I would agree to any background check...

[Profiteering]

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.

Pull your head out.:bsflag:

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I kind of like the idea of a "Passive Background Check." I think that a good place to do this is on a credit report. Everyone would have a yes (default to yes) unless the NICS reported a NO to the credit agencies. The automatic yes shields law abiding citizens by including all those who don't own guns or even want to. If you sold a firearm you would be able to check out the buyer (a good idea, even if it were not a legal requirement) to make sure they were not prohibited by the NICS or out-of-state with a phony driver's license. I think many of us would do this for sales that didn't require a background check just for peace of mind.

The best thing about this is that you could keep a record of the check to prove that you were responsible in making the sale, but it doesn't infringe on the purchaser any more than ordinary transactions. A credit check wouldn't show a link to a firearm for either buyer or seller, and many businesses could conduct the check if the seller did not have access to the credit agencies.

All these are good reasons the government doesn't want the checks done this way.

I probably have a 300 credit score since I've never owned a CC. What I do have is hard assets and net worth. I pay cash

 

[Provincial]

I probably have a 300 credit score since I've never owned a CC. What I do have is hard assets and net worth. I pay cash

The credit report is only the way to post yes or no to the question of "legal to buy." In no way would the credit score be involved in that action. In other words, it is merely a place to post the information.

 

[speeddemon94]

Wow.


It would be used to prevent people from buying.

 

[Redcap]

I kind of like the idea of a "Passive Background Check." I think that a good place to do this is on a credit report. Everyone would have a yes (default to yes) unless the NICS reported a NO to the credit agencies. The automatic yes shields law abiding citizens by including all those who don't own guns or even want to. If you sold a firearm you would be able to check out the buyer (a good idea, even if it were not a legal requirement) to make sure they were not prohibited by the NICS or out-of-state with a phony driver's license. I think many of us would do this for sales that didn't require a background check just for peace of mind.

The best thing about this is that you could keep a record of the check to prove that you were responsible in making the sale, but it doesn't infringe on the purchaser any more than ordinary transactions. A credit check wouldn't show a link to a firearm for either buyer or seller, and many businesses could conduct the check if the seller did not have access to the credit agencies.

All these are good reasons the government doesn't want the checks done this way.

 

[jb11]

x2

 

[Netspirit]

I support background checks, and here's why.

This gun debate has to stop. I am sick and tired of this market, I want things to get back to normal. The left have practically lost it, but will keep the discussion going until somebody throws them a bone so that they could save face.

I would be strongly against a ban on "high capacity magazines", since I own a couple.
I would be against the "assault weapons ban" based on its sheer idiocy (but I am less emotional about that one as I do not own an AR yet).
Background checks is the most harmless thing I can think of. Even The National Registry cannot hurt me, since I can always "lose" whatever weapon the government knows about. I believe that this is the case for everyone - we can always "lose" things, can't we?

If this bill, which exempts family and friends (and contains no definition of friendship, I can sign a "Letter of Friendship" with anyone, or maybe a Facebook "friend" is all that is needed), passes and closes the anti-gun hysteria, I am all for it. Bring it on, "friends", and let's move on.

 

[zedcarpenter]

im not happy to do background checks just for a private sell or buy

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I support background checks, and here's why.

This gun debate has to stop. I am sick and tired of this market, I want things to get back to normal. The left have practically lost it, but will keep the discussion going until somebody throws them a bone so that they could save face.

I would be strongly against a ban on "high capacity magazines", since I own a couple.
I would be against the "assault weapons ban" based on its sheer idiocy (but I am less emotional about that one as I do not own an AR yet).
Background checks is the most harmless thing I can think of. Even The National Registry cannot hurt me, since I can always "lose" whatever weapon the government knows about. I believe that this is the case for everyone - we can always "lose" things, can't we?

If this bill, which exempts family and friends (and contains no definition of friendship, I can sign a "Letter of Friendship" with anyone, or maybe a Facebook "friend" is all that is needed), passes and closes the anti-gun hysteria, I am all for it. Bring it on, "friends", and let's move on.

Yep, let's sell out essential liberty to a bunch of traitors who will then just continue their attempts to totally disarm us. How naive

 

[Netspirit]

Yep, let's sell out essential liberty to a bunch of traitors who will then just continue their attempts to totally disarm us. How naive

I understand your concern.

But once we "stabilize the front", close the debate and get things back to normal, we can continue pushing for expansion of our rights. It does not have to be a one-way street where they only attack and we only defend. However, it is politically hard (almost impossible) to attack when the ongoing debate is linked to Newtown, CT - I want them to pass something bi-partisan and harmless (the proposed bill is a "paper tiger" - it is practically harmless as it contains holes big enough to push an elephant through, and has a lot of good, tasty stuff for gun owners) and call their job done, make the ignorant observers happy, turn the page and start over.

I hope you agree that the post-Newtown political climate was very unfavorable to gun owners and forced us to defend. This is where we lost, I think - unless we persuade the American public that mass-shootings cannot be fixed with "gun control", we will always be one mass-shooting away from another anti-gun onslaught.

 

[oknow]

I understand your concern.

But once we "stabilize the front", close the debate and get things back to normal, we can continue pushing for expansion of our rights. It does not have to be a one-way street where they only attack and we only defend. However, it is politically hard (almost impossible) to attack when the ongoing debate is linked to Newtown, CT - I want them to pass something bi-partisan and harmless (the proposed bill is a "paper tiger" - it is practically harmless as it contains holes big enough to push an elephant through, and has a lot of good, tasty stuff for gun owners) and call their job done, make the ignorant observers happy, turn the page and start over.

I hope you agree that the post-Newtown political climate was very unfavorable to gun owners and forced us to defend. This is where we lost, I think - unless we persuade the American public that mass-shootings cannot be fixed with "gun control", we will always be one mass-shooting away from another anti-gun onslaught.

then why not push the fact that there are already 40,000 gun laws on the books and they don't work so why would one more be any different. (definition of insanity in laymen terms is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results)

 

[jb11]

I support background checks, and here's why.

This gun debate has to stop. I am sick and tired of this market, I want things to get back to normal. The left have practically lost it, but will keep the discussion going until somebody throws them a bone so that they could save face.

I would be strongly against a ban on "high capacity magazines", since I own a couple.
I would be against the "assault weapons ban" based on its sheer idiocy (but I am less emotional about that one as I do not own an AR yet).
Background checks is the most harmless thing I can think of. Even The National Registry cannot hurt me, since I can always "lose" whatever weapon the government knows about. I believe that this is the case for everyone - we can always "lose" things, can't we?

If this bill, which exempts family and friends (and contains no definition of friendship, I can sign a "Letter of Friendship" with anyone, or maybe a Facebook "friend" is all that is needed), passes and closes the anti-gun hysteria, I am all for it. Bring it on, "friends", and let's move on.

OMFG YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Well I'm sorry that all of this gungrab BS is hindering your gun buying market.However I think your missing the big picture,If we give them anything then they will want more.Its good to know you dont care about AWB since you dont own an AR,thanks for your post and good luck,tell BLOOMBERG I SAID HELLO!

 

[Netspirit]

then why not push the fact that there are already 40,000 gun laws on the books and they don't work so why would one more be any different. (definition of insanity in laymen terms is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results)

Imagine you can have either:
- 40,000 gun laws that do not work, disappointed general population that was traumatized by Newtown, wanted something done, and may be receptive to accusations that the gun community is a bunch of selfish fetishists not willing to compromise, blah-blah
or
- 40,001 gun laws that do not work, general population satisfied with another "feel good" law, national reciprocity for concealed carry permits (this can change America if you think about consequences for a second), and Newtown debate wrapped up, allowing us to stop defending and return to neutral positions

Which would you choose?

 

[Netspirit]

Its good to know you dont care about AWB since you dont own an AR,thanks for your post and good luck,tell BLOOMBERG I SAID HELLO!

Dude, you just made it to my ignore list. Thanks for your emotions though.

 

[oknow]

Imagine you can have either:
- 40,000 gun laws that do not work, disappointed general population that was traumatized by Newtown, wanted something done, and may think that the gun community is a bunch of selfish fetishists
or
- 40,001 gun laws that do not work, general population satisfied with another "feel good" law, national reciprocity for concealed carry permits (this can change America if you think about consequences for a second), and Newtown debate wrapped up, allowing us to stop defending and return to neutral positions

Which would you choose?

what in the world makes you think it would not start again if another mass shooting happened?
they would say see it isn't working we have to ban guns to stop this from happening again!
nothing to chose from they are both worthless

 

[jb11]

Dude, you just made it to my ignore list. Thanks for your emotions though.

dont get butt hurt!!

 

[Netspirit]

what in the world makes you think it would not start again if another mass shooting happened?
they would say see it isn't working we have to ban guns to stop this from happening again!
nothing to chose from they are both worthless

I agree it is critical to educate the public about the "effectiveness" of "gun free zones", "gun control", otherwise this will come back.

But I want to talk to people who listen. When the nation is still in this "post-Newtown" context, it may not understand us. It is like being an innocent defendant in a criminal court - no matter how logical your words are, initially the jury sees you as someone who must have done something to get in trouble with law enforcement (despite "innocent until proven guilty" reminders from the judge).

I want to reset this environment, change the setting, and instead of being a defendant, become the plaintiff. I want to end this conversation in Congress with something reasonably fake (or, better yet, with something that helps gun owners), and start a different talk, not linked to any mass shooting, but linked to our rights and freedoms.

 

[Redcap]

Imagine you can have either:
- 40,000 gun laws that do not work, disappointed general population that was traumatized by Newtown, wanted something done, and may be receptive to accusations that the gun community is a bunch of selfish fetishists not willing to compromise, blah-blah
or
- 40,001 gun laws that do not work, general population satisfied with another "feel good" law, national reciprocity for concealed carry permits (this can change America if you think about consequences for a second), and Newtown debate wrapped up, allowing us to stop defending and return to neutral positions

Which would you choose?

The former, obviously. The last goddamn thing we need in this country is MORE laws.

 

[Dave Workman]

Imagine you can have either:
- 40,000 gun laws that do not work, disappointed general population that was traumatized by Newtown, wanted something done, and may be receptive to accusations that the gun community is a bunch of selfish fetishists not willing to compromise, blah-blah
or
- 40,001 gun laws that do not work, general population satisfied with another "feel good" law, national reciprocity for concealed carry permits (this can change America if you think about consequences for a second), and Newtown debate wrapped up, allowing us to stop defending and return to neutral positions

Which would you choose?

40,000 gun laws?
Anybody know where that figure comes from?

I've never been able to verify it, or the 20,000 gun laws.

 

[oknow]

I agree it is critical to educate the public about the "effectiveness" of "gun free zones", "gun control", otherwise this will come back.

But I want to talk to people who listen. When the nation is still in this "post-Newtown" context, it may not understand us. It is like being an innocent defendant in a criminal court - no matter how logical your words are, initially the jury sees you as someone who must have done something to get in trouble with law enforcement (despite "innocent until proven guilty" reminders from the judge).

I want to reset this environment, change the setting, and instead of being a defendant, become the plaintiff. I want to end this conversation in Congress with something reasonably fake (or, better yet, with something that helps gun owners), and start a different talk, not linked to any mass shooting, but linked to our rights and freedoms.

then you are preaching to the choir.


then trade 40,000 gun laws that don't work for talks about sending the criminals to jail for the entire sentence no plea bargaining which will stop 70% of the crimes committed by the 10%. that would be worth a compromising dialog