INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[merotek]

So, where do you stand on expanding the background check piece? You have probably answered on a previous page, but i didn't read all of them.

I believe we should have a system where we can run background checks, its not about more laws or more government, its about doing the right thing.

I guess the law and big brother part of it comes in to play because, not everyone would use the system if it wasn't a mandatory system.

 

[88E30M50]

funny how so many say NO, but then require someone show them an LTCH during a sale, therefore using the current background check system...

I don't see that as a bad thing. I ask for an LTCH when I sell a gun and it does represent a background check to some degree. It is not traceable in any way though, and cannot be used to create a database of gun owners. No info need be recorded.

Guns in the hands of a felon is bad thing for everyone, but especially gun owners. Every crime committed with a gun is given air time and whatever talking head is speaking, uses that crime to convince the soft minded that it's guns that commit crime, not people. All of us should be doing what we can to keep from selling a gun to a felon.

My understanding of the question was 'Do we want private purchases to be checked via the NCIS system?'. Hell no. I don't think the question was 'Should we be able to sell to felons?'.

 

[halfmileharry]

I don't see that as a bad thing. I ask for an LTCH when I sell a gun and it does represent a background check to some degree. It is not traceable in any way though, and cannot be used to create a database of gun owners. No info need be recorded.

Guns in the hands of a felon is bad thing for everyone, but especially gun owners. Every crime committed with a gun is given air time and whatever talking head is speaking, uses that crime to convince the soft minded that it's guns that commit crime, not people. All of us should be doing what we can to keep from selling a gun to a felon.

My understanding of the question was 'Do we want private purchases to be checked via the NCIS system?'. Hell no. I don't think the question was 'Should we be able to sell to felons?'.

This.
Big Brother knows too much as it is on law abiding citizens.

 

[the1kidd03]

funny how so many say NO, but then require someone show them an LTCH during a sale, therefore using the current background check system...

I think there's a distinction between "absolving individual liability" and "government forced investigation and tracking" as the currently proposed check increases would include/lead to....

 

[revance]

If they could offer an instant check that I as a seller could perform at no cost and no required paperwork and no giving out of info on the firearm... I would support it.

Since that will never happen NO!

 

[kiddchaos]

I think I need to learn more about the current system, look under the hood, so to speak.

Unfortunately none of this works when:
1. Guns are stolen.
2. The buyer is spotless but has intent to do harm.
3. Someone smuggles in the weapons and ammo from outside the country.
4. Incorrect or bad data, or false ID.
5. Etc.

 

[jbombelli]

Who cares what the government would or would not know. They would have no role in this idea. It would simply be providing a means for an average person to verify the buyer of his gun is not a felon. The whole idea is to build some capability that is outside of the federal government or at least goes far enough outside of firearm ownership as to make any attempt to determine who owns a gun impossible.

The idea is simply to find a way to verify a person is a proper person without it being linked to any possible way that could be used to develop a gun registration.

What if I don't care, because I believe that ALL free people have the right to keep and bear arms, and I refuse to check? What if this service isn't free, and I don't feel like paying?

What if lots of us refuse to use it, because we don't want to use it for WHATEVER reason?

Now what?


Edited: even worse, if they're not keeping records of the calls, and who buys/sells, what's to stop someone from checking out all his neighbors? Or those coworkers he doesn't like, and if he finds one ineligible to buy a firearm telling his employer anonymously that *this guy* has a felony record that you might not know about... And trying to get him fired? A system without records can be seriously abused.

 

[Smokepole]

funny how so many say NO, but then require someone show them an LTCH during a sale, therefore using the current background check system...

Not at all. First, the State BC for our LTCH is a onetime event that happens when you apply or reapply for your license. Not EVERY time you buy a gun which allows the Federal Gubmint to track your moves. And just because they say that they destroy/don't keep the records, don't think that they can't find them if they want to. Emails NEVER disappear once the electronic record is created. NICS checks are electronic records as well. Do you REALLY believe they are TRULY destroyed???? I've got a bridge with your name on it if you do.

And the BC for your LTCH is performed by the State and your local PD. NOT the Federal Government. The Feds need to stay the hell out of our LOCAL bidnezz.

If they could offer an instant check that I as a seller could perform at no cost and no required paperwork and no giving out of info on the firearm... I would support it.

Since that will never happen NO!

I agree 1000%

 

[the1kidd03]

Really hasn't moved much from 80% through the whole thing yet....

 

[stephen87]

Please let me know in what document they wrote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of those people of acceptable moral character based on a background check to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in such manner as the legislature, courts or law enforcement deem appropriate."

Please point out where they wrote that, or where they explained that this is what the 2nd Amendment *actually* means.

I'll be waiting. And good luck.

Bump, for Kut, since he can't Google.

 

[rhino]

I'm actually surprised that so many people on here support mandatory background checks for purchasing firearms.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I'm actually surprised that so many people on here support mandatory background checks for purchasing firearms.

But you need to make sure they are a proper person. Didn't you read the Founders' statement where they stated that the people, excluding criminals, the mentally ill, people on INGO named rhino, and everyone under the age of 18, shall have the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[HoughMade]

How was the "right to keep and bear arms" defined in the Founder's minds when they wrote the Amendment to protect it?

 

[stephen87]

How was the "right to keep and bear arms" defined in the Founder's minds when they wrote the Amendment to protect it?

That would be an answer that we could only speculate on. I'm hoping they mean EXACTLY what they said, no infringements. Only they could answer that though.

 

[stephen87]

I'm actually surprised that so many people on here support mandatory background checks for purchasing firearms.

We come from all walks of life. Morals are different with every person. Common sense exists in some, evades others. It looks like this question had few different vies, but for many different reasons. It is surprising the PERCENTAGE of yes answerers, not really the number. What I want to know is, how many of those yes votes were Kutnupe's shill accounts?

 

[HoughMade]

How was the "right to keep and bear arms" defined in the Founder's minds when they wrote the Amendment to protect it?

It is not speculation, but a matter of historical research and historical context. My point is that "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand." only is meaningful if we know exactly what the "right to keep and bear arms" means.

Did the "Freedom of Speech" the Founders protected mean anyone anywhere can say anything and the government has no role in consequences at all? What is "Due Process of Law"? Isn't it ridiculous to say: "What part of 'Due Process of Law' don't you understand" without defining what "due process of law" is?

"What part of 'Cruel and Unusual punishment' don't you understand?
"Well what is...."
"I said, what part don't you understand?" "We don't deal in finding out what the fullness of the Founder fathers meant. here."

This are just a few examples. I, by no means, want a narrow definition of the "Right", but since we are talking about what the Bill of Rights says, you have to know what the "Right to keep and bear arms" that was being protected was is in order to know whether it is being infringed. Personally, I think we have history on our side. With that being the case, why would be voluntarily want to sound like uneducated rubes? Are we afraid of what we will find if we actually research the historical context rather than keep repeating a catch phrase?

 

[Beowulf]

I'm definitely not in favor of mandatory background checks.

Honestly, though, at the risk of losing my cred, if they were putting the full dismantling of the NFA (Hughes Amendment and all) on the table, I might consider universal background checks in trade for that.

 

[ashby koss]

I voted no, but don't be surprised if this is one of the concessions made.

NO. MORE. CONCESSIONS.

NO. MORE. GIVING. GROUND.

Time to stop letting the sheep tell the herd dogs what to do. Perhaps time for the Herd dogs to Herd, or make a few "concessions" on letting a few sheep get taken to make a point.

 

[Bunnykid68]

We know mandatory Universal Background Checks work because Indiana had them for handguns for well over a decade and....wait....what.....Scratch that, they didn't do a damn thing the entire time Indiana had Universal Background Checks

 

[Trigger Time]

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.

I sooooooo agree with you!
no I don't support background checks period. I believe in punishing people who do bad things. Pre-copping doesn't work.