Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (8 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
calvin natt said:
There needs to be background checks period. No background checks and just imagine how much worse it would be. No one is saying they solve shit. Obviously it’s a mess and always will be. But if we start letting every felon go buy a gun we are Syria.
Click to expand...
Nobody suggested letting felons buy guns. In fact, that is the opposite of what I've suggested.
 
Chris Craig said:
So sorry people are so put out that they have to wait a little bit to buy a gun because of a background check. Why is convenience more important than what is right?
Click to expand...
That's a conversation we could go into, but it just wouldn't lead anywhere productive.

A big part of it though, is that there is a huge resistance to a national list of gun owners. Which any universal background check system would be.

So any attempt at anything universal would be undermined every step of the way. The only thing that will ever be allowed is state level checks. Which will range from inconsistent to non-existent at best.

That's why I propose simply restricting those we've deemed dangerous. Basically violent criminals. Those who committed domestic violence, etc.

You'd get support for that right away. Nearly across the board. Nobody is going to argue that we should arm criminals.
 
Phatguysrule said:
That's a conversation we could go into, but it just wouldn't lead anywhere productive.

A big part of it though, is that there is a huge resistance to a national list of gun owners. Which any universal background check system would be.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand this. You can do a background check without recording the purchase.

So any attempt at anything universal would be undermined every step of the way. The only thing that will ever be allowed is state level checks. Which will range from inconsistent to non-existent at best.

That's why I propose simply restricting those we've deemed dangerous. Basically violent criminals. Those who committed domestic violence, etc.

You'd get support for that right away. Nearly across the board. Nobody is going to argue that we should arm criminals.
Click to expand...

So a universal database of those who aren't allowed to buy guns. So you'd do a database query, (you could call it a 'background check') to see if a customer was allowed to buy.

How is that different?

barfo
 
barfo said:
Not sure I understand this. You can do a background check without recording the purchase.
Click to expand...
The problem being that every person who did a background check could be assumed to be a gun owner with a reasonable degree of confidence.


barfo said:
So a universal database of those who aren't allowed to buy guns. So you'd do a database query, (you could call it a 'background check') to see if a customer was allowed to buy.

How is that different?

barfo
Click to expand...

Not a universal system. Each state already has a database of people who are not allowed to buy guns. The universal part is requiring the states to mark the ID of those people. Which every state already has the capability of doing. And a federal law criminalizing the act of supplying restricted people with firearms. This is empowering the states, as well as giving them a new source of revenue. It's also reducing the workload of doing background checks.

It's different because no law abiding citizens would be in this database. You are not targeting law abiding citizens, you're targeting dangerous criminals. No added cost or inconvenience for anybody except criminals who have to pay for their restricted ID. Thereby you'd have a lot less resistance.
 
Phatguysrule said:
The problem being that every person who did a background check could be assumed to be a gun owner with a reasonable degree of confidence.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that those whose background is checked are then recorded in a database. That doesn't have to be the case. Instead the seller could be required to retain proof of the buyer passing the check.

Not a universal system. Each state already has a database of people who are not allowed to buy guns. The universal part is requiring the states to mark the ID of those people. Which every state already has the capability of doing. And a federal law criminalizing the act of supplying restricted people with firearms. This is empowering the states, as well as giving them a new source of revenue. It's also reducing the workload of doing background checks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but... is the state going to check with all the other states (and the feds) whether the ID applicant is a criminal? So basically do a universal background check on everyone who applies for an ID, gun purchaser or not? Or are you wanting a system where a criminal can just apply for an ID in a different state and then buy guns as desired?

barfo
 
barfo said:
You are assuming that those whose background is checked are then recorded in a database. That doesn't have to be the case. Instead the seller could be required to retain proof of the buyer passing the check.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what is assumed. And that's why people oppose it. If you enter your name into a government database search there is a record of that search. The government will be keeping that record. The government will know that the search happened and that it was with the intention of purchasing a gun.

We know that this is the case, and that they will do this even if they are not supposed to.

Just like Homeland Security did with our phone calls and meta data, even though it was unconstitutional for them to do so.

barfo said:
Yeah, but... is the state going to check with all the other states (and the feds) whether the ID applicant is a criminal? So basically do a universal background check on everyone who applies for an ID, gun purchaser or not? Or are you wanting a system where a criminal can just apply for an ID in a different state and then buy guns as desired?

barfo
Click to expand...

Yes. I am proposing that database be a nationwide database. It's already a felony to sell guns to out of state buyers if you don't have an FFL. And if you want to buy a gun in another state or online you have to go through an FFL dealer. I wouldn't change that.

I am proposing that anybody else who sells to a buyer without an unrestricted in state ID be charged with a felony and have their ID confiscated and replaced with their very own firearm restricted ID.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yes, that is what is assumed. And that's why people oppose it. If you enter your name into a government database search there is a record of that search. The government will be keeping that record. The government will know that the search happened and that it was with the intention of purchasing a gun.

We know that this is the case, and that they will do this even if they are not supposed to.

Just like Homeland Security did with our phone calls and meta data, even though it was unconstitutional for them to do so.



Yes. I am proposing that database be a nationwide database. It's already a felony to sell guns to out of state buyers if you don't have an FFL. And if you want to buy a gun in another state or online you have to go through an FFL dealer. I wouldn't change that.

I am proposing that anybody else who sells to a buyer without an unrestricted in state ID be charged with a felony and have their ID confiscated and replaced with their very own firearm restricted ID.
Click to expand...

Well, I like it, it's certainly better than nothing. Although how much better is debatable.
There is a scarlet letter problem - the people who have committed whatever sin that got them on the list will be identifiable to anyone who sees their drivers license - bartenders, store clerks, banks, etc.
And if you are putting mentally ill people on the list, then your grocery store cashier can ask you - "so, are you a criminal, or are you crazy? Or both?"
One can imagine that various non-gun related businesses might decide not to do business with such people, making it harder for them to reintegrate into society, assuming they are trying to do so.
And then there are the first-time offenders - every offender is a first time offender the first time, and your system doesn't do much to lessen first-time gun offenses.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Well, I like it, it's certainly better than nothing. Although how much better is debatable.
There is a scarlet letter problem - the people who have committed whatever sin that got them on the list will be identifiable to anyone who sees their drivers license - bartenders, store clerks, banks, etc.
And if you are putting mentally ill people on the list, then your grocery store cashier can ask you - "so, are you a criminal, or are you crazy? Or both?"
One can imagine that various non-gun related businesses might decide not to do business with such people, making it harder for them to reintegrate into society, assuming they are trying to do so.
And then there are the first-time offenders - every offender is a first time offender the first time, and your system doesn't do much to lessen first-time gun offenses.

barfo
Click to expand...
We already use these restrictions on drivers licenses for medical and other driving restrictions.

Hasn't been a problem yet that I'm aware of. And employers are already at liberty to do background checks.

There is private information on your ID. If there weren't it wouldn't be very valuable.

KQ3pEI1.jpeg
 
Phatguysrule said:
We already use these restrictions on drivers licenses for medical and other driving restrictions.

Hasn't been a problem yet that I'm aware of. And employers are already at liberty to do background checks.

There is private information on your ID. If there weren't it wouldn't be very valuable.

KQ3pEI1.jpeg
Click to expand...

Sure, whether you need glasses or not. I guess there's a risk that someone might call you 'four-eyes' upon looking at your license?
That seems a long way from identifying you as a felon or as mentally ill.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Sure, whether you need glasses or not. I guess there's a risk that someone might call you 'four-eyes' upon looking at your license?
That seems a long way from identifying you as a felon or as mentally ill.

barfo
Click to expand...
Or that you have a habit of driving drunk. Or other similar restrictions that show you've committed a crime and are limited to driving a specific time or place.

Very similar to what a firearm restriction would expose.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Or that you have a habit of driving drunk. Or other similar restrictions that show you've committed a crime and are limited to driving a specific time or place.

Very similar to what a firearm restriction would expose.
Click to expand...

I don't think they put drunk driving violations on your license card, do they?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess if you lose your license, you either get an ID card instead (which itself doesn't suggest why you don't have a license to drive - maybe, like my granny, you just never learned how), or you are still in possession of your license card, but the cops see that it's suspended if they look you up.
But I don't have first hand experience with (being caught) driving drunk, so I'm listening if anyone has better info.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I don't think they put drunk driving violations on your license card, do they?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess if you lose your license, you either get an ID card instead (which itself doesn't suggest why you don't have a license to drive - maybe, like my granny, you just never learned how), or you are still in possession of your license card, but the cops see that it's suspended if they look you up.
But I don't have first hand experience with (being caught) driving drunk, so I'm listening if anyone has better info.

barfo
Click to expand...
You can get a hardship license with the restriction code listed which will let you drive with specific restrictions. For a lot of different things.
 
Phatguysrule said:
You can get a hardship license with the restriction code listed which will let you drive with specific restrictions. For a lot of different things.
Click to expand...

You can. But that's voluntary, not mandatory. And I don't think the code spells out what the hardship might be. There's no 'can only drive sober' code, for example.

barfo
 
As long as we don't infringe on anybody's rights.....right?
 
barfo said:
You can. But that's voluntary, not mandatory. And I don't think the code spells out what the hardship might be. There's no 'can only drive sober' code, for example.

barfo
Click to expand...
Would it really be a bad thing for people to know somebody is a dangerous person?

If it were a concern you could list the restriction on the back of the ID.

But seriously, nobody is examining your ID except people who legitimately need to (like police, employers, or people who are selling alcohol or guns) or criminals.
 
THE HCP said:
As long as we don't infringe on anybody's rights.....right?
Click to expand...
Should we remove your right to free speech because your neighbor says stupid shit?

Or to give us the right to silence Trump?

Probably not.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Should we remove your right to free speech because your neighbor says stupid shit?

Or to give us the right to silence Trump?

Probably not.
Click to expand...
Yes IMMEDIATELY if it keeps ONE more person from getting executed! Any other tough questions for me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top