Gun Purchase Without Background Check | What's Your Stance?

Then what is your argument with me, we seem to agree or do you oppose background checks for welfare recipients?

 

Yeah man we agree.

I have some reservations about background checks for welfare recipients, but let me explain my perspective.

[HR][/HR]

For example, a criminal steals John Citizen's wallet. This criminal, though, has good intentions and wants to see the money go to some good. As he is stealing the wallet he asks John Citizen if he prefers the money go to sick adolescents or sick college students. He replies by saying he prefers it goes to the sick adolescents.

The criminal then goes to the local hospital and starts to give away John Citizen's money to the sick kids. He finds though, that a lot of college students at the hospital are also sick and poor. These college students (generally 18-20) pretend they are 17 to get the money.

The criminal goes back to John Citizen with this problem and asserts that he will in future check the IDs of the kids to make sure they are under 18. To fund these checks he steals another wallet from John.

[HR][/HR]

The problem I have is that background checks are expensive. The ones required to be a substitute teacher alone cost $50/year. So the question is whether the cost of an additional ~$50 (I can't find a solid figure, let me know if you can) per welfare recipient outweighs the money saved by removing criminals and non-citizens from the mix. If it does then that's it; stealing a second wallet from John is inexcusable.

If not... since the idea that these people aren't entitled to welfare flies in the face of the ideology of one of the major parties and many, many Americans it costs a lot of political capital. Even if the background checks payed for themselves surely we could get something better per dollar of political capital? It seems like this isn't the best plan if we want to reduce the size of government. There are better, less costly things you can do.


ie: I don't have anything wrong with it except from a cost/benefit perspective.

 

i said on the fence bcus i am nto sure i have enough info

i think b ackgrnd checks might be OK if they allow that ... some people make mistakes in their youth, but shouldn't have to pay for it for the rest of their lives

if a young person kills someone at the age of ... say 18, and it is cold blooded murder... uh... yeah... That person should probably be denied... but people DO change...

I would like more info on the topic

just don't have a lot of time to do reseach

 

I really have no idea what your point is.

No they are not expensive as the gun control crowd points out.

You left out the matter of principles and enabling criminal activity.

 

Haha, in short my point is that all that matters is the theft that is taxation, not what the government spends the stolen money on.

Uhh, alright. If it turns out that this would on net save money then I have no principled problem with it. I do however think you could get more bang for your buck, but that's a side note.

I don't really care about enabling criminal activity. The issue at hand (for me at least) is the theft from the taxpayer. Then giving the money to criminals/drug dealers doesn't bother me. I'd prefer it if you didn't give welfare to anyone, but restricting it from some is better than from none.

 

Just because he's a lying DemocRAT doesn't mean his crime is justified.

Oh. If checking their background is too expensive, make them pay for the background check themselves. It's not like they have a right to money stolen from someone else, because they don't.

Even better, stop the vote-buying extravaganza.

Since they're not entitled to it, what difference does "ideology" make?

Maybe we need to stop viewing the taxpayer as the funder of "political capital" and start recognizing him as a citizen with all the right to his own money and the tax consuming parasite with no right to that money whatsoever.

Yeah, no spending welfare money at all is the most cost effective way of saving welfare dollars.

Another idea would be that people who've been on welfare for more than four weeks don't get to vote for four years.

That would certainly cut back on the demand for money stolen from taxpayers.

 

Gun ownership is a right, therefore any gun ownership should be legal. I support no background checks for any reason. The concept of a background check in and of itself relies on the very concept of one being guilty until proven innocent, something quite contrary to the beliefs of our Founders'. Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment of any type, can by addressed by an amendment, not by whittling away our rights with laws and turning said right into a privilege...

 

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Sounds good on paper, but the whole point of entitlements is to give people money. If each recipient has to pay $50 for a background check yet only the criminals and illegals get their Welfare denied from this process wouldn't it make more sense to simply reduce all Welfare payments by $50? Then the taxpayer and not the people who do background checks would get the $50.

Of course they're not entitled to it, but to the person being robbed a dollar is a dollar whether it's being spent on maintaining the 1000+ military bases you have around the world or if it's spent on entitlements. You are able to reduce significantly more of the former than your are of the latter from a practical perspective. All I care about is getting the most money back to the taxpayer/not taking it to begin with. You should try both, but don't be surprised if the Democrats don't let you get far with the latter.

I am an NAP Libertarian. I think all tax is wrong period, no matter what it's spent on, in the same way that I think all robberies are wrong no matter what the criminal needs the money for.

Again, you could spend years trying to push that through (go right ahead), but it seems that if your goal is reducing taxes then you could overnight significantly reduce taxation by closing the $1000+ military bases you have around the world, not spending $30 billion a month on QE3, not getting yourselves into two stupid wars and intervening in Libya and perhaps Syria soon enough, halting all subsidies whatsoever to green business AND fossil fuel companies, dismantling the Federal Reserve system, not borrowing a trillion dollars from China with interest, etc, etc.

Rather than fixing entitlement programs so they can continue into the future you should be aiming to completely dismantle them. If Republicans were serious about cutting costs they could do it practically overnight. Rather, they prefer to stick to ye olde Reagan formula of pushing revenue raising to borrowing and printing so they don't look pro-tax.

 

Yea that's pretty stupid. No one should be able to just buy guns at their whim...or else we're advocating a 100% legal means for committing atrocity. Appreciate the honesty though...

 

LOL, they did for a couple hundred years. Why is it stupid all of a sudden?

 

I see, anything you don't agree with is stupid. Place equivalent restrictions on any of our other rights and see how people react. No worries, its the typical modern liberal response, "I'm scared, lets make new laws, or throw money at something, lets not deal with the real problems"...

Background checks for all is a punishment for the actions of an insignificant portion of the population. This is an emotional response to what is essentially a nonexistent problem. Bad things happen, but laws do not stop those things.

 

guns are not a legal matter. They are a Right. What part of that don't you understand?

 

You know nothing about Rights. Your post proves this. The 2nd A doesn't mention background checks............
Since you've no dog in this hunt, it gives you time to go collect those 550,000 t0 6 million guns left unregistered in your country

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't have to mention background checks.

Gosh, this whole post of yours really validates the point critics of the bill of rights made that it would imply the government has all powers not explicitly denied it. Nothing is further from the truth. The Federal government is given no authority to regulate firearms, the 2nd amendment was meant to go a step further and explicitly deny that anything in the constitution allows this, yet it's been twisted to mean that anything not prohibited by it is fair game. It's not.

I know a fair deal more about rights than you I can guarantee. Your post proves this.

 

The Mayor is all for making welfare parasites pay for their own support. Why stop at making them pay for the background check? Why shouldn't welfare payments be limited to no more than 50% of their income tax payment to city, state, or federal government, depending which agency is paying the tab?

Go read the Constitution some time. People who don't like paying taxes for US defense have the freedom under the Constitution to move to a different country.

National defense mandates forward fire bases, or are you one of those people that keep your hands at your sides in a fist fight?

The Mayor is a realist libertarian. When the world is cleansed of dictators and people who will start violence just for fun and profit, the Mayor will drink the NAP Kool-Aid. Otherwise, there's a need for national borders and for the men who defend them. Libertarianism isn't a suicide cult, and libertarians are supposed to be realists and rational. Don't treat libertarianism like a religion. The socialists take it on faith that if they vote for the guy with the prettiest promises (pretty like a lady warthog is to boy warthogs), then what they're promised is possible. Unlike socialism, libertarianism is not a religion, and practitioners cannot afford to treat it as such.

In other words, don't demand the impossible because you believe in it. As a libertarian in a statist world, demand what can be achieved first, and move towards improving society to the point where your idealistic goals are less impossible. Do not make the good enough for now the enemy of the damn that's just perfect.

Yep, the Mayor pushes for eliminating welfare...that's because cutting it back a single dollar isn't going to happen either. But that's because one single dollars stolen and wasted on the parasites is an affront to human dignity.

Your stance on the military is ignorant and foolish and dangerous.

And the next day we could have pretty mushrooms sprouting all over the landscape. How wonderful.

You can stop pretending the Mayor supported the war in Iraq. However, since Afghanland attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, the war in Afghanland was perfectly justified. Too bad you people voted for two different idiots to lose that war for us.

Oh, and go ahead, cite where the Mayor ever supported welfare of any form.

Gotta love the people that don't understand the Reagan years.

 

The Second Amendment doesn't have to mention background checks.

The Ninth Amendment limits the government quite nicely.

The Constitution does, however, provide a means for denying certain people the freedom to own guns.

All any state has to do to deny a person gun ownership is the put them on trial for a crime, and put them in jail if convicted. The Constitution allows this...but it doesn't allow anything else for "gun control".

In fact, the Fifth Amendment even says that people can't be deprived of property without a trial and conviction, and guns are no less property than houses, TV's, cars, etc.

 

THERE HAS NOT!

Another reason this whole gun control push smacks of ulterior motive!

 

again, you're dealing from a short deck. You do not understand the wording of the 2nd A. You cannot change the wording to justify your argument......and you know nothing of Rights since you have none. what part of shall not infringe is misleading?
You do realize that if any measure passes, it would be a direct attack on the 4th and 5th A, correct Mr. Constitutionalist?

 

I do not support the idea of background checks or limiting anyone's right to self defense with a firearm or other tool. I would have the act or acts of those who commit a crime with or without a firearm judged and not charging someone for the simple ownership or simple possession of a self defense tool. I believe that a criminal who has paid his debt to the victim(s) and society should regain his right(s). Absent those who cannot act responsibly with those rights (reserving just a skosh of wiggle room).


Instead of an instant background checks on those who choose to exercise their right I would suggest a program where every single American and alien of legal status (of legal age too) will be certified 2A ready to exercise with a special issued (be it a driver license or state) government ID. A background check (disabilities included) made not unlike what is run by LEO on traffic stops.

This card is (cyclically) issued until revocation or death. It will be presented for verification (but not recorded in any manner) for every firearm FFL purchase event (can buy as many as you want at one time).

If one's God-given right to arms is confiscated by the government their name/info will be added to a public list published on the internet for any seller (FFL or private) to access/check or if this is judged an invasion of their privacy then vise versa, those able to purchase are listed as the government doesn't have a problem with invading the citizen's privacy rights (i.e. published lawful ccw permit holder names). The site is administered in such a manner that "hits" on it are neither tracked nor recorded. No government records of searches or purchases.

The whole population, the People, are part of this program and the government cannot compile singular records of names and addresses, no one that is not competent to keep and bear will have access to marketed firearms, at least not anymore than they have been throughout history. And no law (even confiscation) will keep firearms from criminal possession. Conversely laws have been considered and/or passed to infringe on the rights of citizens regarding acquiring/keeping/bearing arms.

The sticking point in all of this for arms (citizen) control folks is they (arm/citizen control, anti-2A types) will not be able to know, If properly administered, who is an arms owner and who is not. Criminals with arms are less likely to be known as their categorical title is not concerned with honoring law.

 

The proponents of the BOR knew the darkness in human nature.

I believe that they refused to sign off on the Constitution without its inclusion because of their shared distrust on how those presently or later empowered could/would be tempted to read into or possibly ignore what is plainly written.

We have federal senators (among other elected politicians) determined to undermine the Constitution and American individual rights. One senator stated she would effectively take all firearms from Mr. & Mrs. America.

In 1934 the government taxed a firearm out of the People's hands, law abiding citizens were denied a right to an automatic rifle because criminals used it, among other tools, to maim and murder their victims.

Sandy Hook is the claimed inspiration for the latest "arms rights/reduction/confiscation/citizen control" assault, yes? The President paraded the surviving victims and children as props to his ends justifying the means, yes? I strongly suspect that the "arms rights/reduction/confiscation/citizen control" folks wait for just these events and will not address the root causes because it leads away from "arms rights/reduction/confiscation/citizen control" goal.

Please point out what in the defeated bill's intended or real impact would have prevented another event involving a madman (mental deranged) using legally purchased firearms from his desired criminal act? I just can't find that answer in the failed bill.

Why is the Second Amendment written as it is? Is/was it intended, does it truly mean, that the citizen has a right (pre-existing) to arms? Or does it not? What does "SHALL NOT" mean...?

 

In another thread I presented my compromise solution to the gun background check impasse we've reached.

I call it the PK Proposal because I thought of it.

The gist of it is that the gun industry and/or the NRA would handle the background checks and if the buyer did nt pass then that info would be given to the appropriate law enforcement agency to follow up on. However, the raw data and info on the millions of authorized and legal gun buyers collected by the seller would be collected and kept safe from the government and everyone else. And because the checks would be conducted by the gun industry or the NRA we have every reason to believe this private information would be handled responsibly and kept private unless an act of Congress dictated the information be released to the govt in situations like national emergencies or something of the sort.

But, and this is a big BUT, the PK Proposal should only be enacted after the govt. has seriously attempted to enforce the gun laws already on the books.

Then, if the people still felt the need for more stringent laws the PK Proposal could be enacted.

 

No compromise is needed. If the fascist and other socialists want to deny people their natural human right to own firearms, all they need to do is get an Amendment to the Constitution ratified stealing that right.

Until they do that, there's no reason for the Americans to compromise one iota.

 

Upon reading their thoughts when it was being considered, it seems that it was also meant to cement their disdain for a standing army, and to allow Americans to provide for a common defense of themselves through the militia. Congress was accordingly provided the power to raise armies. It's one of the more interesting amendments in my opinion.

I don't think politicians (other than those in radically blue districts) want to get rid of guns entirely. Politicians are self interested folks and use policy as a means to gain the perks of office, not the other way around. It would be political suicide in all but the bluest areas to take away the freedom to own firearms generally. All of the successful attempts at the Federal level so far have regulated and taxed, saving bans for those weapons most ordinary people don't care about.

Your country has far, far more serious constitutional issues than gun control. The 2nd amendment is actually one of the less frequently violated sections in my opinion, but this is only because most others are violated on a perpetual basis.

 

I think it's a good idea to have a background check for a private transaction especially if you are selling to a stranger. I wouldn't want to sell to a convicted rapist or something.

I do not, however, believe it should be a law because it simply can not be enforced. At gun shows that's one thing. You can try and keep a pretty close eye on a gun show, but if I want to sell a gun to my neighbor behind closed doors I can do it and nobody will know it ever happened.

 

I'd like that idea, but there is a much easier solution that would have a similar effect and still cater a little to the pro-government folks:

Eliminate part D from the ATF 4473. This would allow the government to continue to require background checks of individuals buying guns, but would eliminate the recording of who buys what firearms.