Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

[seeking Christ]

Is one armed person in a school of 7000 + sufficient?

What if there are only 2000 students?

What if there are only 600 students? That's the smallest school I ever went to, and a shooter coming in anywhere other than the main door would've been plenty far enough away from the Principal to shoot all the kids on a class or two before the Principal could've possibly arrived at that scene. I don't think that's enough of a deterrent to be effective.

How bout a goal of at least 30% of staff armed, but make sure they're qualified first? Start with a voluntary basis and see what turns up?

 

[Merope]

The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms, it has nothing to do with WMDs.

A gun can be aimed and fired at a particular target.

If you lobbed a nuke at a burgler, you'd not only kill yourself in the process, you'd take out everyone in your neighborhood and probably a good chunk of your home town.

That would quickly teach people not to burgle. After all if the solution to gun violence is to have more guns then the solution to WMDs is to make sure everyone is armed with them. Mutually assured destruction and all that.

 

[wing2000]

...so while a vast majority of Americans (90 Percent) support Universal Background checks, not one of the eight GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for a background check bill today.

The bill would close the so-called gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed individuals to sell their wares at gun shows without running a background check on buyers.


The bill provides limited exemptions for immediate family members who may pass on a weapons as a family heirloom or gift and for individuals who are using a gun temporarily for a sporting event. Senate Judiciary Committee Passes Background Checks, Not Without Controversy - US News and World Report

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

...so while a vast majority of Americans (90 Percent) support Universal Background checks, not one of the eight GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for a background check bill today.

Answer:

"The version of background check bill passed on party lines Tuesday but senators said it will be replaced on the Senate floor by a version developed by a bipartisan trio of senators."

Senate panel passes two gun-control measures

 

[wing2000]

We'll see if that happens...but thanks for the link.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I found this interesting data on gun rights vs. control. Compare the data from 1993 when Clinton passed the Assault Weapons ban to now, and you'll see why it is doomed.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total

Note: Check both buttons to see rights and control.

 

[Blackguard_]

...so while a vast majority of Americans (90 Percent) support Universal Background checks,

90 percent of Americans are idiots then, if that's not a bogus stat.

not one of the eight GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for a background check bill today.

Because, among other things like gun control being a very partisan issue, the bill is horrible. This isn't just a private sales ban and de facto registration, this is an "imprison legal gun owners for innocent behavior" bill. This bill covers just about any "transfer" of a gun, not just sales.

Under this Intolerable Act, you couldn't let a friend borrow a gun to go shooting, you couldn't even have your gun in his trunk if you drove to the range separetly,(and people go shooting other places than established ranges. I wonder if letting someone else shoot your gun on BLM land would be illegal under this?) and you'd better not go on vacation or business trips for more than a week or that's an illegal transfer to your roommates, and God help you if you lose a gun on a hunting/camping trip and can't fill out the lost/stolen forms within 24 hours.

This bill is just about harassing legal gun owners.

 

[wing2000]

90 percent of Americans are idiots then, if that's not a bogus stat.



Because, among other things like gun control being a very partisan issue, the bill is horrible. This isn't just a private sales ban and de facto registration, this is an "imprison legal gun owners for innocent behavior" bill. This bill covers just about any "transfer" of a gun, not just sales.

Under this Intolerable Act, you couldn't let a friend borrow a gun to go shooting, you couldn't even have your gun in his trunk if you drove to the range separetly,(and people go shooting other places than established ranges. I wonder if letting someone else shoot your gun on BLM land would be illegal under this?) and you'd better not go on vacation or business trips for more than a week or that's an illegal transfer to your roommates, and God help you if you lose a gun on a hunting/camping trip and can't fill out the lost/stolen forms within 24 hours.

This bill is just about harassing legal gun owners.

My, what a big imagination we have.

Signed,
Idiot who supports Universal Background Checks.

 

[Blackguard_]

Not my imagination, that's what the bill says.

"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;

(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if —
(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs—
(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and
(iii) while hunting or trapping, if—
(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;
(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and
(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’—
(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and
(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee."

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not my imagination, that's what the bill says.

"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

I had to read that a few times to make sure I wasn't crazy. Are you sure you read that correctly, because you just proved yourself 100% wrong? The section you quoted lists all of the exemptions to the background checks, including temporary transfers of possession, which would be what would happen when you loan your friend your gun.

-Dan.

 

[Blackguard_]

The section you quoted lists all of the exemptions to the background checks, including temporary transfers of possession, which would be what would happen when you loan your friend your gun.

"(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if —
(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and"

So no, you can't lend a friend a gun to go shooting.

 

[Flashlight]

Forcing me to undergo a background check is saying that I am guilty until proven innocent.

 

[illudium_phosdex]

Since 1993, the Brady law has required background checks on gun sales to private citizens. However, background checks can only be performed by licensed gun dealers and its estimated that forty percent of gun sales are done without a background check. If we are to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals, isn't it time we demand 100 percent screening?

Wrong question.

 

[The Woodsman]

Since 1993, the Brady law has required background checks on gun sales to private citizens. However, background checks can only be performed by licensed gun dealers and its estimated that forty percent of gun sales are done without a background check. If we are to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals, isn't it time we demand 100 percent screening?

How do you define "unstable"? If a person ever seeks therapy or some sort of mental help, does that make them unstable? Would it make them unstable forever?

I recently read a story about how a man in California had his guns taken away because his wife had once recieved treatment for mental issues. Does living in the same household as an "unstable" person disqualify you from owning a gun?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Forcing me to undergo a background check is saying that I am guilty until proven innocent.

Yeah! I want to work for the CIA but they refuse to give me Q clearance until I submit to an invasive background check! It is unamerican!

 

[[serious]]

So once the background checks are completed and the gun sales are complete, what stops the new gun owner from becoming "unstable" in the future?

That's the strangest argument I've ever seen.

"Hey, we should check to see if someone has a record of drunk driving before we issue them a license."
"but once you demonstrate that they don't have a history of drunk driving, what's to stop them from starting to drive drunk in the future?"

 

[mandelduke]

So once the background checks are completed and the gun sales are complete, what stops the new gun owner from becoming "unstable" in the future?

 

[wing2000]

Response I received from Senator Flake today to my email asking that he support Universal Background Checks:

<excerpt>

As you may know, I support the Second Amendment, and I do not believe our society needs more laws restricting gun ownership. What we really need is to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, while ensuring that those who break existing laws are fully prosecuted.

To that end, I do not support universal background checks, which would be extremely costly, create further delays for those eligible to buy guns, and apply to private transfers between family members, friends, neighbors, and even firearms passed down through wills. I do support making the existing background check system more effective in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

___________

....what good does it do to make the background check system more effective if one can simply go to a gun show to bypass it?

Try again Senator.

 

[wing2000]

That's the strangest argument I've ever seen.

"Hey, we should check to see if someone has a record of drunk driving before we issue them a license."
"but once you demonstrate that they don't have a history of drunk driving, what's to stop them from starting to drive drunk in the future?"

: )

 

[GarfieldJL]

I'm against Universal Background checks because the current administration has demonstrated in my mind that they can't be trusted.

Right now the NRA has more credibility than the entire DoJ.

Fast & Furious ring any bells...