View Full Version : Background checks.....how can they be unobtrusive?
I'll propose the following:
1) There is Due Process required for anything a denial can be based on. There is also an appeal process that is really quick, like within 30 days TOPS. The black hole known as the "No Fly" list comes to mind. A jilted ex cannot just say you're a threat (like Kali's new law) and BAM, you're indefinitely denied. A vet with PTSD, shy of having made overt threats previously, cannot be added to the list.
2) It is a simple Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down on the eligibility of the purchaser, and doesn't even mean you ended up buying the firearm, just that someone inquired. It also, and most importantly, will not contain ANY information about the firearm itself.
I keep hearing how the libs whine about "Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill". Well, okay. If we could do that it'd be enough, right? I'll bet #2 would be the fly in the ointment. I'd like to hear how they would spin an argument against what I just proposed if indeed they just want guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. I suspect it is something far more insidious that they truly desire.......
BCs are unconstitutional. The exercise of natural, God-given rights does not require permission from the state.
Those who favor any sort of BC on the exercise of the 2A are antithetical to liberty, and have no place in this great nation.
A wise man once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-16, 10:31
Blah, Blah, Blah. All this noise about BGC and how many of the denied purchases are followed up and prosecuted????
They insist on having this tool, and then let it rust in the corner.
The problem is their incrementalism. They will get what they can take and then push it back further. BGCs, universal BGCs, then waiting periods, then sign offs from your Obamacare doc. (Already happening in Honolulu).
All this for law abiding citizens (for the time being).
BCs are unconstitutional. The exercise of natural, God-given rights does not require permission from the state.
I don't disagree. Just thought I'd bring to light that if the above was offered it wouldn't be accepted, because their whole "I just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nutjobs" is BS. They want to know who has what. That is their priority, the rest is just a cover for getting there.
Blah, Blah, Blah. All this noise about BGC and how many of the denied purchases are followed up and prosecuted????
They insist on having this tool, and then let it rust in the corner.
The problem is their incrementalism. They will get what they can take and then push it back further. BGCs, universal BGCs, then waiting periods, then sign offs from your Obamacare doc. (Already happening in Honolulu).
All this for law abiding citizens (for the time being).
A tiny fraction. That is because they aren't interested in the denial itself, but instead who is buying what.
How did they do it before 1934?
I don't disagree. Just thought I'd bring to light that if the above was offered it wouldn't be accepted, because their whole "I just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nutjobs" is BS. They want to know who has what. That is their priority, the rest is just a cover for getting there.
Registration is what they want, right before confiscation of all semis. They're scum, and they deserve to be hanged.
Averageman
01-11-16, 10:37
I'll propose the following:
1) There is Due Process required for anything a denial can be based on. There is also an appeal process that is really quick, like within 30 days TOPS. The black hole known as the "No Fly" list comes to mind. A jilted ex cannot just say you're a threat (like Kali's new law) and BAM, you're indefinitely denied. A vet with PTSD, shy of having made overt threats previously, cannot be added to the list.
2) It is a simple Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down on the eligibility of the purchaser, and doesn't even mean you ended up buying the firearm, just that someone inquired. It also, and most importantly, will not contain ANY information about the firearm itself.
I keep hearing how the libs whine about "Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill". Well, okay. If we could do that it'd be enough, right? I'll bet #2 would be the fly in the ointment. I'd like to hear how they would spin an argument against what I just proposed if indeed they just want guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. I suspect it is something far more insidious that they truly desire.......
I'm not saying your idea is wrong, it simply doesn't fit the agenda for the Progressives.
I really don't think Liberals truly have what it takes to keep guns out of the hands of Criminals.
If you did an overlay of strict gun laws on top of an overlay of Gun Crimes, on top of an overlay of the strongest Democrat constituencies you might find that you will find an epicenter of where these things converge.
The idea of going in and actually taking the laws on the books and enforcing them to the point of maximum sentences is abhorrent to them. I honestly think it would directly gut the lives of their voting base.
It's simply much easier and more effective to go after people outside their voting base to remove guns from the United States.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-16, 10:38
A tiny fraction. That is because they aren't interested in the denial itself, but instead who is buying what.
I applaud your effort to try to make BGC rational, but the issue isn't rational because the Progressives are lying about the real intent of the system: Registration. You can't ban what isn't registered.
Registration is what they want, right before confiscation of all semis. They're scum, and they deserve to be hanged.
Yep, yep, and yep respectively!
I applaud your effort to try to make BGC rational, but the issue isn't rational because the Progressives are lying about the real intent of the system: Registration. You can't ban what isn't registered.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Let's say some politician offered a bill written just like I put it in the OP. That should address their heart-wrenching concerns, right? I'd wager they'd come up with some cockimamy reason why the gun's information was needed. I'd like to hear how they'd spin it. Rejecting something like in the OP they would show their true colors to the uneducated. Yeah, WE get it, but not everyone does. You cannot make a coherent argument for not accepting the above if your only concern is keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands.
If they want NICS to be "universal", they should open NICS up to anyone, not just FFL holders. That being said, a person should be able to review NICS checks made on them.
If they want NICS to be "universal", they should open NICS up to anyone, not just FFL holders. That being said, a person should be able to review NICS checks made on them.
Yep. If NICS was available to me, I'd use it when making private sales. I damn sure don't want it mandatory though....
If they want NICS to be "universal", they should open NICS up to anyone, not just FFL holders. That being said, a person should be able to review NICS checks made on them.
Absolutely, on both counts. An "inquiry" (as I'll call it) would not indicate a purchase or private transfer had been made, merely that someone had gotten cleared to get a gun if they decided to. "They" could come to you and say "Where is the gun you bought the day you got this clearance?" "I thought I was going to get a gun but decided not to, didn't want to spend the money". That is why they'd NEVER accept my proposal as there is no "trail" to follow.
daddyusmaximus
01-11-16, 11:48
I propose the following as a universal and "common sense" BGC.
Are you an American citizen?
If "yes"... you can buy the gun.
If "no"... f*** off.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-16, 12:13
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Let's say some politician offered a bill written just like I put it in the OP. That should address their heart-wrenching concerns, right? I'd wager they'd come up with some cockimamy reason why the gun's information was needed. I'd like to hear how they'd spin it. Rejecting something like in the OP they would show their true colors to the uneducated. Yeah, WE get it, but not everyone does. You cannot make a coherent argument for not accepting the above if your only concern is keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands.
No, they will take anything they can get and then come back the next day for more. Ourside tries to do these Hail Mary "machine guns for all" type laws and if we don't get everything anyone wants, then we call it a compromise.
The flip side is, what do we get for it? We always whittle away our rights and get nothing back. And you can be damn sure that if we do get something, that it will be demonized and be the next thing that is attacked. Then we compromise to keep what we have and they get something new.
I find it hard to think of what would make UBCs palatable to me, but unfetterred CCW nationally is about the only thing that comes to mind- bars, schools, churches, govt buildings. If we are going to submit that we are good guys and as clean as LEOs, then why wouldn't we be allowed the same rights...
The EU had somethign like that. My buddy in Italy says that a handgun license there is basically a right to carry. But as we saw after Paris, then they can just come after the guns anyways.
Suicides and gang violence are the real killers. All this other stuff is 'something', not the right thing.
Flankenstein
01-11-16, 16:51
BCs are unconstitutional. The exercise of natural, God-given rights does not require permission from the state.
Those who favor any sort of BC on the exercise of the 2A are antithetical to liberty, and have no place in this great nation.
A wise man once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
Yes... Nothing more nothing less.
Flankenstein
01-11-16, 16:52
How did they do it before 1934?
Think you got your dates confused guy.
I've bought and sold guns between private parties for a long time. I've gifted guns to family and friends. None of these person to person transactions involved an FFL. It's not illegal in this State. Just because that Jug Eared Son of Satan in the White House issues some executive order that says I can't do what I've done in the past or plan to in the future, it's all hot air in my book. In other words, it's non-compliance.
They want to know who has what. That is their priority, the rest is just a cover for getting there.
And the only way to know who has what is registration, which almost always leads to confiscation.
platoonDaddy
01-11-16, 17:53
Now you have a wacko wanting BackGround checks on tactical gear. Shit just keeps on running down hill!
Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy Body Armor, Tactical Gear
Background checks would be required for anyone wanting to buy military-grade helmets, body armor, and other tactical gear, under a bill introduced by Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers.
http://www.nebraska.tv/story/30921141/bill-would-require-background-checks-to-buy-body-armor-tactical-gear
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-16, 18:03
Now you have a wacko wanting BackGround checks on tactical gear. Shit just keeps on running down hill!
Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy Body Armor, Tactical Gear
Background checks would be required for anyone wanting to buy military-grade helmets, body armor, and other tactical gear, under a bill introduced by Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers.
http://www.nebraska.tv/story/30921141/bill-would-require-background-checks-to-buy-body-armor-tactical-gear
Background check for lingerie to make sure you aren't a whore...
More points for that new police scoring system...
No. If a person cannot be trusted with a firearm, they cannot be trusted to live among society at large.
No. If a person cannot be trusted with a firearm, they cannot be trusted to live among society at large.
That's always been main argument against bg checks. If they're so dangerous they can't be trusted with a gun, then why are they roaming the streets
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
There is a fundamental flaw with the whole idea of background checks for anything, guns, armor, lingere... anything. They do nothing to stop criminal activity. Career criminals dont and wont be going to any FFL or individual who will ask them to pass a BGC. They get a stolen gun to do their thing as the guy in Philly did. BGC's dont even stop the complete outlier of crimes: the mass shooting. The only people who are affected by them are the law abiding willing to deal with them. I'd be willing to bet that if NICS went bye bye and dealers were left to sell guns to folks they wanted and turn away those they didn't want to sell to the crime rate wouldn't change much. BGC are nothing more than feel good political mumbo jumbo that do nothing, but get folks used to the idea that government can tell you what, where, when and how you do something. They are the ObamaCare of the gun world. They do nothing useful, except offer the government an excuse to try and do something more... to the law abiding. We dont need anymore laws. No more gun laws. No more drug laws. No more human trafficing laws. NO MORE. Address the root cause of the problem instead of chasing symptoms. Unfortunately that takes ball, something this country is seriously lacking.
Trying to think through the whole laws and regulations thing is a useless exercise in frustration, because logic doesn't apply in the cloud kookoo land known as politics.
BCs are unconstitutional. The exercise of natural, God-given rights does not require permission from the state.
Those who favor any sort of BC on the exercise of the 2A are antithetical to liberty, and have no place in this great nation.
A wise man once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
100% correct. It's not just the 2A. Even without the 2A, a free man has the right to keep and bear arms. It is innate and pre-existing to any written word of any man.
Blah, Blah, Blah. All this noise about BGC and how many of the denied purchases are followed up and prosecuted????
They insist on having this tool, and then let it rust in the corner.
The problem is their incrementalism. They will get what they can take and then push it back further. BGCs, universal BGCs, then waiting periods, then sign offs from your Obamacare doc. (Already happening in Honolulu).
All this for law abiding citizens (for the time being).
They let it rust for a reason. Because they aren't after criminals. Criminals are not a threat to them. Criminals are out to rob, rape and murder the general populace, who do not have personal bodyguards. Their concern is about law-abiding citizens who are the obstacle to their greed for material wealth and power.
Registration is what they want, right before confiscation of all semis. They're scum, and they deserve to be hanged.
This is 100% true. Never believe the outright lie that registration is not the direct prelude to confiscation.
I propose the following as a universal and "common sense" BGC.
Are you an American citizen?
If "yes"... you can buy the gun.
If "no"... f*** off.
Bingo.
Moose-Knuckle
01-12-16, 03:42
Now you have a wacko wanting BackGround checks on tactical gear. Shit just keeps on running down hill!
Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy Body Armor, Tactical Gear
Background checks would be required for anyone wanting to buy military-grade helmets, body armor, and other tactical gear, under a bill introduced by Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers.
http://www.nebraska.tv/story/30921141/bill-would-require-background-checks-to-buy-body-armor-tactical-gear
From the linked article.
The bill specifically mentions "tactical gear typically used by police special weapons and tactics teams."
The bill outlines four areas: military-grade helmets, body armor, night-vision eyewear or scopes, and high-capacity ammunition clips.
This is pretty telling right here when an elected official objects to law abiding citizens from owning non-firearm items, it's almost as if they want We the People dead in the water if a an internal conflict were to arise.
My dates weren't wrong.
Prior to 1934, you could buy a Thompson SMG at a hardware store or through a catalog. It was expressly marketed as a home defense weapon, especially if you had a ranch.
Then because we have a free country it becomes magically illegal because of bootleggers because someone else decided that you couldn't drink.
Then because some autistic assshole shoots some bullshit president, a Texan decides every gun has to be "sporting"; even though 99% of my stash is to kill your ass if you come at me. I have ONE legit deer rifle though I haven't hunted in 15 years and ONE PPC revolver.
Meanwhile all these pieces of shit just steal to get what they want. Even robbing some dumb ass whiteboy rookie or breaking into a take home vehicle.
They also don't get CCW permits. Yet you, the law abiding, must pay for a conditional "mother-may-I" form every so often. Sometimes $100 or close to it. For permission. Because of how free you are.
Just remember, someone you love will always be looked at like a square who has too much or a pretty white piece of ass that needs breaking in.
And the cops....buddy...I'm here to tell you. The cops now don't care. They are doing their level best not to be hemmed up in court or get attention. They'll do a bullshit, go nowhere report. The ones that DO care, get burned out and used up.
Dig on that.
BCs are unconstitutional. The exercise of natural, God-given rights does not require permission from the state.
Those who favor any sort of BC on the exercise of the 2A are antithetical to liberty, and have no place in this great nation.
A wise man once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
Huzzah... Huzzah... Huzzah...
Far too many folks are applying twisted logic in an effort to make negotiating their rights appear as simply "the cost of doing business".
My dates weren't wrong.
Prior to 1934, you could buy a Thompson SMG at a hardware store or through a catalog. It was expressly marketed as a home defense weapon, especially if you had a ranch.
Then because we have a free country it becomes magically illegal because of bootleggers because someone else decided that you couldn't drink.
Then because some autistic assshole shoots some bullshit president, a Texan decides every gun has to be "sporting"; even though 99% of my stash is to kill your ass if you come at me. I have ONE legit deer rifle though I haven't hunted in 15 years and ONE PPC revolver.
Meanwhile all these pieces of shit just steal to get what they want. Even robbing some dumb ass whiteboy rookie or breaking into a take home vehicle.
They also don't get CCW permits. Yet you, the law abiding, must pay for a conditional "mother-may-I" form every so often. Sometimes $100 or close to it. For permission. Because of how free you are.
Just remember, someone you love will always be looked at like a square who has too much or a pretty white piece of ass that needs breaking in.
And the cops....buddy...I'm here to tell you. The cops now don't care. They are doing their level best not to be hemmed up in court or get attention. They'll do a bullshit, go nowhere report. The ones that DO care, get burned out and used up.
Dig on that.
Just a Thompson?? I came across an advertisement once where you could order a Maxim back in the day. People had no idea what a Thompson was until the media got hold of the events that occurred on Feb 14 1929 (St. Valentine's Day Massacre) After that moment, and 7 men being killed is what sparked the NFA Act of 1934. Basically it was a direct result of how the media saw it and was able to twist it around so it fit into an agenda. If you look at the same event in a different light-the NFA Act was a direct result of the Volstead Act (Prohibition) which caused a huge influx of crime in the country.
It all comes down to these points-greed, lack of respect for a persons property, lack of respect for human life, and the court system not taking care of criminals properly. If these things were handled better, then I highly doubt there would be half the issues going on for which we see now.
Many of the old western towns (and researching it shows this too) that many towns had an early form of "gun control" due to cattle hands getting drunk and shooting up saloons, gambling houses, and dance halls. I can see both sides of why it was done but the point I'm trying to make is-Even with damn near everyone carrying a gun in the old west, how did anyone survive without background checks for a '73 Winchester (assault rifle for its time) or a Colt Peacemaker (Glock 19 of its time)?? What has changed since then to now other than technology? The whole issue is deeper than just BC's or mental issues, its a complete lack of respect and taking responsibility for ones actions.
There is a fundamental flaw with the whole idea of background checks for anything, guns, armor, lingere... anything. They do nothing to stop criminal activity. Career criminals dont and wont be going to any FFL or individual who will ask them to pass a BGC. They get a stolen gun to do their thing as the guy in Philly did. BGC's dont even stop the complete outlier of crimes: the mass shooting. The only people who are affected by them are the law abiding willing to deal with them. I'd be willing to bet that if NICS went bye bye and dealers were left to sell guns to folks they wanted and turn away those they didn't want to sell to the crime rate wouldn't change much. BGC are nothing more than feel good political mumbo jumbo that do nothing, but get folks used to the idea that government can tell you what, where, when and how you do something. They are the ObamaCare of the gun world. They do nothing useful, except offer the government an excuse to try and do something more... to the law abiding. We dont need anymore laws. No more gun laws. No more drug laws. No more human trafficing laws. NO MORE. Address the root cause of the problem instead of chasing symptoms. Unfortunately that takes ball, something this country is seriously lacking.
Trying to think through the whole laws and regulations thing is a useless exercise in frustration, because logic doesn't apply in the cloud kookoo land known as politics.
Yup....making it harder to get guns "legally" only makes it more profitable to get them illegally. They know bgcs do nothing to prevent crime, it is just a step along the path to taking guns away. "Universal" bgcs will do two very useful things for the leftists....they will be a de facto registration, and they turn millions of people into criminals.
Blah, Blah, Blah. All this noise about BGC and how many of the denied purchases are followed up and prosecuted????
They insist on having this tool, and then let it rust in the corner.
The problem is their incrementalism. They will get what they can take and then push it back further. BGCs, universal BGCs, then waiting periods, then sign offs from your Obamacare doc. (Already happening in Honolulu).
All this for law abiding citizens (for the time being).
You need a doctor to sign off before buying a gun in Honolulu!
You need a doctor to sign off before buying a gun in Honolulu!
And now we have the debacle in WA state, where they want police inspections of homes.
Averageman
01-12-16, 09:00
Many of the old western towns (and researching it shows this too) that many towns had an early form of "gun control" due to cattle hands getting drunk and shooting up saloons, gambling houses, and dance halls. I can see both sides of why it was done but the point I'm trying to make is-Even with damn near everyone carrying a gun in the old west, how did anyone survive without background checks for a '73 Winchester (assault rifle for its time) or a Colt Peacemaker (Glock 19 of its time)?? What has changed since then to now other than technology? The whole issue is deeper than just BC's or mental issues, its a complete lack of respect and taking responsibility for ones actions.
I'm pretty sure you would agree that 100+ years ago we had many more people walking around with mental health issues than we do now (No doubt sealing cans with lead might have given people a few mental health issues) and now we have ways of treating them with medicines etc. that we didn't then.
Having discussed this with some folks who have lived on or near the old Chisholm Trail, it wasn't so much the guns as the alcohol. Guns being carried was and everyday necessity, Whiskey being sold in the City Limits wasn't. So the town I live in, a major trail and later railroad hub, just became "dry" within the City Limits and stayed that way for nearly 75 years. You still wont find a Bar here in town, but recently they have allowed restaurants to sell alcohol.
If you look at that closer you might consider it wasn't the guns, it was the alcohol. Everyone pretty much knew if you shot the Deputy, you were going to hang (and this was the incident that started the alcohol prohibition here) but until your inhibitions were reduced by whiskey, you would more than likely behave and not start shooting LEO's willy nilly.
I would guess what people really needed was the occasional reminder that if you got way out of line you were going to pay for it with your life. Having public hangings reinforced that reality.
Now if you are willing to consider that as fact then what we really need is swift no BS justice in a public forum to reinforce the rules. Yes, everyone deserves their day in court, but consider the guy who shot at the Cop in Philly the other day, perhaps if he was hung publically someone might "get it" and decide these folks are F'ing around anymore.
Background checks aren't going to do that for people. Giving the criminal a 3 year trial and then carting him off to Huntsville and giving him the needle 20 years later wont either.
I'm thinking some sure and swift public justice might.
I agree with you on those points!!! Cities like Dodge City it was easier to not allow the carrying of a firearm as to make the city dry would have been bad for the economy of the town.
Making people aware of what would happen to them if they committed a murder (and proven as such) would denture what we have today. I do wonder what the murder rate was back then compared to now. The other side of the mental health thing is that many like to jump on that band wagon as an excuse for their actions instead of owning up to them. I'm not saying there isn't a problem but if you look at how many claim "reason of insanity" as a defense it gets old quick.
I spent at least a day yesterday of FB Trolling a liberal about this stuff. She had no clue, and when I pressed her on what specific recommendations she'd make, and what would be next with the ones just made have no effect, she could not/would not come out and say "confiscation". It was pitiful. Of course, didn't change her mind, got insulted and called names although I never lost my temper...still anyone reading the thread could see she totally lost the argument. Sometimes I realllllly like to troll the libs :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.