Are you for or against universal background checks for purchasing firearms, even from gun shows?

8 comments:

• valleynative posted at 11:24 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

  Posts: 277

  The tag "even from gun shows" is misleading. Most purchases at gun shows are from dealers, who conduct exactly the same background check and file exactly the same paperwork that they would if the transaction took place in their store.

  The so-called "loophole" involves private citizens selling to private citizens, and that sort of sale doesn't need to take place at a gun show at all. If I advertise a gun for sale in the classifieds of this newspaper, and you come to my door and buy it, that's simply a sales transaction between two citizens of Arizona (I would have to check your ID to confirm that you're a resident), and so it does NOT involve interstate commerce, and so the federal government has no authority to require any paperwork from me.
  

  • Link

   

• valleynative posted at 12:21 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

  Posts: 277

  "universal background check" sounds like a wonderful goal, but you really need to look beyond those nice words to what it would really be.

  1. It wouldn't be universal. A burglar who steals a gun isn't going to require a background check before selling the gun to a fence, and the fence won't require one before selling it to another criminal. If I was slightly unscrupulous, and my brother wanted to buy one of my guns, I wouldn't require a background check. If he then loaned it to his son who used it in self-defense and the police tried to trace ownership, it could not be traced back to me, because the government doesn't know that I own it today.

  2. It wouldn't be much of a background check. Remember that Loughner passed a background check. The only "background" they check is whether or not you've been reported to the NCIC database as having a criminal record that prohibits you from buying a gun. Mental health professionals generally don't report patients due to privacy concerns.

  3. There's nothing to prevent a person without a criminal record from buying a gun for his cousin who is in the NCIC database. If the police trace it back to the law abiding cousin, he just says "golly, officer, it must have been stolen and I didn't notice".
  

  • Link

   

• Poorman posted at 7:44 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 414

  More worthless gun law,there is no way i would ever conform to this stupid kind of law. Nor would i ever register any of my guns, Just gives our good ole government a nice database to come later and collect your guns etc. Its non of their business what i have in my collection. I very seldom have bought from any dealer,only when i have to.I will o looking at the show,and continue to buy from private parties,as most all of my friends do and have done for years, Have a good day all!

  • Link

   

• Trans posted at 8:05 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 30

  It seems the one thing everyone (even Lapierre) agrees about is that people who are mentally ill should not own guns. Poorman, you demonstrated in your post that you are both paranoid and delusional, which means you should not be allowed to own so much as a BB gun.

  • Link

   

• valleynative posted at 4:14 pm on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 277

  Trans, you actually demonstrate one of the problems with trying to keep guns away from the mentally ill. There are too many people like yourself who believe they understand terminology like "paranoid" and "delusional", but who really don't.

  Nothing indicated or hinted about in Poorman's post should disqualify him from being able to keep and bear arms.

  When "Doesn't trust the government" becomes a reason to ban a person from being armed, the second amendment will have lost all meaning.
  

  • Link

   

• Trans posted at 11:40 am on Sat, Feb 9, 2013.

  Posts: 30

  If Poorman truly believes the government wants to register gun ownership as a first step towards universal confiscation, then he certainly is suffering from paranoia. And if he believes that his rifle - pistol - shotgun - rocket launcher will enable him to hold off the power of the entire US military, then he is delusional - absolutely, positively.

  More likely he knows he's talking garbage but thinks it makes him sound like a big man. He's the type of guy who will eventually shoot himself in the foot while showing off. Hopefully he won't hurt anyone else.

  • Link

   

• valleynative posted at 4:50 pm on Sat, Feb 9, 2013.

  Posts: 277

  No Trans, as I said before, those aren't diagnostic at all. He's not paranoid, he's distrustful. There's a difference.

  He's not delusional, he's been reading recent military history. The U.S. military really isn't very good at popular insurrections, and wouldn't be able to function at all against a domestic insurrection. Do you really believe any politician could survive the sight of tanks in the streets or drones attacking citizens?
  

  • Link

   

• valleynative posted at 5:13 pm on Sat, Feb 9, 2013.

  Posts: 277

  And in looking back, Trans, I see that Poorman never even suggested the position that you claim as "delusional". By your pop-psychology diagnosis, that would make you "delusional", wouldn't it?

  • Link