I would agree to any background check...

[nick1980]

time to bust out the tinfoil out!

 

[rodell]

I personally don't care if WAC requires a background check to be a member. It's their organization, their rules. They have as much right to do that as anything/anyone else. If their members want to change it, they can vote accordingly.

On another topic, the sharing of health information is a violation of HIPAA. Federal statutes trump state law. We need to watch for a modification to HIPAA tacked on to some other innocuous bill.

The linking of SSRI's to widespread violence is not supported by real research. For those who aren't in the field, there are dozens of other anti-depressants that were around before SSRI's. Tricyclics have been around for at least 40 years. Don't believe the sound bites. ANY medication/drug has side effects, and they are different on many people. Certainly anti-depressants CAN enhance irregular thoughts. So can alcohol (a depressant). Let's not condemn the millions of people who take one of these drugs for some reason or other to a life without their firearms.

It's a very slippery slope. Should people with tremor or arthritis be denied because their finger MIGHT shake on the trigger and introduce a loss of control? I think not.

 

[speeddemon94]

I guarantee that the records of sales are not destroyed as required by federal law. All it would take is one ATF conspirator with a large hard drive in his basement

You used to be able to go back to the store after a certain period of time and ask for the paperwork so that you could destroy it. Try it now...they tell you that they MUST retain the records. If you filled out a 4473, the firearm is registered, particularly if you did so in the last 10 years, would be my guess.

 

[beavertonbuck]

My 2-cents.
A background, as what is in place today or being proposed for tomorrow only really does two things, if it were to work perfectly:

1) Makes one avenue of obtaining a firearm unattractive to criminals. It still has two other sources to deal with; stealing and black-market.
2) Has the potential of denying a firearm to someone contemplating suicide (the biggest death statistic involving guns). Caveat is that records are being provided properly (which in to many states, it is not). Yes, I know that it wont stop all 20,000 each year. But I do think proper health records would help, since I think a good portion of the population wouldn't know where to steal/black-market without an extra amount of effort.

Where the gun-control lobby's have their marshmallow rainbows and unicorns, I have my vision above.

Personally. if the mental records were more available, and it keeps the criminals away from stores and gun-shows, I'd be ok with that and a general background check that does NOT contain a list of what I am buying. Just that it is OK for me to buy that category of product. It might help the police/doctors focus more on were the real problems are. If we did have to keep records, let the private citizens keep them.

The real problem is one of trust. I don't trust the gun-control lobby and their ultimate goal. I don't trust that there are more good-guys than government power-mongers.

1) Not sure how a background check makes obtaining a firearm less attractive to criminals. Studies have shown that criminals get their firearms illegally (DUH!) by using straw purchases, stealing and illegal street buys. Anyone, individual or FFL, that would sell a firearm to someone they thought or knew was a prohibited person isn't going to be affected by this law because they have shown they don't care who is going to get their gun.

2) This is the same fallacy that gun control advocates make when they talk about murders committed by firearms. If every mentally ill person was effectively barred from owning a gun they would still commit suicide. Because suck starting a shotgun isn't the only way to kill yourself. I would also point to societies such as Japan where civilian gun ownership is effectively nil yet they have some of the highest suicide rates in the world. But aside from the statistical data you have to understand that most mentally ill people aren't under the care of a physican and there is not records for which gun ownership is going to exist. The pendulum can also swing in the other direction. It might be one thing to preclude an individual with suicidal and homicidal thoughts from owning guns after he has been declared mentally incompetent by a court, but what about the gun owner that goes to the doctor and complains of being depressed. Are they stripped of their rights.

 

[dcghostrider]

Just the foot in the door that we intelligent individuals know is all about control not safety.

I just love the fact that this country and it's values are going to hell in a hand basket and of course not to mention this tiny NK nuke problem and this is what our glorious Government is most concerned with?

Side note:

It was about a year ago when I was having a great conversation with an older war Veteran and his buddy about he and his wife being happy about old age because they won't be around long enough to not see the complete collapse of America, what sad state of affairs.

Vaultman,

There was a time not to long ago for a few weeks after all the shootings I really pondered the idea of BK checks.

I am going to stick with the simple clear statement.
" Constitutional rights should not and can not have conditions added "
I am trying to think how to clarify it for you.

Ok lets say you tell your 10 year old in the many teachings we all do as parents.
We tell them never feed the dog chocolate. We know it will make them sick. That is a stern house law to our kids and we do not budge because of safety.
Now the neighbors kid comes over, and says hey. Let feed the dog chocolate and make him do tricks.
They give the dog chocolate and they dog does tricks. Chocolate contain theobromine and is toxic to dog.
They see no immediate affect and give him more. They dog does more tricks. Seems ok to me, the neighbor leaves and goes home.

The Dog goes into Cardiac arrest that night an at age 12 the dog dies while it was vomiting and having diarrhea all over your living room rug. The neighbor is no where to be seen, and you are stuck with the mess to clean up that other made because of ignorance.

Moral of the story is, even if it looks sweet, and may seem to taste good, does not mean it can not kill you.
Background checks equal nothing more then a violation of my 2nd amendment.

Hope this helps.

 

[ThePhonMan]

I say we take a page from the opposition's playbook and instead of wearing foil hats we start giving them to others.

Let's start making up quotes from the deluded folks in congress stating that, "...once the Dems retake the house and expand their majority in the Senate after the 2014 election, the move for a total ban on private firearms ownership will be introduced to protect the children once and for all...". We'll just keep repeating it, like the politicians do, and people will eventually think it's the truth.

Once the public seems to think the quotes are true, the next step is to get some chuckle-head like Patty Murray or Jim McDermott to push for a repeal of the 2nd amendment "...since it's obvious that public opinion strongly supports their anti-gun efforts..."

Let's not forget the Dianne Feinstein interview in 1995 where she stated something akin to, "..I would have pushed for an all out ban on personal firearms ownership and subsequent confiscation if I thought we had the votes to pass it. The timing just wasn't right..."

If this approach was executed correctly, we might be able end the "guns are bad and private citizen's shouldn't have them" debate for at least a generation. Now that would be hope and change I could really get behind!

 

[Burt Gummer]

... happy about old age because they won't be around long enough to not see the complete collapse of America, what sad state of affairs.

That is what I am hoping for also. Unfortunately, even though the economic collapse and plunge into tyranny is coming like a freight train our owners seem to be satisfied with the slow death of America.

So I may not be 'old enough' to slip by.

Clubbing a rat for food or living the high life like a Zimbabwean (haha, basket on head) could very well be in my future, it could go either way. At this point, I'd put the odds at 50/50. Death inside the debt/matrix bubble (yeah!) with an 80" LED TV and tulip garden or reality and the two leather chairs, recently deceased rat, fork and knife. LOL.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

There's always ratatatooie !

 

[1970camaroRS]

Instead of any enhanced background check crap,the govt. should simply put in place a registry of people that have a prescription for psych-drugs.Would just be included in the normal gun check we have now.

Where do you draw the line of what drugs you take = you're on the no-no list. Designer anti-depressants? Anti-anxiety pills? Bi-polar meds? Who decides who reports these people and breaks HIPPA laws?

That puts a LOT of otherwise normal and non-violent people on the list.

Me included and probably more than 50% of the people on this forum.

 

[new2coos]

Where do you draw the line of what drugs you take = you're on the no-no list. Designer anti-depressants? Anti-anxiety pills? Bi-polar meds? Who decides who reports these people and breaks HIPPA laws?

That puts a LOT of otherwise normal and non-violent people on the list.

Me included and probably more than 50% of the people on this forum.

what if your son or daughter has a mental illness? will you be relieved of your rights, forced to have your safe inspected...

 

[hermannr]

I would agree to any background check to purchase any firearm. Shoot, even a knife. If it was a background check, period. This is not the fight I think we should be in.

The good fight (imho) is any sort of a registry. Background check to purchase should be fine, but there should be NO mention of make, model or serial number in this "Background Check." But what the liberals are trying to do is get a registry and they are calling it a background check. We must fight this so-called background check, that is really a registry in disguise.
I am a conservative and stay pretty strong to the right. But let the government know who is trying to purchase a gun, but they should not be allowed to know what the make and model are, and should not be allowed to know if the transaction went through. Would you be ok with getting a background check prior to deciding if you want to purchase? I think that way anyone could get a 'check' whether or not they buy. I know there are probably technicalities that may not work, but overall I think this is the thing that we should propose. Say I am looking at a rifle at the pawn shop, and I agree to the background check. It passes, and then I decide that I want a shotgun too. No further background check, just the one. That is how it should be.

Again all this is just my opinion. But I think that is "Common Sense", as the President likes to put it. But as soon as there is a registry, that is too much.

You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

A BG check will do absolutely nothing good. The people that can pass a BG check will pay extra for the "privilage" of purchasing their firearms, and the people that cannot pass a BG Check will do what they already do...buy one on the street, steal it, have their mother/brother/friend purchase it for them..etc.

Then there is the real problem...that is when you have a BC Check, you essentialy will have de facto registration so when the "government" wants to eliminate opposition, all they have to do is go round up the weapons.

Anything that will increase the cost of ownership will disproportionately impact the poor, and like full auto weapons, only the wealthy and in favor will be able to afford to protect themselves, from the bad guy thugs, or the government thugs.

Obama doesn't care about your right to protect yourself or your family...he has a SS detail to do that for him, and for life agin no less. I may listen a bit to Obama and Bloomers when they give up their armed guards.

 

[Father of four]

Background checks equal nothing more then a violation of my 2nd amendment.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The Trojan Horse within our ranks is indeed the greatest threat

 

[unklekippy]

We need to go to work to roll it all back to pre-1934. Seriously.

No ATF, no IRS.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

No more background checks at all, and far stiffer penalties for those who break the law.

I have one more purchase to make through a dealer later this week, and then I will never do it again. You do what you must to get what you need, or want. After the end of this week though, I will be private sale only and no paperwork. I will never assist these would be "rulers" with the creation of even one scrap of paper that could possibly help in the eventual tracking and confiscation of a firearm.

I'm done with the games.

I've never been more proud of a stranger's quote. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[speeddemon94]

Well, thank you, but i really do believe that is the direction we should be headed in. It really makes me want to run for office just so I can put up a bill to repeal all of the infringements, every single session.

 

[shooter58]

Make no mistake. It is a law aimed at you and me, not the criminals. Criminals steal guns or buy stolen guns. No background checks there. Be careful what you agree to just because you think you can live with it. I can't support anything that doesn't deter crime and violence. This law does none of that. Please don't be fooled.

 

[shooter58]

If our representatives truly were watching out for us then they would be reviewing the hundreds of existing regulations to identify and repeal the ones that do nothing to impact crime but only restrict good people. That fact that none of that goes on, ever! should make the current situation crystal clear as to the intent.

 

[Father of four]

Great post, shooter58!!!

 

[Rotty]

If all this was really about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals in an effective manner, few of us would oppose it. It's not. Heck, if it were truly about reducing negligent deaths, we wouldn't have an issue with a regularly renewed gun license that requires a competency test, much like our drivers license. Sadly, it's not.

But just for a moment, think about what a wonderful world it would be to live in if we could truly trust in systems like that. Imagine a world so devoid of gungrabbers that we could start using programs that would require gun safety competency. Of course, in a world with people that sensible, we probably wouldn't need any sort of safety courses in the first place.

Wish in one hand and Shyte in the other. See which one will fill up faster!

 

[Vaultman]

I completely understand what all of you are saying. I may not agree with all of it. And whoever mentioned the car registration and not being a constitutional right, I do agree, and I should not have used that as an example.

All I am really trying to say is: If it was a background check only, then I have no beef with it. But once serial number, make and/or model are involved it is registration, and the problem begins. Some on here say a BGC is basically registration. I do not completely agree. (Just because my background is checked does not mean I purchased or transferred. It just means my background was checked.)

We, gun owners collectively, (as law abiding and criminals) are in the spotlight at the moment. We need to do what we can to first get out of this negative spotlight, and second get some positive legislation passed in our favor. I guess in the very back of my mind I see BGC's without registration a possible way of getting us out of that spotlight.

I have days, where if I read my original post I would say things like "You are crazy" or "You are one of the left, or part of the problem". So I see where the criticism is coming from. But you don't know me. I am so far from the left usually I can barely see the middle.