than the insanity here in Maryland.

Obviously this is working, right?

 

[higglydiggly]

"shall not be infringed". "may be infringed". What's the difference?

Liberals claim that a group of people, average citizens, are unfit to own guns and have no "need" to own them. Yet you want to turn around and say the same thing about "bad guys". They are unfit to own guns and shouldn't be allowed.

 

[MDFF2008]

"shall not be infringed". "may be infringed". What's the difference?

Liberals claim that a group of people, average citizens, are unfit to own guns and have no "need" to own them. Yet you want to turn around and say the same thing about "bad guys". They are unfit to own guns and shouldn't be allowed.

There's a HUGE difference. HUGE.

Group A are average, law abiding citizens.

Group B have demonstrated that they are not fit to own guns through their actions. Actions have consequences.

 

[alucard0822]

Can't support MANDATORY background checks, the main reason being the whole don't blame the gun, blame the criminal thing. If a criminal obtains a firearm, in violation of parole/probation(shouldn't be a lifetime prohibition) then punish them the same as breaking any other condition, if they insist on hurting innocent people, they shouldn't be on the street. Right now, most states have no law aggainst gun owners transferring their firearms privately, and it has never proven to be a significant source of crime guns. There are some guns that would wind up in the hands of criminal without background checks, although reguardless of the law, criminals will get weapons to hurt people, although no other weapons or potentially harmful tools are subject to the same scrutiny, or law abiding citizens subject to so many restrictions in order to obtain them.

 

[higglydiggly]

Just as you claim that a group of people is "not fit to own guns through their actions" some bureaucrat can just as easily claim that you are "not fit to own guns" for reason X, Y or Z.

The list of people who "are not fit" or "do not need" guns will continute to grow with this attitude. How many Feinstein approved commenters are there on this board?