POLL: Background checks

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Dave Workman, Apr 30, 2013.

Would you support "universal background checks"?

Poll closed May 15, 2013.
  1. YES

    4 vote(s)
    2.8%
  2. YES, but only with certain exemptions/conditions

    13 vote(s)
    9.2%
  3. Not Sure

    16 vote(s)
    11.3%
  4. No

    109 vote(s)
    76.8%
  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman
    Western Washington
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Would you support or oppose "universal background checks?"

    Vote in the poll above: Here is an explanation of choices:

    YES

    YES, provided in exchange the state abolishes the pistol registry and record keeping is prohibited, and there are exemptions for CPL holders, transfers between family members, and loans to friends

    NO under any circumstances (please click on NOt sure: the poll screwed up)
     
  2. rpatton

    rpatton
    Graham WA
    Member

    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    23
    I didn't vote... it looks like a slick way to get a "90%" vote FOR background checks... just add the yes votes to the yes votes and leave out the part where most (my expectation) yes votes would be conditional.
     
  3. NWGlockgal

    NWGlockgal
    Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    2,695
    The only way I would vote yes is if:

    There is no registry, and no record keeping of who buys what.
    CHL would no longer be needed because anyone who passed a background check should be
    able to either conceal carry or open carry at any time and at any place. No regulations regarding
    size of mags, "assault rifles" etc. Complete reciprocity between states for all of the above.
     
  4. chainsaw

    chainsaw
    East side of Or.
    Active Member

    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    113
    I don`t think anybody should have to ask to exersize a right.
     
    Father of four, Bacchus, GOG and 5 others like this.
  5. Joe Link

    Joe Link
    Portland, OR
    Well-Known Member Staff Member Lifetime Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    6,670
    Likes Received:
    5,544
    Nope. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide we the people a means of defense against a tyrannical government. When that tyrannical government is the very entity who gets to decide who gets what and under which conditions the entire right ceases to exist.
     
  6. Kable

    Kable
    Lynnwood
    Active Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    171

    Exactly, and background checks equate to illegal search and seizure. Buying and selling a gun are legal activities and does not constitute as probable cause for a search. Court cases have already ruled that you cannot be detained by police or forced to show ID just because you were walking down the street with a gun (where open carry is legal) because it is not an illegal activity and just having a gun doesn't constitute as probable cause. Given that why would it be legal to have to show ID and have your record searched just to exercise a constitutional right. If we were to suggest everyone had to undergo a background check before they voted the left would be up in arms but it's the exact same thing. BTW I believe the court cases are Terry VS Ohio and US vs Deberry
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. bluesurf

    bluesurf
    Portland
    Active Member

    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    96
    Really!? The same way done now. Just like they don't keep any info now. "There is not enough computer space to store all that text data". LOL Right... ;)

    Why would you start a poll up like this here? I would think almost everyone on a pro-gun website is going to vote AGAINST any stricter gun laws.
     
  8. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman
    Western Washington
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Actually, that's not accurate. I posted this poll on about a half-dozen sites and there are some 'YES' votes showing up, including one right here. Some gun people vote for Obama, support background checks, yada yada...
     
  9. BSG 75

    BSG 75
    Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    271
    The poll screwed up? Isn't that the same as "the gun went off by itself"? :p
     
  10. Joe Link

    Joe Link
    Portland, OR
    Well-Known Member Staff Member Lifetime Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    6,670
    Likes Received:
    5,544
    Fixed the poll. If any of the 'Not Sure' votes were actually 'Not Sure' votes, please let me know and I'll change it.
     
  11. Cuthbert Allgood

    Cuthbert Allgood
    Clark County, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    431
    Likes Received:
    276
    NO!
     
  12. BSG 75

    BSG 75
    Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    271
    By the way, I'm surprised a professional writer would phrase the poll question as "Would you support or oppose "universal background checks?" with yes or no as the choices. That's like asking "do you prefer chocolate or vanilla"? with yes or no as the choices. :huh: That makes no sense. If you want the choices to be yes or no, the question should be ""Would you support "universal background checks"?, yes or no, OR, if you are going to ask "Would you support or oppose "universal background checks"?, the choices should be "support" or "oppose", not yes or no. But I'm not a professional writer.
     
    Qaolin and (deleted member) like this.
  13. Jim Colvill

    Jim Colvill
    1 A.U. from a G2 near Beaverton
    Old Army Cook Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    773
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    " Would you support or oppose "universal background checks?"

    This poll is strangely worded. is the answer "Yes, I support" or "Yes, I oppose"? Conversely a No answer would be either "No, I don't support" or "No, I don't oppose". whatever results from this poll would be meaningless.

    Jim
     
  14. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5
    Western OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    6,955
    Oppose!
     
  15. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman
    Western Washington
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joe:Thx

    For whatever reason, when I clicked to post, the "NO" suddenly became "NOt sure" and zap, I couldn't go in and modify that myself. That is darned strange and annoying!
     
  16. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman
    Western Washington
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    2,473

    Then don't answer the question. Don't respond to the poll.

    It's not mandatory that you answer the poll questions.
     
  17. GOG

    GOG
    State of Jefferson
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    "Shall NOT be infringed"

    No more "reasonable" anything. The Constitution works just fine exactly as it's written.
     
  18. BSG 75

    BSG 75
    Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    271
    If the question was worded properly no explanation clarifying what the writer really meant would have been necessary. Oh well, whatever. I oppose so-called "universal" background checks, and I sent written testimony to the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee explaining why I oppose them.
     
  19. Joe Link

    Joe Link
    Portland, OR
    Well-Known Member Staff Member Lifetime Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    6,670
    Likes Received:
    5,544
    No problem! Clarified the wording as well ;)
     
  20. BigStick

    BigStick
    Sherwood, OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    311
    "universal" and "no tolerance" policies are almost always a bad idea. It removes reasoning and judgement (essentially the human intelligence factor) from the equation. The first step to getting me to agree to more strict BGCs would be a better description of the term "universal". Then make it so that the system had all the pertinent information, and actually prosecute people who lie on the forms or try to subvert the system as is.

    Once those steps are taken, then come talk to me about prohibiting more transactions... and I will probably still say no, but I will be more willing to listen.
     
    titsonritz and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page