Universal Background check

[badbullgator]

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as the following is true:

No record of the arms purchased is kept.
Only the last check date was recorded, no running tally.
A maximum fee of $10.00 can be charged and failed checks are refunded 50% of the fee charged.
The PII data is not shared with any non-US group.
The results must be available within 15 minutes.
CWP holders are exempt.

Generally OK with the idea anyway...

And you believe you have this check done by your government and no records are retained? Honesty is our govenrments middle name. That is not the way they, or any other entity works any more. You probably believe there are no records of your Internet activity either..

[treemanjohn]

Curious........j
1. What is wrong with a gun registry?

2. Wasn't the Federal Government ( who apparently many people do not trust) who gave us the Second Amendment?

3. If a felon or a person with mental illness wants to buy an assault weapon............aren't we violating their second amendment rights by not letting them? The amendment as written does not makes specifications about people that may have "arms"

1. A registry establishes a database base detailing the whereabouts of every LEGALLY OWNED gun in the country. Dumb

2. Our Federal government hated itself, that why it established the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was written to protect private citizens from domestic and foreign.

3. After the Kennedy assassination the Gun Control Act was passed. In 1968 felons were prohibited from having firearms on a national level. People with no criminal history commit heinous felonies every single day, and people who have committed felonies in the past might be a perfectly law abiding citizen for the rest of their lives. Simply saying a felon or someone adjudicated mentally ill can't have firearms is a false sense of security. People who want to use a gun against another human being will ALWAYS have access.

[fins4me]

I think that anyone who thinks that a background check does not lead to the Fed Govt maintaining a list of gun owners along with what guns they possess is VERY NAIVE....or IGNORANT,,,, or STUPID...

The Govt more than likely already knows about half of my firearms,,, that is more than enough.

How would a background check requirement be enforced? Example,,, I might know someone who owns a mint quality Thompson that I would like to own,,, I call him up offer him $$$ he says it is a deal,, I give him the cash and take delivery of said firearm.. How will berry (as in dingle) ever know??

[SWFL_F1sh0n]

The Frenchman running the NRA used to be for it, before he was against it. Anyone else notice a GOP trend?

[Chuckc]

I've already purchased several firearms I no longer have through normal channels. Too late for me, my name's already on the list.

[RStyle]

Thanks treemanjohn. Your explanations are not emotional and make sense. I believe in the Second Amendment but I believe in some controls IF they would benefit our society and make our cities better. I just do not have an opinion on many issues but want to be educated

I thought(from reading)that the Second Amendment was written to protect the Federal Government from insurrection in the newly created states, from foreign countries or from the Indians. The continental Army was disbanded and to protect the country a Militia was created in which 18-45yr old males HAD to keep a musket and a bayonet AT HOME and be ready if the President needed them ( Somewhat similar to what exists in Switzerland today). If called, it was not a free for all. There was an organizational way in which things happened with training, officers to lead (who had a horse ) etc. Please read the Militia Act of 1792. The thought that if our government wants to take over, we are going to prevent it because we are armed it is difficult to comprehend. With no military training, experience, methods of organized communications and individuals to lead.................not sure how it can happen (note that in Switzerland young men keep their guns at home with a limited number of rounds of ammunition, but they must go through a period of military training every year while they have the weapons)

This goes with your number 3. Access. There are 300 million guns and maybe just over 200 million people in this country. The individual with who had a CWP at the Gifford shooting and went looking for the shooter said on TV the other day that the problem was that there were not enough guns for people to feel safe.
Which made me think............how many are needed for the country to feel safe. 500 million? 800million? Do you feel safer if with our population if we have 600 million or if there are 100,000. Will access be greater with the larger number guns for people that want to use a gun against others.

Personally I do not think the problem is guns, access or mental illness. I think is culture. The breakdown of our cultural and religious beliefs, drug problems,
kids growing up without parents, gangs,unemployment, society where money is more important than values (the reason for the thousands of attorneys and
their ads), lack of good education for kids, admiration for false figures that are thrown at us every day (Kardashian). The reason there are more guns than almost anywhere and less gun violence in Israel and Switzerland and less guns and less gun violence in Japan has nothing to do with guns. It is culture. I do not think more or less gun control is going to change what is happening regarding gun violence in our country

[treemanjohn]

The only thing protecting people from being a victim of a violent crime is morality and ethics. That's it! You can't legislate either one, so laws are only good for the citizens that abide by them

[Chuckc]

Treeman speaks the truth with this post.

[RStyle]

I would have thought of it the other way around. The thing that keeps us from becoming criminals are morality and ethics. If my teachers and parents had not taught me both, I'd be out in the hood looking for trouble, making money selling drugs and not thinking about my future and the future of my children

Something I find interesting are people frequently quoting the Second Amendment as the reason they have a gun............because they have a right to protect their home and their family. A lady at the recent congressional hearing presented 15 cases in which women protected themselves, saved their lives or their children because they had a weapon and for that reason Second Amendment rights should be protected. Although I believe there is no better way to protect your home than with a gun (shotgun) the truth of the matter is that the amendment gives you the right to have a weapon but it does not suggest that it is for self defense or to protect your family but that it is to protect the state. (I am sure people will extrapolate and say their home is their state but I am not sure that was the intent when the amendment was written)

[Jettypark]

This is what happens when a Lie is repeated enough times... first "Background checks" that didnt do anything so they needed a new word and
added "Universal background checks" the people drank the Koolaid and said "Well hell bells" it a Universal check

The background check that is in place is suppose to weed out anyone imprisoned for more than two years; those convicted of domestic abuse;
fugitives from justice, illegal immigrants; soldiers who have been dishonorably discharged; and people who are under indictment for a
crime punishable by more than a year behind bars.

Now while it does cover "Mental illness" few states are submitting the reqired records to the Federal database..and just like mental health records, drug
violations are also under reported to the feds..

so why are states not providing these records to the feds... MONEY and lazy Political will...

Here's something else to think about>

Researchers in 2000 reviewed more than a decade of crime data in states with and without background checks. They found no significant difference in murder rates in states that had implemented the checks and states that had not, according to the study, which was published in The Journal of the American Medical Association.



Most of this data came from the FBI and Department of Justice sites... not a freaking blog ...

The end game for this is for the left/obama to get another pat on their back because they gave the people a placebo effect..make them
feel good, but it isnt going to change a damn thing.....NO we don't need to talk about gun trafficking/gangs/drug use and mental health..
thats just silly talk... Background checks> Yes that will stop everything