background checks

[Dragonfly]

ID for proper age. Period.

Age????

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment making any mention of age.


What's the "proper age"?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Age????

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment making any mention of age.


What's the "proper age"?

18 years old. But you are right, nothing in the 2A about it. But minors do not share the same rights as you and me.

 

[CRUE CAB]

One rifle, two shotguns, three pistols.

Why?

Because its usually the people with no guns that dont care about how much infringement there is.

 

[Dragonfly]

Because its usually the people with no guns that dont care about how much infringement there is.

You base this assumption on what exactly?
Gut feeling?

So you equate buying a gun, any gun, to having the same social, moral, and/or ethical status as buying pornography or tobacco products basically.


A background check does NOT infringe anything unless the background check reveals you've been prohibited from buying said weapon.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You base this assumption on what exactly?
Gut feeling?

So you equate buying a gun, any gun, to having the same social, moral, and/or ethical status as buying pornography or tobacco products basically.


A background check does NOT infringe anything unless the background check reveals you've been prohibited from buying said weapon.

You dont have rights to porn and booze, you do to firearms.
Dont try muddying the waters.
And who is in jail right now of the thousands that didnt pass muster on the background checks?

 

[blackjack50]

Depends on the background check. I am ok with background checks from dealers. I am not ok with private sale.

 

[blackjack50]

You base this assumption on what exactly?
Gut feeling?

So you equate buying a gun, any gun, to having the same social, moral, and/or ethical status as buying pornography or tobacco products basically.


A background check does NOT infringe anything unless the background check reveals you've been prohibited from buying said weapon.

I'm curious. Beyond licensed dealers...what is the plan on enforcing private sale background checks?

 

[Dragonfly]

I'm curious. Beyond licensed dealers...what is the plan on enforcing private sale background checks?

Title of thread is: Background checks.

Entire op:

I think they are unfair personally.

Is there some hidden association with a ridiculous notion like the above, and assuming the entire topic is about a private sale between two private citizens?

If that's the intent of the thread please let me know.

Otherwise I have to assume the OP is talking about all background checks, everywhere in the USofA, all the time.

There's obviously no way to prevent Joe down the street from selling his rifle to his next door neighbor Steve.
There's no way to prevent my brother-in-law from just giving me a gun either.

There's also no way of preventing me from buying marijuana and then paying for sex with a hooker.... until I get caught that is.

What's your point?

People bent on breaking laws will break laws. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law.

If I know I might be held partially responsible for somebody elses crimes while using a gun I sold them, I probably won't sell/give one of my guns to somebody in an illegal manner.

You can't reasonably suggest that selling a gun to somebody should be no different than selling a Playboy magazine to them.

You can suggest it, but that just makes you look like a fool.

Would you trust anyone to babysit your 4 year old daughter?
For the same reason you wouldn't allow a total stranger to babysit your child you can't just assume every person who wants to buy a gun is an innocent, honest, and upstanding member of the community.

 

[blackjack50]

Title of thread is: Background checks.

Entire op:



Is there some hidden association with a ridiculous notion like the above, and assuming the entire topic is about a private sale between two private citizens?

If that's the intent of the thread please let me know.

Otherwise I have to assume the OP is talking about all background checks, everywhere in the USofA, all the time.

There's obviously no way to prevent Joe down the street from selling his rifle to his next door neighbor Steve.
There's no way to prevent my brother-in-law from just giving me a gun either.

There's also no way of preventing me from buying marijuana and then paying for sex with a hooker.... until I get caught that is.

What's your point?

People bent on breaking laws will break laws. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law.

If I know I might be held partially responsible for somebody elses crimes while using a gun I sold them, I probably won't sell/give one of my guns to somebody in an illegal manner.

You can't reasonably suggest that selling a gun to somebody should be no different than selling a Playboy magazine to them.

You can suggest it, but that just makes you look like a fool.

Would you trust anyone to babysit your 4 year old daughter?
For the same reason you wouldn't allow a total stranger to babysit your child you can't just assume every person who wants to buy a gun is an innocent, honest, and upstanding member of the community.

Ok. So we have established that you think the law should exist for all purchases then? I made a bit of an assumption, but given your response it seems I was accurate? Anyway.

This idea of "being held responsible" as the seller is hilarious. The idea that I can be held responsible is based upon an assumption that there is some way to know that I was ever an owner of said firearm used in a crime. There is no database. At best you have sales receipts from manufacturer to store to me. That isn't a database though. The serial number has to be known to track that. If you don't have the gun...good luck. You gotta go off ballistics. Again. Good luck.

Reality is there are millions of firearms floating around in a sea of unknowns. They have literally been bought and sold so many times that there are no records and literally the only way to know I owned the gun is to have seen me with it. Then this thing called proof is needed.

So. That leaves the concept of "private sale" background checks DOA unless there is a database. I am opposed to databases. So. Basically the idea is to create a restrictive law that cannot be enforced unless I personally choose to abide by it? That doesn't strike you as...ya know...ethically wrong? Unless of course you plan to spend law enforcement time and resources on it. You could...but it would look like the pot trade...a gigantic waste of time because you can't tag everyone and there will always be a way around the law.

It all comes down to control and exercising it on law abiding citizens like me. It is unethical to create a law that hassles me when I have done nothing.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I'm curious. Beyond licensed dealers...what is the plan on enforcing private sale background checks?

Fear factor. Use your gun in a defensive situation and it was last "registered" to someone else. And you just happend to have bought that from someone else on the spur of the moment and just traded gun for cash.
You is now a criminal.
Have your car towed, the tow company inventories. Gun get called into the local cop shop. You just got if from a buddy. You is a criminal.

 

[Buck Ewer]

The government has no right to interfere in private transactions between a citizen and the selling of his personal merchandise.

You have never sold a car have you.

 

[Texmex]

You have never sold a car have you.

I am talking about what should be, not what is.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You have never sold a car have you.

Bought lots of cars that I never titled in my name.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You dont have rights to porn and booze, you do to firearms.
Dont try muddying the waters.
And who is in jail right now of the thousands that didnt pass muster on the background checks?

I love asking a question that goes totally ignored because it dont fit the agenda. Or the answer will out them as what they really think.

 

[AGENT J]

hmmm

i also feel it doesnt do much because the vast majority of guns used in crimes are illegal obtained or illegal guns but at the same time i like the idea that at least the criminals have to do something illegal to get them so i dont mind them at all and want them. This opinion is based on my own experience with getting my gun of course, nearly a decade ago it was free and it took about 10-15mins. I would GUESS today it is even faster. As long as this is the process im ok with it.

 

[CRUE CAB]

hmmm

i also feel it doesnt do much because the vast majority of guns used in crimes are illegal obtained or illegal guns but at the same time i like the idea that at least the criminals have to do something illegal to get them so i dont mind them at all and want them. This opinion is based on my own experience with getting my gun of course, nearly a decade ago it was free and it took about 10-15mins. I would GUESS today it is even faster. As long as this is the process im ok with it.

Its not free, its an infringement. And there are almost no follow ups to people that dont get approved. Its a waste of time and money.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Its not free
2.) its an infringement.
3.) And there are almost no follow ups to people that dont get approved.
4.) Its a waste of time and money.

1.) mine was free
2.) debatable but i would totally oppose it if there was a fee
3.) ??? i have no clue why there needs to be "follow ups" unless the background checks shows the person is a WANTED felon
4.) you are free to have that opinion, my opinion disagrees

 

[ttwtt78640]

You base this assumption on what exactly?
Gut feeling?

So you equate buying a gun, any gun, to having the same social, moral, and/or ethical status as buying pornography or tobacco products basically.


A background check does NOT infringe anything unless the background check reveals you've been prohibited from buying said weapon.

Without follow up enforcement it simply alerts you to the need of your getting a gun using an alternate source.

 

[CRUE CAB]

1.) mine was free
2.) debatable but i would totally oppose it if there was a fee
3.) ??? i have no clue why there needs to be "follow ups" unless the background checks shows the person is a WANTED felon
4.) you are free to have that opinion, my opinion disagrees

People are turned down for a few reasons, but being a felon is the top one and there is no follow up by local law enforcement to find out why felons are out trying to buy guns.

 

[AGENT J]

People are turned down for a few reasons, but being a felon is the top one and there is no follow up by local law enforcement to find out why felons are out trying to buy guns.

not sure i care about that too much considering all the ways to become a felon also id wonder how often this happens and if it does id "guess" the main reason is they dont know they cant get a gun because they are a felon, so again not sure id worry about it

but i do find it odd that now where in the US is this followed up on or is it required . . .interesting

 

[Dragonfly]

A small inconvenience does not equal infringement.

A stop light does not infringe upon you getting to your destination.

 

[CRUE CAB]

A small inconvenience does not equal infringement.

A stop light does not infringe upon you getting to your destination.

No, lets just have cars crashing into each other all day at every intersection.
You have no right to drive. You have a right to own a gun.

 

[Black Dog]

A small inconvenience does not equal infringement.

A stop light does not infringe upon you getting to your destination.

Driving is a privilege granted by the state, not a right.

 

[blackjack50]

A small inconvenience does not equal infringement.

A stop light does not infringe upon you getting to your destination.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/infringe

By the very definition of the word infringe...any inconvenience is an infringement. That isn't to say that I disagree with things like age restrictions and such though. But the very premise of your statement is wrong.

On top of that driving is not comparable to having a gun. One is a right, the other a privilege. One is also far deadlier than the other (the car if you didn't know). Then. Apples and oranges friend.

Consider if you had to get background checks or get a license to practice your own religion. Would you consider that a violation of your constitutional right to free religion? If you would not accept limitation on any other constitutional Right...why are you willing to sacrifice freedom for your "safety?"

 

[corlini]

What about background checks for mental illness?