You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Universal Background Checks....
- Thread starter Skans
- Start date
The Feds are not supposed to be involved at all with the peoples arms. See 2A of US Constitution.
But, they are and have been since the 1930's. Lots of luck turning that completely around right now.
Hmmm... let's see... how about we actually make violent repeat offenders serve their full prison terms, rather than allowing early release or parole?
How about we prosecute straw purchasers, and incarcerate them?
How about we prosecute prohibited persons who are found in possession of firearms?
How about we make theft of a firearm a first degree felony?
I agree with all those items... so, let's say that they are all done. At some point, these individuals are released from jail... should they be able to just go and purchase a firearm? If not, what is the measure to help prevent said person from getting access to a firearm?
sirdiealot
New member
it would be another major pain in the butt if i had to do more background checks....it seldom takes less then 3 days to get my background check completed...so i would prob end up missing out on some good buys cause you alot of gun buys are guys needing some quick cash so whos gonna wait....seller will just find someone else to sell to
re: NICS
If this is so, being as how it says right on the 4473 that providing false information or buying for another person is punishable as a felony, right above the sgnature aand date lines, why are there not "tens of thousands" of people prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm? Seems to me that if a felon or other prohibited person puts down false info, signs the form and the check comes back denying him a firearm because he is a felon, that'd be a slam dunk case, right?
That does not seem to happen, though, and when Joe Biden was asked about it, he said "We don't have time for all that."
Hooey.
-AlabamaShooterEvery year it prevents tens of thousands of felons from getting firearms.
If this is so, being as how it says right on the 4473 that providing false information or buying for another person is punishable as a felony, right above the sgnature aand date lines, why are there not "tens of thousands" of people prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm? Seems to me that if a felon or other prohibited person puts down false info, signs the form and the check comes back denying him a firearm because he is a felon, that'd be a slam dunk case, right?
That does not seem to happen, though, and when Joe Biden was asked about it, he said "We don't have time for all that."
Hooey.
win-lose, when they are released from jail, what's to stop them from abducting a schoolkid or raping a woman at knife point?
When they are released from jail, what's to stop them from doing anything?
Preventive laws are generally useless against those with criminal intent and any degree of intelligence. The trick is in applying punishments that act as deterrent, and in properly focusing law enforcement, judicial, and penal priorities.
When they are released from jail, what's to stop them from doing anything?
Preventive laws are generally useless against those with criminal intent and any degree of intelligence. The trick is in applying punishments that act as deterrent, and in properly focusing law enforcement, judicial, and penal priorities.
I know this is a touchy topic. I would like to know what objections people have to opening up the NICS background check to everyone, not just FFL's. Basically, give everyone the ability to do a background check and require them to keep a simple log of who they sold a firearm to (and proof of the background check) in the event it is later used in a crime
They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.
They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.
Let's just dump the 4th Amendment, as we have nothing to hide, right?
And the 3rd, as well, 'cause we all support the Military, RIGHT?
Ah, just dump all of our protections for our personal Liberty, because we all know the Government is much better judge of what's good for us than we are, right? They are Professionals, after all- they must know what is best for us .......
I understand now why some refer to the "UK" as the "land that was formerly Great Brittain", and how Brittain lost that status......
sirdiealot
New member
and im guessing if we wanted to follow the UKs laws we prob wouldnt have had the revolution....we wanted our own set of laws and rights
No.
It might do a better job of segmenting gun sales to lawful and unlawful purchasers between the strictly-legal market and the black market, respectively, but I have trouble imagining how it would prevent anyone who wants a gun for evil purposes from acquiring a gun.
Another recent thread about background checks here: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512563&highlight=background
It might do a better job of segmenting gun sales to lawful and unlawful purchasers between the strictly-legal market and the black market, respectively, but I have trouble imagining how it would prevent anyone who wants a gun for evil purposes from acquiring a gun.
Another recent thread about background checks here: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512563&highlight=background
That's nice....They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.
I'm glad you're fine with it in your country.
This is my country though and I'm not fine with it.
Matter of fact, it ticks me off quite a bit...
manta49 said:They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.
I don't think you understand.
That's a dare.
That tells the government to look harder until they find whatever justification they feel they need.
hardworker
New member
In America, a person is only a criminal after they get convicted. If we pass universal background checks, those punks want a gun will just get their buddies with clean records to buy one for them.
Many people in FTF states already think they're breaking the law when they sell face to face. They're completely ignorant of the law, so changing wouldn't affect them as they would never know and carry on as usual.
I had a guy I worked with offer me a ruger SP101 one day. When I asked him why he wanted so much for it he said "because it's off the books", like he was being sneaky about it. I gave him a puzzled look because I live in Virginia and asked what books he was talking about. He was also offering it to another guy I work with, who was thinking about buying it for that ridiculous price. When I explained how there was no crime being committed and there is no gun registration in VA they were both dumbfounded. People like that are how these punks in the cities are getting guns.
PS Before the hall monitors get on me for not ratting on them as far as I know neither of those guys were felons or otherwise prevented from owning guns, just idiots
Many people in FTF states already think they're breaking the law when they sell face to face. They're completely ignorant of the law, so changing wouldn't affect them as they would never know and carry on as usual.
I had a guy I worked with offer me a ruger SP101 one day. When I asked him why he wanted so much for it he said "because it's off the books", like he was being sneaky about it. I gave him a puzzled look because I live in Virginia and asked what books he was talking about. He was also offering it to another guy I work with, who was thinking about buying it for that ridiculous price. When I explained how there was no crime being committed and there is no gun registration in VA they were both dumbfounded. People like that are how these punks in the cities are getting guns.
PS Before the hall monitors get on me for not ratting on them as far as I know neither of those guys were felons or otherwise prevented from owning guns, just idiots
Last edited:
MLeak;
because I have done so.
because he was a service member.
because it is no one's business.
it's a free country (I still have hope).
You have foibles about it, but it isn't up to me to play "Minority Report, Future Crimes Prevention" and frankly I find the idea that you can prevent a crime is simply unrealistic.
Don't think so, name a crime you can prevent with a law. I am only asking for one.
Many people don't think this way. Some people do think this way. Some people look to laws and the government for guarantees in a world that doesn't do guarantees. Some people have this unrealistic need for security and will insist on the craziest things to "feel" secure. Some people now play a major role in all politics.
Feel free to substitute whoever and whatever you wish for Some people.
Why would you have any buyer unknown to you come to your home, to look at a weapon?
Even without mandatory background checks, I think this is a particularly bad idea.
because I have done so.
because he was a service member.
because it is no one's business.
it's a free country (I still have hope).
You have foibles about it, but it isn't up to me to play "Minority Report, Future Crimes Prevention" and frankly I find the idea that you can prevent a crime is simply unrealistic.
Don't think so, name a crime you can prevent with a law. I am only asking for one.
Many people don't think this way. Some people do think this way. Some people look to laws and the government for guarantees in a world that doesn't do guarantees. Some people have this unrealistic need for security and will insist on the craziest things to "feel" secure. Some people now play a major role in all politics.
Feel free to substitute whoever and whatever you wish for Some people.
In America, a person is only a criminal after they get convicted. If we pass universal background checks, those punks want a gun will just get their buddies with clean records to buy one for them.
I know what you are saying. The can be got illegally and if they are caught they would have to face the courts.
That's like saying there is no point in being required to have a driving licence or insurance because some people drive without a licence or don't know the law. Ignorance of the law is not a defence in the courts.
America, a person is only a criminal after they get convicted.
That's the same in most countries innocent until proven guilty.
lcpiper, I didn't say it should be illegal to have strangers come to your home to view and possibly purchase weapons, nor do I think it should be illegal.
I just think it is stupid, because you don't know who you are inviting to your home; you are telling that person "This is where I keep guns."
As you implied (correction, as you explicitly posited) earlier, what if you abort the sale, and he now decides to burglarize your home for your firearms? It was you who suggested the possibility, after all, so I don't see why you are now saying it is no big deal simply because you wouldn't abort the sale.
Whether you meet at an FFL, or just some convenient neutral ground, I really don't care. For that matter, I really don't care if you invite potential burglars and assailants into your home. It's your home, your stuff, your risk.
But I think it is unwise. I would opt for an FFL's location, if concerned about the buyer; I would opt for a gun shop parking lot or similar, if I weren't concerned but did not know the guy. (And I have done exactly that with a guy who worked for another department within a large command; I didn't know the guy, but I did know from the method through which he contacted me that he held at least a Secret clearance, so I was comfortable that he was not prohibited. Still, why invite an unknown to my home? We met in a gun shop parking lot.)
I just think it is stupid, because you don't know who you are inviting to your home; you are telling that person "This is where I keep guns."
As you implied (correction, as you explicitly posited) earlier, what if you abort the sale, and he now decides to burglarize your home for your firearms? It was you who suggested the possibility, after all, so I don't see why you are now saying it is no big deal simply because you wouldn't abort the sale.
Whether you meet at an FFL, or just some convenient neutral ground, I really don't care. For that matter, I really don't care if you invite potential burglars and assailants into your home. It's your home, your stuff, your risk.
But I think it is unwise. I would opt for an FFL's location, if concerned about the buyer; I would opt for a gun shop parking lot or similar, if I weren't concerned but did not know the guy. (And I have done exactly that with a guy who worked for another department within a large command; I didn't know the guy, but I did know from the method through which he contacted me that he held at least a Secret clearance, so I was comfortable that he was not prohibited. Still, why invite an unknown to my home? We met in a gun shop parking lot.)
Therefore, why should the burden of even more restrictive/new laws be carried and observed solely by law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong morally or legally?
If that's the case and they did nothing wrong then they wouldn't have a problem.