Do you favor universal background checks?

[BigRedChief]

Ninety-two percent of Americans favor background checks for all potential gun buyers, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Universal background checks are one of the proposals that President Obama has called on Congress to pass as part of his proposal to combat gun violence in the wake of the massacre in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.

Licensed gun dealers already must run background checks, but unlicensed dealers and private sellers, many of whom sell guns at gun shows or over the internet, are not required to do so.

Support for universal background checks went across party lines:
89 percent of Republicans
93 percent of Democrats and Independents were in favor
93 percent of gun households
85 percent of those living in a household with a member of the National Rifle Association

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_16...ground-checks/

[BigRedChief]

I don't see an issue here. No new laws, no new regulations on guns. Just check that you are legally entitled to own a gun.

You could log into some online DB with your ID/PW and run the name of the gun buyer. Should be quick and easy. Get a print out or .pdf file that they can buy as many guns as they chose to buy.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

No. I am in favor of psychological testing and monitoring of children during development stages and a MHS with teeth.

[Fish]

I wouldn't necessarily argue it. And it obviously has support according to the percentages you posted. But I can foresee one small problem.

It will be supported by 0 percent of criminals.

Which is the one key demographic we're trying to influence. Support isn't the problem. Enforcement is...

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Buzz_TinBalls

No. I am in favor of psychological testing and monitoring of children during development stages.

Why don't you favor a background check?

[stevieray]

obama pompoms unite!!

[listopencil]

I would say yes with stipulations, as I can understand that this can be a way to funnel firearms into the hands of law abiding citizens and away from criminals. Off the top of my head I would worry that this could be turned into a "no fly list" for potential gun owners. What would be the information used in the background check and who would be in control of that information? Also, I'd like to see a built in notification system for anyone who is disqualified.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Why don't you favor a background check?

you need to stop tracking guns and start tracking criminal behavior, general.

[A Salt Weapon]

"Shall not be infringed." Hmmm, requiring approval sounds like infringement to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

"Shall not be infringed." Hmmm, requiring approval sounds like infringement to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

It's already the law. It's already suppose to be happening.

Every right has infringement. Just saying its infringement so it can't be allowed is really a difficult position to defend.

No being able to legally posses air to air missile batteries, tanks, fully automatic weapons are an infringement on your rights. You want those legal also, correct?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

"Shall not be infringed." Hmmm, requiring approval sounds like infringement to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

Gun Control Act of 1968


Prohibited persons

Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited.

• AS QUOTED FROM Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968



I assume that background checks are to determine if the potential buyer is a prohibited person.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

It's already the law. It's already suppose to be happening.

Every right has infringement. Just saying its infringement so it can't be allowed is really a difficult position to defend.

No being able to legally posses air to air missile batteries, tanks, fully automatic weapons are an infringement on your rights. You want those legal also, correct?

In theory, yes. But we already have that stuff -- everything you think your beloved military owns belongs to each of us. America owns it's weapons.

The twist you are making is that tracking legally obtained arms makes our people safer than not tracking them, which is a lie.

Look big fella, you don't like my acid tongue, but you are in way over your head here. Take the next several months looking into DOJ efficiency. Then, maybe you will understand gun control is not effective and our DOJ is even worse -- it's part of the problem.

[RNR]

The only reason this gets any blow back is because reasonable people understand the government is not to be trusted. I think it is a very good idea to make sure those buying guns are responsible. It goes back to the fact that the vast majority of those with bad intentions will ignore whatever laws are passed. This is a method to develop a data base that later will be used to enforce whatever laws these out of control assholes in charge pass in the future. Anyone who supports this president is a perfect example of how easily people can be fooled. So yes it is a good idea but it is born from bad intentions IMO~

[2bikemike]

I voted maybe. I don't want to have the hassle between family members and I believe there needs to be a system in place that allows a person who is wrongly placed on "the List" to be able to be removed from "the List"

I also believe that checks should be instantaneous. I prefer they would do away with waiting periods for those who are already firearm owners, Its pointless.

[scott free]

There should've been these checks a long time ago, anytime you buy something like that you should have to get checked... its not complicated and if you have nothing to hide you shouldnt be concerned.

I'm 100% for any law abiding american being able to own anything on the market, but this is just common sense 101 stuff.

No, criminals dont need it because much of their stock comes off the street... but the "criminals wont use it" angle is a big fat strawman, it has nothing to do with it.