INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[traderdan]

There is GREAT potential for ,not just registration,but real limitation of transfers,should we try to implement some false solution such as this.Does anyone truly believe that a criminal with murderous intent can be prevented from obtaining a firearm? Would not he or she find a way to steal or buy on the black market ?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I voted yes, our cars are registered, to vol. @ school you need a background check, we've already gone through a background check to get our LTCH. I don't see any issue, with this, and this should not be confused with a registery which will not happen. I also agree with LaPierre, the system is broke.

You should read this.

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

 

[Bunnykid68]

More troublesome, how do you keep your list from growing to take in imperfections which are not on the list now? When will it take in all misdemeanors? Infractions? Anyone ever known to have had a bad day put on the list? You will be amazed at how perfect (or politically connected) you will have to be to exercise what is supposed to be a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be infringed.

Now I have to worry about infractions on INGO

 

[LP1]

Oh, I understand. We have had a serious problem with the Constitution being ignored, therefore we roll over and give up. Which side are you on?

The point is that it's unreasonable to expect that there won't be challenges, and that "all or nothing" brinksmanship is a dangerous strategy. The "all or nothing" proponents tend to get marginalized, and when you draw a line in the sand, there's a huge risk of ending up with nothing.

 

[the1kidd03]

The point is that it's unreasonable to expect that there won't be challenges, and that "all or nothing" brinksmanship is a dangerous strategy. The "all or nothing" proponents tend to get marginalized, and when you draw a line in the sand, there's a huge risk of ending up with nothing.

One can either draw line in the sand, or move it back this time....

....and the next time......and the next time.......and the next time

 

[j4jenk]

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".

I voted no for this exact reason. Your post should be read aloud every time some gun grabbing politician insists that more background checks are "common sense" legislation that should be enacted now with no further debate.

 

[pinshooter45]

I voted NO

I voted no because I do not see any way this cannot lead to a registration database. And not only will that give the Government a list of where all the firearms are but also a place for a cyber-criminal, terrorist organization, or foreign government to hack into and get the same list! Believe me I'm an IT student currently taking courses in Computer Forensics and Network Security and I am learning some pretty scary things! And while I always knew the real reason why liberals want gun control, I am more convinced than ever of their true motives. Because lets say the proposals for gun control were applied to computer security. Banning semi-automatic weapons would be similar to limiting the speed of the processor in computers sold to the general public, limiting the capacity of magazines would be like limiting the amount of memory in a computer. in all the research I have had to do for my classes NO ONE in the IT security field advocates that approach! Instead the concentrate on hardening their systems proactively scanning their systems with intrusion detection software, sharing information on the type of attacks attempted and writing new software and developing new hardware to SHIELD their systems from attack. Many companies have what are called CSIRTs (Computer Systems Incident Response Teams) to minimize the damage done during a cyber attack. Sound familiar? I think the NRA made some very similar suggestion for protecting our schools! And I believe the primary reason most of us own firearms and carry is that WE believe in a proactive approach. That being said I think congress will come up with some form of BG check system even though they have no authority to regulate a private sale between me and my friend or neighbor down the street because it does not involve interstate commerce which they do have the power to regulate. The only form of BG check I could even consider would be that if some one wanted to purchase a firearm privately it would be up to them to get their own BG check and be able to present a form to a private individual showing they have passed the check. And while that would give some gun owners peace of mind the bad guys still wont get their guns through legal channels and would render that approach useless. No matter what Congress passes it will be ineffective but we will never convince the grabbers of that. So it is important to keep up the pressure for real solutions that MAY have some impact. But just as we know random mass shootings cannot be prevented, the IT world knows the same thing and that is why they take the approach that they do.

 

[Giddaltti]

Haha! Not entering all the quotes here but a simple response. I voted yes, and respect the opinion not to sell to me. But rest assured within my company we share some like minded thoughts such as living within the confines of the law and would welcome your company and not hold it against you.

The Amendments are not literal, its been proven time and time over.
Drive your car across state line and any LEO will reference you ASAP. Were already on the grid, if you pay taxes, voted, or signed up for selective service as prescribed by law. Google has more info on most of us than our govt. It is a criminal check and affects non of us. It is an ounce of prevention. Society changes and what was applicable in the past may not fully apply today. No one is taking our guns away.

I'm a registered Republican from Tx. I dont subscribe to the curent Presidential administration however, I keep my state, senate and local reps. Informed of my stans

I'll say it again the system is broke. It will not affect me unless certain firearms are restricted but I have done my part by writting letters for myself and on behalf of my 6 children.

 

[LP1]

One can either draw line in the sand, or move it back this time....

....and the next time......and the next time.......and the next time

You make it sound like we've lost every battle. It's like Yankee fans complaining because their team didn't make the playoffs.

Look at what's happened in the last 25 or so years regarding 2A rights (some state, some federal) - AWB (-1), non-renewal of AWB (+1), shall-issue (+1), right to carry (+1), castle doctrine (+1), limits on local pre-emption (+1), discussions about national reciprocity, etc. The pro-gun rights side has won far more than its lost.

Not suggesting that anyone should roll over and give up, but let's realize that the glass is far more than half full.

 

[the1kidd03]

You make it sound like we've lost every battle. It's like Yankee fans complaining because their team didn't make the playoffs.

Look at what's happened in the last 25 or so years regarding 2A rights (some state, some federal) - AWB (-1), non-renewal of AWB (+1), shall-issue (+1), right to carry (+1), castle doctrine (+1), limits on local pre-emption (+1), discussions about national reciprocity, etc. The pro-gun rights side has won far more than its lost.

Not suggesting that anyone should roll over and give up, but let's realize that the glass is far more than half full.

None of which would have been accomplished by rolling over to the opposition....

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I voted no and probably will every time I'm asked about it .


IMO , all the libtard sheeple out there who claim that " it's time we have a serious discussion about guns " and " if we can save just one child " need an African safari trip to see first hand what nature is really about .

Nature doesn't give a damn about your plans , hopes or kids , you're on the menu .

Libtard folks need to understand that our " civilized " lifestyle is an illusion of our creation and that all the laws in the world can't save them when their time comes .

People throughout history have found reasons to kill each other , be it with sticks , rocks , blades , arrows , guns and bombs .

People are going to kill each other , that's the way life has always been and as long as there are people they will find a reason to kill another .

Instead of a BS , PC discussion about gun laws we ought to have an HONEST discussion about the true reason people commit these crimes .

IMO , we ought to have a discussion about years of FAILED libtard social experiments and their impact on society that has spawned these animals among us .

If we cannot or will not enforce the laws we have now , More laws at this point are a waste of time .

IMO , if we want to " get real " about it we need to put down the animals that have proven they cannot or will not play nice with others .

 

[jbombelli]

 

[roisigns]

voted.

 

[TK312]

I'm really confused by all the no's. why would you not want everyone to be checked out before they buy a firearm. That is just a narrow minded outlook.

 

[Bill B]

I'm really confused by all the no's. why would you not want everyone to be checked out before they buy a firearm. That is just a narrow minded outlook.

1. totally uneforcable
2. won't reduce crime, just create more criminals
3. unworkable without registration.

 

[LP1]

None of which would have been accomplished by rolling over to the opposition....

There's a huge difference between not rolling over and drawing a line in the sand. Gains are often accomplished with "two steps forward, one step back" - basic math tells us that still equals one step forward. To continue making progress, we must present ourselves as being reasonable. Many postings on news sites are just rehashes of the same talking points (for both sides), and many of the pro-2A posts make us look like extremists. "No compromise" may well lead to a major loss.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm really confused by all the no's. why would you not want everyone to be checked out before they buy a firearm. That is just a narrow minded outlook.

The premise of this country's existence is liberty and freedom for EACH person. Attempting to enforce checks on ALL sales, even between individuals is like being expected to report to the government every time you wish to sell your car, ATV, powertools, kitchenware, etc.

That is NOT liberty or freedom.

Additionally, it's merely a stepping stone. It will have NO effect on gun crime considering that 80% of guns used in violent crime were obtained through already ILLEGAL means. So then, what's next when they figure out that won't work? A gun registry for every gun? So they know exactly what you have, where you live, etc. Then, after that what will happen?

The point is that a criminal DOES NOT FOLLOW LAW. Punishing those who DO abide by it serves NO purpose.

 

[the1kidd03]

There's a huge difference between not rolling over and drawing a line in the sand. Gains are often accomplished with "two steps forward, one step back" - basic math tells us that still equals one step forward. To continue making progress, we must present ourselves as being reasonable. Many postings on news sites are just rehashes of the same talking points (for both sides), and many of the pro-2A posts make us look like extremists. "No compromise" may well lead to a major loss.

I don't believe it will lead to a major loss in the current climate. It's not likely when the evidence clearly supports our side and only emotion supports the opposition.

In that logic, I would only be supportive to mandated background checks on a set time limit (similar to the '94 AWB). Allowing us to study over the next several years its true effect on crime and then reconsider the effects at that time. Other than that, I'm staunchly opposed to further restriction of rights of LAW ABIDING citizens.

 

[HICKMAN]

I knew Repubs would put it on the table, even though they know the AWB bill is DOA.

I just wished before they caved they would at least negotiate to keep a high cap mag bill off the table...

 

[NomadS]

Will more background checks make it easier to, or more likely that I can, protect my own? No. It will however create one more tool that some future government entity could use to restrict my right in the future. All the would have to do is change what is necessary to "pass " a background check. Always vote no on questions like this if you value liberty more than someone's false promise of safety.