Do we need.......

Do we need.......

This is a discussion on Do we need....... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Do we need a better background check? You know to keep crazies from buying a new gun or does this all ready happen? The private ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree4Likes
  • 4 Post By HotGuns

Thread: Do we need.......

  1. #1
    Member Array Jab73180's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    100

    Do we need.......

    Do we need a better background check? You know to keep crazies from buying a new gun or does this all ready happen? The private transfer deal will most likely be unenforceable.

    -Jason


  2. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,980
    Nope.

    The background check only proves that you have not done something illegal at that point. It does not prevent any thing.

    I was taught that you are innocent until proven guilty. With a background check you are automatically assumed guilty until proven innocent.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,902
    I really don't know what's involved in a background check, to what depth it goes, and what all it actually checks, but after completing numerous military and Gov't job-related security investigations, I feel confident that it's not going to be a problem passing one for me.

    What I question is how reliable it is in actually preventing those who cannot legally purchase a firearm from getting one. To me it's like a cop setting his radar gun to trip at >80 mph in a 70 zone while letting those going 71-79 pass right by.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I really don't know what's involved in a background check, to what depth it goes, and what all it actually checks, but after completing numerous military and Gov't job-related security investigations, I feel confident that it's not going to be a problem passing one for me.

    What I question is how reliable it is in actually preventing those who cannot legally purchase a firearm from getting one. To me it's like a cop setting his radar gun to trip at >80 mph in a 70 zone while letting those going 71-79 pass right by.
    I feel this way too. I hear that some things don't even show up and in some cases you cannot be told why you were denied so you could take care of it. It needs to be revamped.

    I do feel that there are people who simply cannot handle the responsibility of owning a gun and would be a danger. There are people in certain mental states or on certain prescription meds that would not have the proper cognisance.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    It did not stop the convicted criminal in New York. He talked a neighbor into buying the guns for him. He then went out and killed his sister, set fire to the house & then shot the responding firemen. The background check worked real well there, and straw purchases are already illegal.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array DocT65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    596
    One enhancement to instant check would be the requirement to report certain psychiatric diagnoses to the database by hospitals, doctors and mental health facilities--easily done using the CPT coding that is utilized universally in the medical field. Hillary Clinton's HIPPA laws prevent this at present.

    This would be one meanigful improvement in helping prevent mentally ill from acquiring guns, at least through dealer sales and is simply a means of enforcing laws already on the books. It also allows those who can legally own guns to live life unfettered by unconstitutional laws and restrictions.
    "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

    Flight Surgeon, USAF
    Law Enforcement Tactical Surgeon

    NRA Patron Member

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by SigPapa226 View Post
    It did not stop the convicted criminal in New York. He talked a neighbor into buying the guns for him. He then went out and killed his sister, set fire to the house & then shot the responding firemen. The background check worked real well there, and straw purchases are already illegal.
    Any felon can go down the street from where I work and buy a Glock for half what it costs new. So there will always be a way for a criminal to get a gun. Since I am not a criminal, banning them outright would only prevent me from getting one because I will not break the law to obtain one.

    We all know this, but we should still be somewhat reasonable when it comes to things like this. Unrestricted access won't happen, and it paints us as gun owners and advocates in a bad light when it comes up in conversation.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  8. #8
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,980
    Unrestricted access won't happen, and it paints us as gun owners and advocates in a bad light when it comes up in conversation.

    Baloney.

    It worked for the first 150 years.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Baloney.

    It worked for the first 150 years.
    It's not unrestricted now...you know what NFA is? You know what the $5 background check fee is? Don't answer that cause I know you do.

    Unrestricted means you walk into the store and buy anything from a .22LR to a M249 as long as you can pay for it. You just can't do that. Thus, it's not unrestricted access and it just won't happen these days.

    It also does very much so make people think we are all crazy. We are not wrong in the argument, but when the argument turns to making everything open with no restrictions of checks at all, the other side thinks we are a bit crazy.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •