The NEW Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun Poll!

[Bendrx]

I still vote the BATFE should be a corner store. So I say never. Sadly Wally World wont sell me smokes, ammo, beer and fertilizer in one transaction. I have to use transactions, at least I can do them back to back without getting in line again.

If you're free, as it not in jail, and not supposed to be in jail then there is no reason you can't buy firearms. As brought up before, if you can't be trusted with them then you probably should be allowed to drive a car. It has an inverse muzzle velocity and hits with far more force then most firearms. Also they can follow targets and keep going afterwards.

 

[Ter]

"shall not be infringed."= a no vote.

 

[Bendrx]

Call me crazy if I think that maybe in some instances a document that was written over 200 years ago may not fully apply in a completely different time. You cannot expect a document written 200 years ago to fully govern a society with technology the fore fathers couldn't fathom in their wildest dreams.

I can't see faulting it on much of anything, nor can I see calling it "a document". It's pretty well set up, ESPECIALLY by todays standards.

 

[MTC]

Call me crazy if I think that maybe in some instances a document that was written over 200 years ago may not fully apply in a completely different time. You cannot expect a document written 200 years ago to fully govern a society with technology the fore fathers couldn't fathom in their wildest dreams.

In addition to insulting the intelligence and foresight of the founding fathers, you just made the oft-repeated argument that the Constitution is somehow outdated, outmoded, or obsolete. Let's clear that up right now.
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights contained within, is ageless and timeless.

Should a law abiding citizen be refused the purchase of a gun, of course not, but waiting 10 minutes to get a proceed isn't too much to ask to weed out the small percentage of those who shouldn't.

You don't dictate for me what is or isn't "too much to ask" just so you can feel good about "weeding out those who shouldn't". Getting "a proceed" means getting permission. If you have to get permission - you do not have a right.

Many associate loss or denial of a right with confiscation of property, being slammed on the pavement, having your door kicked in, etc.
No. It is now possible through statutory and advanced technological means to violate the rights of the people without even touching them.

The most important tenet of gun control is to require (force by statute) the entire adult population of a given area (State or Country, depending on the scope of the statute) to be licensed, registered, and/or obtain permission/approval to do a certain thing (in this case buy a gun), by submission of private and personal information to be fed into a massive tracking and monitoring database. It is thus not only a violation of the 2nd, but also the often overlooked aspect of the 4th Amendment, as well as Article 1, sections 11 and 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

 

[Bill B]

I believe that, if we are going to say some people cannot own firearms then the only time we should be bothered by the government is at the time of purchase.
That should be the only time we are bothered by the government about our firearms. If we are legal to own a firearm how we carry it (or not) should not matter.

 

[PatriotPride]

I said no. "Shall not be infringed" is too clearly written. It has to mean what it means.

This. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm saddened but not surprised at the people who try to justify infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights affirmed to us.

 

[Sureshot129]

I voted NO even if they did a "Background Check" the first time somebody snapped or a mental breakdown there would be MORE "Checks" for gun ownership. I see this as a slippery slope.

 

[Hoosier8]

I voted no. First thing is that many gun purchases do not go through an FFL. Second, a new law would do nothing to stem crime or what criminals do.

 

[ryan3030]

I voted yes, on the assumption of a semi-perfect world in which everyone purchases their gun from a dealer. Obviously this assumption is not only flawed, but stupid.

Even though I own firearms and have no problem at all with everyone owning firearms, I don't want the local crazy person or convicted ex-felons to have easy access to a firearm.

That, combined with the fact that anyone who I would consider "firearm eligible" can easily pass a background check, leaves my vote at a solid yes.

 

[PatriotPride]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised a topic like this would result in name calling. Call me crazy if I think that maybe in some instances a document that was written over 200 years ago may not fully apply in a completely different time. You cannot expect a document written 200 years ago to fully govern a society with technology the fore fathers couldn't fathom in their wildest dreams.

Ok. I won't "call you crazy" as you requested. Confused? No that's not it. I think you're fully aware. Misguided? Yes, that's a bit more accurate. As far as name calling---thick skin. It's a wonderful thing to have. This is a topic of the utmost importance, and it's time for the PC garbage to end. There is a difference between "name calling" and calling someone exactly what they are.

You fail to have a basic understanding of the Constitution. You seek to limit MY freedom so that you can feel more comfortable, and you seek to justify this with the weakest argument in existence.

In addition to insulting the intelligence and foresight of the founding fathers, you just made the oft-repeated argument that the Constitution is somehow outdated, outmoded, or obsolete. Let's clear that up right now.
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights contained within, is ageless and timeless.

You don't dictate for me what is or isn't "too much to ask" just so you can feel good about "weeding out those who shouldn't". Getting "a proceed" means getting permission. If you have to get permission - you do not have a right.

Many associate loss or denial of a right with confiscation of property, being slammed on the pavement, having your door kicked in, etc.
No. It is now possible through statutory and advanced technological means to violate the rights of the people without even touching them.

The most important tenet of gun control is to require (force by statute) the entire adult population of a given area (State or Country, depending on the scope of the statute) to be licensed, registered, and/or obtain permission/approval to do a certain thing (in this case buy a gun), by submission of private and personal information to be fed into a massive tracking and monitoring database. It is thus not only a violation of the 2nd, but also the often overlooked aspect of the 4th Amendment, as well as Article 1, sections 11 and 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

Well said. +1. Sadly, no matter how much you present the facts and the truth, people will STILL have an incorrect outlook and will advocate the infringement of our rights.

 

[PatriotPride]

That, combined with the fact that anyone who I would consider "firearm eligible" can easily pass a background check, leaves my vote at a solid yes.

You need to examine your reasoning skills a bit more closely.

If the .gov were to dictate that you could only have a child if certain requirements were met and you were required to pass a "background check", would you be ok with it? After all, what's the issue if you know you can pass the check?

PLEASE, think about it.

 

[Eddie]

I voted yes, on the assumption of a semi-perfect world in which everyone purchases their gun from a dealer. Obviously this assumption is not only flawed, but stupid.

Even though I own firearms and have no problem at all with everyone owning firearms, I don't want the local crazy person or convicted ex-felons to have easy access to a firearm.

That, combined with the fact that anyone who I would consider "firearm eligible" can easily pass a background check, leaves my vote at a solid yes.

The problem I have with it is that not everyone wants a fair and honest background check that would be aimed at only weeding out the truly dangerous people. We have anti-gun politicians who would pervert a background check by making it harder and harder to pass or by making it take longer or charging a fee. That is how the antis operate, they take a "reasonable restriction" to put a chink in the armor and then they start widening the gap, creating more and more restrictions. Until we have a way to get the people out of office who won't be honest about restrictions then we have to push back hard against any infringement whatsoever.

 

[PatriotPride]

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."-Daniel Webster

A powerful statement if you think about it.

 

[MeAndMyXD]

I voted YES because my 1st ammendment right says I can.


I also vote YES to killing rapists and pedophiles, life sentences for murderers but does'nt our constitution entitle everyone to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

 

[PatriotPride]

I voted YES because my 1st ammendment right says I can.


I also vote YES to killing rapists and pedophiles, life sentences for murderers but does'nt our constitution entitle everyone to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

The sad thing is that I think that you're actually serious.

You should try a little harder when you twist the Constitution. Present your case a bit more coherently and with at least a hint of reason.

 

[Hornett]

I voted YES because my 1st ammendment right says I can.


I also vote YES to killing rapists and pedophiles, life sentences for murderers but does'nt our constitution entitle everyone to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

No, it doesn't.
It has always been a part of our society to rescind rights of individuals who break the law.
Incarceration is certainly not the pursuit of happiness.

I DO understand the slippery slope, that's why I have the disclaimers on my previous posts.
The only reason we have background checks at all is because of a liberal sissy compromise between safety and freedom.
Hmmmm, I seem to be talking myself out of my yes vote.
Back on track here.
There are and always will be individuals who have forfeited their freedoms through individual actions.
One of the LEAST intrusive ways of making sure a FFL does not sell contraband items to criminals is the instant background check.
I do think that one who is in possession of an Indiana LTCH should allow you to forgo any background checks because it has already been done.

I am not so sure about checking for mental illness.
I agree with most of the previous statements about what a slippery slope that is.
And I am convinced that Jared Loughner would not have been flagged anyway.

 

[CarmelHP]

I vote No, hell No. Can anyone say that crime is lower or society safer than the time before restrictions started to be piled on. No, in fact, the reverse is true. Prohibitory laws have been shown repeatedly to be ineffective at stopping or even reducing criminal traffic in contraband, but very effective at reducing legitimate use. Why would anyone support and seek to extend such backward, counter-productive failures as background checks and other feel-good restrictions. That a sizable minority of gunowners would support such ridiculous ventures demonstrates the idiocy infecting our culture.

 

[squirrelhntr]

vote no. nobody wants a slobbering idiot, moron to be armed but the law isn't gonna stop them from arming up and then commiting a crime.

train hard, fight easy

 

[Beau]

NO, NEVER! If you can't be trusted in society then you shouldn't be in society. If released from prison all of your rights should be restored. If you mess up again you go back for life or get the needle.

Forget "three strikes your out". It should be "two strikes your dead".

 

[Jtgarner]

I voted yes, it doesn't take long, it is not really an inconvenience to wait a few extra mins for me and hopefully it keeps even a couple people from buying guns who are just going to cause problems with them and give the rest of us a bad name.
I know that they can get them anyways if they want but i believe that it does keep a couple bad people from getting a hold of guns.
That thought is enough for me to not care about a short phone call before i can buy a gun.