The question of "Do you support background checks?"

[alethialogos57]

There's been a lot of "poll citing" going on lately. This percent supports this, that percent, etc, etc. So I decided to take a step back and just consider the basic question "Do I support background checks?". Of course this is where it all fell apart for me. Walk with me a bit.

First and foremost, it is my opinion that the Second Amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Based solely on that, there shouldn't be any restrictions on what I can buy, how many, how often, etc. Now, I also believe that if you commit a violent crime, especially with a gun, then you should forfeit that right. Now here's where it gets weird for me. How is the seller supposed to know if the buyer has forfeited their right? The answer is typically "a background check". So, on the surface I don't really have an issue with a background check.

The problem I see is that there are many in the government that would seek to usurp our Second Amendment right. They do so by trying to create bureaucracies that cumbersome to navigate. The latest ploy is to try and create a national registry. Now we all know that can't happen (um, yet) so universal background check is the call of the day. After all, we're all for background checks, right? Not so fast. In the context of today the universal background check is the first step toward a national registry as it sets up the flow of data for a national registry. Once all purchase requests are funneled through a single Agency then they only need to add functionality. An extra bit of data here, a serial number there, longer retention times, and then "we've had the registry all this time".

My "simple" answer to "Do I support background checks?" is:
"that question is inherently flawed".

I'm getting tired of these boolean questions designed only to further an agenda.

[NShortino]

I don't think anyone thinks there should be NO background checks, but we shouldn't have them forced on us. Like you said, it's nice to know someone you're selling to isn't a criminal, but what if you know the person you're selling to isn't one? Why should I have to drive out of my way and pay someone else to make a phone call and enter our information into a log book just to sell my own brother a gun? Or a friend, or neighbor, or co-worker, or person I met online? If the selling wants to do a check, that's perfectly fine by me, but they should be able to call it in themselves without having to involve a dealer or the government.

When looking at proposals like this, the only way to look at it is "will criminals even care?". The fact is, even if universal checks passes, criminals didn't care about background checks before and they won't care about them after. They'll buy and sell guns the same way they did before, through straw purchases, theft, and the black market. And they'll do that knowing the consequences are minor, even under the rare circumstance that they are both caught and convicted.

[Shisno]

I don't agree with the concept of background check or for that matter, the idea of prohibited people to begin with. Ideally, we would keep violent criminals in jail until they are no longer a threat to society. And once you are a free man, you have every right any other free man has.

But unfortunately that is not the world we live in. We simply can't keep people in prison for the amount of time they should be in there because we fill the prisons with petty drug offenders from this idiotic and futile drug war. So it stands to reason that we have the background checks out of necessity. I'll concede that. But what I do not agree with about the background checks is any information recorded about the firearm at all. It's not needed. You could very simply require all firearm transfers to go through a background check and not record any information on the firearm because it is irrelevant to whether the buyer is prohibited or not!

And to make this system easier to use for your private sales, simply set up the background check system so that it is available to non FFL sellers.

This wouldn't be impossible to enforce either. Simple sting operations by the ATF as either buyers or sellers would be enough to keep the law enforced.

But ideally, no background checks. We didn't have them 20 years ago, and we got along just fine.

[Kabloosh]

I support background checks as long as the institution providing the information isn't a massively corrupt entity that has been redesigned to pretty much bar anyone from buying a firearm.
That is however not really a common scenario. We as PA residents already live in a world of background checks. The only inconvenience it provides is the wait. There are some false positives but you can't really expect that gun shop owners are benevolent individuals who can spot a shady individual a mile away.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Don't think it matters.

Shale not be questioned is pretty damned clear.


Also, I don't think a person can forfeit rights, which come from God. Those rights are inalienable. Unremovable. incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. If a persons crimes are so severe, then should soon be with their creator.

[flguy]

I like most of us got used to background checks. It doesn't mean I like it.. Just used to it. One thing I would like to see is the government opening up NCIS to us. I would use something like that if I was selling to outside my circle.. One other thing I would like is to have the ability to buy a handgun out of state. Why can I buy long arms when I 'm outside of FL? I own many handguns why can't I just trade one for another..

Sorry about the mini rant

Back on point. If someone asks me that question I just tell them we already have background checks.. If they continue I inform them I've had over 100 background checks in my lifetime. Then ask "How many have you had?"

[stainless]

OP - well thought out.

The antis agenda BOILS down to the "how do you cook a frog" theory.

[yeager484]

Not even if the 1986 ban was repealed.

ETA: If the system was open to the public to run checks on each-other simply by searching the buyers name to see a "Prohibited/Not prohibited" response, assuming the seller did NOT have to enter his information. I would go along with it. If they repeal the '86 ban.

[win67]

But unfortunately that is not the world we live in. We simply can't keep people in prison for the amount of time they should be in there because we fill the prisons with petty drug offenders from this idiotic and futile drug war. So it stands to reason that we have the background checks out of necessity. I'll concede that. But what I do not agree with about the background checks is any information recorded about the firearm at all. It's not needed. You could very simply require all firearm transfers to go through a background check and not record any information on the firearm because it is irrelevant to whether the buyer is prohibited or not!

I suppose, in practice, at this exact moment in time, having background checks could be the right thing to do, for this reason. However, two wrongs don't make a right- my enjoyment of my 2A rights should not be compromised because some other idiot started a dumb war on drugs.

(begin rant)

Going back to the OP, if I take a step back, I think it would be absurd to have background checks required for exercising, say, the 1st Amendment rights. Those rights, as well as all the others, are subject to regulation; however, they are pretty meaningless if there isn't a general presumption by the government that citizens are exercising them legally. In other words, it may be fair to prohibit some persons, but the government has to catch them when they break the law and leave everyone alone otherwise.

Look how much liberals complain about voter ID, and then in the same breath say we need UBCs. Doubly stupid when you consider voting isn't even a constitutionally protected right, and even then they get so defensive.

Basically, it's pretty absurd to say that anything is a "right" if you need the government's permission to exercise it.

(end rant)

[mauser]

I don't agree with mandatory background checks, it's a flawed theory, like zero tolerance as applied where common sense is what's really needed.

I know people at both extremes of the background check fallacy. Some who are emotionally unstable, violent, sinister or just plain can't be trusted, but own guns legally and won't show up on any background check anywhere. There are others who did something stupid but non-violent when they were younger and will be denied for life because of one dumb mistake or happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or wrongly convicted of something they didn't do. Many good people have had their "rights" taken away from them.

If you want to check out someone before you sell them a gun you can do it with tools that are available to anyone. It's going to take some effort but you can find infractions as minor as parking violations your new friend or neighbor might have gotten.

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets.aspx

I've used that site and others like it to check out new friends that my children have met, new hires at work, teachers, realtors, people I've had financial dealings with and so on.
Nobody made me do it, I wanted to. That's by no means as telling as knowing someone personally but it can give a good indication. It didn't cost me anything but a little bit of time.
If hiring a teacher, public or private, a thorough background check to help weed out sexual predators or drug dealers might be a good idea, but it's not foolproof.
Should it be mandated by the government for private schools or just government run schools? Where do you draw the line? Opinions will vary.

George Carlin was a funny man, here's his opinion about rights and privileges, be warned before you click the link (I think 99% of people already knows this), George was an equal opportunity offender, politically incorrect and liked to break things down into simple terms. If you're easily offended by certain four letter words, talk about religious perspective or political issues don't bother watching this 9½ minute video, but if you want a few chuckles as well as some straightforward food for thought, have at it:

"Rights and Privileges" as explained by George Carlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8