• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by wing2000, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. Glas Ridire

    Glas Ridire Well-Known Member

    +118
    Celtic Catholic
    Married
    Question "h" on the 4473, yes, they can't legally buy a gun while on a restraining order.
     
  2. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    So once the restraining order is over they can purchase a firearm, correct?
     
  3. Glas Ridire

    Glas Ridire Well-Known Member

    +118
    Celtic Catholic
    Married

    http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

    When does a restraining order end? To my knowledge, one may use limited duration restraining orders to provide temporary protective paper, while a party seeks more permanent remedy from the courts. Some restraining orders are permanent . . . I suppose, if a temporary one expires, a person could be eligible to buy firearms again.
     
  4. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    I am unaware of any restraining order that is permanent where it concerns domestic violence. I think restraining orders against convicted sexual criminals may be permanent.
     
  5. QuiltAngel

    QuiltAngel Veteran

    +281
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Wrong thread
     
  6. Glas Ridire

    Glas Ridire Well-Known Member

    +118
    Celtic Catholic
    Married
    Is it?

    Permanent Restraining Orders | LegalMatch Law Library

    In a discussion on universal background checks, one of the line items on a 4473, namely line "H" and its consequential prohibition on the sale (if answered in the affirmative) seems relevant. The 4473 and subsequent NICS check (should) result in a no-sale at an FFL. Among private parties, because we aren't allowed access to NICS, we (folk who have guns in our hobbies list) generally rely on ID and a permit to carry/ permit to purchase . . . which requires a background check (to get those documents) . . . regardless of where the trade occurs.
     
  7. QuiltAngel

    QuiltAngel Veteran

    +281
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution
    What I meant was that what I had written, I had written in the wrong thread, should have just left the post blank when I edited it.

    I am against the universal background checks. I agree that if I were to privately sale one of my guns that I would make sure I had all the identification needed and may even copy their ID & CC permit as well as write up a full receipt for it to keep in my records, just as the stores do when they sell a weapon.

    I
     
  8. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    If someone is deemed by the courts to be a permanent physical threat to another person then perhaps they should not own a gun.
     
  9. Glas Ridire

    Glas Ridire Well-Known Member

    +118
    Celtic Catholic
    Married
    Well, it is fortunate that they can't legally then, isn't it.

    People under a restraining order are forbidden from purchasing and/or possessing firearms. There may be some oddball exception I am not aware of, but restraining orders generally include line items referring to firearms restrictions even among individuals with no history of guns or violence.

    Further, questions B,C,and I on the 4473. . . .
     
  10. QuiltAngel

    QuiltAngel Veteran

    +281
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution
    It would be nice of people would read the from. Better yet, to stand at a busy counter filling it out while the sales clerk waits for you to do it. They just might understand what types of behaviors are not already allowed.
     
  11. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +19
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Because you can't shoot someone with a crossbow.

    You don't need a background check to get one of those.
     
  12. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    So are you saying that we should add crossbows to the list of weapons that should require a background check?
     
  13. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    Because it's in the people's interest to ensure that gun owners are "well-regulated," like it says in the Second Amendment.

    Right. And to enforce those laws, we need to know who is prohibited from owning one so they can't get one. Which is why ALL gun transfers and sales need to be subject to a background check.

    What's unreasonable about regulating something as dangerous as a firearm? We regulate cars and cars, when used properly, don't kill. Firearms, when used properly, can.

    I feel the same way about gun owners who object to any and all regulations.

    Neither do locks, so does that mean all laws protecting private property should be struck down?


    Enforcing gun laws only after first graders are mowed down by an assault weapon in their school is a bit more serious than an unregistered vehicle on a public road.

    The more dangerous something is, the more we, the people, need to regulate it.

    And the Second Amendment acknowledged that fact, by calling for gun owners to be part of well-regulated militias.

    -- A2SG, militias we got, its the well-regulated part some gun owners seem to have a problem with....if that doesn't set off alarm bells, it should...
     
  14. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    That's incorrect.

    Look at the Second Amendment again:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    The founding fathers knew that regulations were necessary.

    -- A2SG, it's telling that the NRA doesn't seem to.....
     
  15. Blackguard_

    Blackguard_ Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    +336
    Lutheran
    The 2nd Amendment says the militia is supposed to well regulated, not gun owners. And no, militia membership is not a requirement of gun ownership. It's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms afterall.
    All transfers? Now we know you're just anti-gun. The point of requiring BG checks on all transfers is to try to destroy the gun culture by making it hard for people to get into the hobby, as you can't just lend or hand people guns to try.

    See either you're anti self defense or don't know much about guns. Used properly, guns are actually remarkably safe devices. But I'll bet you're type who thinks Sex-Ed is A-Ok but would balk at requiring gun safety training in schools.

    Anyway, last I checked things like murder and reckless shooting were already illegal.

    No, because stealing actually harms somebody and is an activity worthy of punishment, wheras owing a box with a metal spring doesn't or having a 14 inch barrel doesn't and isn't.

    Well all know you're lying through your teeth.

    You know full well a "well regulated" militia wouldn't ban dirt common military rifles, much less the neutured civvy versions actually up for discussion.

    You're just being disengenuous, and we all know it.
    Come back when you support a law you have to bring a gun to church for inspection or show up for drill or something.

    You know, a law that actually would regulate a militia rather than just be a thinly disguised excuse to ban guns?
     
  16. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    And who comprises a militia, Scrabble players?

    Well, the founders did use the necessity of well regulated militias as a reason why gun ownership was a right of the people. It seems to be the NRA's job to uphold the latter, while completely ignoring the former part of the Second Amendment.

    Huh? Someone who is "anti-gun" would seek to outlaw all transfers. I didn't. All I said was simply that all transactions should require a background check.

    Only hard for those who can't pass a background check. For those who can, no problem!

    Same rationale for how people who can't pass a driver's license exam are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle, really.

    Not if the gun is facing in your direction. On the other hand, if a car being operated properly is facing in your direction, you'd be fine.

    In grade school, you'd be right. However, I would agree that gun safety training should be a requirement for everyone who owns or purchases one. If someone were to put a gun safety certification as a requirement during background checks, I'd have no problem with that. And neither would any responsible gun owner, I imagine.

    Yup. And those who have been convicted of crimes like that shouldn't be able to buy firearms afterward.

    Because the potential for misuse of such things is why the public good is served by trying to ensure those things aren't publicly available to just anyone.

    Wrong. Read the Second Amendment, son.

    A well regulated militia probably wouldn't ban something like that, because it would ensure that all members were qualified to use it, and would be punished if they misused it by, oh I dunno, mowing down a bunch of first graders.

    Kinda like the military does.

    Again, no.

    But feel free to continue the ad hom attacks, if that's the best you got.

    ???

    No one's trying to ban guns, son. Just those that are too dangerous to be left for unstable and unqualified people to misuse.

    -- A2SG, Y'know, like Adam Lanza....
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2013
  17. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +19
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    At the time the second amendment was written, what did the phrase, "well regulated," mean?

    So then, how come if "we need to know it" members of the general public are not allowed access to NICS? It sure doesn't seem like "we need to know it." Shoot, if "we need to know it," why not advocate for prohibited persons to have an 'F' tattooed on their foreheads?

    For something we all need to know, it sure doesn't seem like you're coming up with an effective way of disseminating that information.

    Sure. Let's regulate guns like we do cars. Anyone who can come up with the cash can buy any kind of car they desire. You don't need a license to operate it on private property. You don't need a license or a background check to sell one, you just pay $30 to the government. Anyone over 16 who can pass a simple government class can have one if they're over the age of 16. If I want to, I can go to any state and buy any kind of car that I want, and there's no special process for it. No background check required. If I misuse a car, it's a minor administrative fee. There's no size limits for cars. Any felon can have a car.

    Based on legislative history, it's a slippery slope. There's already reasonable regulation. Why do we need more reasonable regulation. If the gun banners want compromise, why don't they offer to do something like remove short barreled rifles or suppressors from the NFA or open up the machine gun registry if we'll agree to a background check. Based on their actions, gun banners don't want compromise, because their version of compromise means giving them exactly what they want with them giving up nothing.

    Possession of an inanimate piece of metal is not bad. Theft is. See the difference? In one, you own an object. In the other, you steal stuff from other people.

    How many laws did the Newtown shooter violate? And how much did he care about the consequences? The obvious solution to a crazy guy who doesn't care about eight or ten or so laws is obviously to pass another law. It's positively brilliant!

    So then why don't you call for regulations on things like bleach and vinegar? They should be regulated, because they can be used to produce chemical weapons and yet, anyone can go down to a local Wal-Mart and load up with them. So, forgive me, if I doubt the sincerity of this statement, since you obviously are not calling for regulations of things that are actually dangerous.

    Amendment IX. Even if the Second Amendment only pertains to militias, it can't be construed to deny or restrict others reserved to the people. So, basically, even if you're right it still doesn't justify gun legislation.
     
  18. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +7,297
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If that is the case, why is the Manchin/Toomey proposal expanding background checks on "all commercial sales" including sales at gun shows and over the internet?
     
  19. Glas Ridire

    Glas Ridire Well-Known Member

    +118
    Celtic Catholic
    Married
    That proposal is not (at first glance) a lot different than Hillstrom's bill, ( description here ) and in the case of Manchin/Toomey's it seems like it isn't so much expanding anything as requiring officials to enforce existing laws/ actually turn in their paperwork on time. To say such things "expand background checks" is either designed to garner support from banner types or bolster opposition among the no-new-laws crowd. . . by glossing the fact that these proposals are largely aimed at requiring enforcement of existing laws (you wouldn't think we'd have to twist the law enforcement community's arm . . . but . . . )
     
  20. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    The words mean much the same today as they did then. Society has changed, though, so the specifics of those regulations have changed.

    If all gun sales and transfers are subject to a background check, then access most definitely should be available somehow.

    Well, that would be effective, certainly.

    I'm sorry, was that my job?

    You seem to have missed the part where I said that guns are more dangerous than cars. That would necessitate they be better regulated.

    You also missed the point: it's not unreasonable to regulate things...especially if they are dangerous, like weapons.

    There's a reason why "slippery slope" is a fallacy.

    Not enough to have stopped Adam Lanza from mowing down classrooms of children.

    To try and prevent more tragedies like Newtown.

    Um, if their goal is to ban all guns, as you characterize them, then background checks for all gun sales IS a compromise. Since, y'know, guns aren't being banned.

    In any event, its a lot more compromise than the NRA has ever demonstrated.

    If guns were just inanimate metal, no one would have a problem with them. The problem is people who shouldn't be anywhere near them can get them and kill with them.

    He had access to legally obtained assault weapons, that would not have been the case had the assault weapon ban not been allowed to expire.

    Uh, that's kinda the point. He's exactly the sort of person who should not have been able to get his hands on a weapon of any sort.

    Under that logic, why have any laws at all, if people can break them anyway?

    But you seem to have missed the point: this proposed law would make it harder for people like Adam Lanza to have access to assault weapons that can kill more children in less time.

    Because they are not as dangerous as assault weapons, and they also have uses that aren't dangerous.

    They can also be used to clean clothes and spice up recipes.

    Guns can't be used for any other purpose but to propel a projectile at speeds sufficient to kill whatever lies in its path.

    Please reread my statement, as you seem to have misunderstood it.

    Sure it does. It states that gun ownership and usage being "well regulated" is "necessary."

    And the Supreme Court agrees with that interpretation.

    -- A2SG, you and I can disagree all we like, but it's the job of the Supreme Court to rule on issues like that with final authority.....
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2013
Loading...