-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun from a Retailer?
- Thread starter machete
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun control poll
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The problem is the Main Stream Media is in the pockets of the Rulers...
It is far easier and cheaper for a criminal to acquire any said firearm than it is for me a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN...
What part of that even sounds sane?!
No part of it you say...
Thank you...
Then WTF do I need to jump though hoops to have what the Government has deemed appropriate for me to own?!
It is far easier and cheaper for a criminal to acquire any said firearm than it is for me a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN...
What part of that even sounds sane?!
No part of it you say...
Thank you...
Then WTF do I need to jump though hoops to have what the Government has deemed appropriate for me to own?!
I think it's reasonable for some crimes to carry a lifetime ban from owning weapons as part of the sentence. Not any felony, but certain violent felonies.
For instance, armed robbery. You won't get life in prison for that, but by using a weapon of defense against your fellow citizens for the purpose of taking their stuff so you can have it, I don't have a problem with a life sentence against owning weapons.
For instance, armed robbery. You won't get life in prison for that, but by using a weapon of defense against your fellow citizens for the purpose of taking their stuff so you can have it, I don't have a problem with a life sentence against owning weapons.
Personally, I feel if someone is deemed so dangerous that their Right to Self-Defense is Revoked. Then we should just Execute them...
What practical effect would a lifetime sentence against owning weapons have with a former felon? What practical effect would it have on law-abiding citizens' ability to freely transact the business of selling firearms privately or at retail/wholesale?
Are you being serious?
I'll answer a question with a question:
What practical effect does revoking someone's driver license for drunk driving have?
I think denying them a weapon for the rest of their life is a fitting punishment, that's all. They could still get one, sure, but then they'd be committing a crime that would also carry a punishment.
Partly I am...
If Someone is so Dangerous that after they have paid there Debts to Society, we have to further strip their Rights. Then apparently the Debt is still unpaid. Either Keep them locked up or execute them if they are that dangerous...
How effective has been Revoking Someones Right to own a Firearm worked in Our past to prevent re-occurrences with this type of People?!
How many Repeat Drunk Driving Offenders are there out in the Public right now?! Obviously this technique is not working either...
We basically have that now, and it's not working.
Regionnus Rattis
Expert
+1 for your thoughts…nicely stated and I agree. A felon, who has been convicted by a jury (common everyday people) of a crime, sentenced by a judge (hopefully one who is just in his/her decision) and carried out that sentence by spending whatever time was necessary, according to the judgment rendered. Once that person has finished his/her time in prison, they are no longer a felon. While there can be a huge debate without any answers on this subject, the part that I agree with Ranger is society continues to blacklist that person for the rest of his/her life, the “scarlet letter” if you will.
That being said, something like this wouldn’t happen overnight and would require change, just in a different mindset. There will continue to be thugs, thieves, rapists, murderers, robbers and other types of felons. But if we made harsh sentencing, stuck to it and actually allowed that person to be a “person” again, once out of prison, it just may be a better world. Certainly, you don’t have to forget what a person did to you or a friend or family member, but we do need to forgive. We never know what caused felons to do what they did, but once they have paid their debt to society, they should be allowed to be a productive part of society. How many murders and other gun crimes go unnoticed because people don’t really care that they happened in some gang neighborhood, drug dealers and such. I’m sure these outstanding law-abiding citizens were sure to go down and fill out their paperwork for a LTCH. That old book referenced a few times? Even The Son never said to his followers to turn swords into plowshares. He never told Peter not to carry his sword with him…only to put it back in its sheath when Peter cut off the servant’s ear…because the servant had done nothing wrong.
joshennis84
Marksman
I can agree with that, and like you said, God forgives and asks us to do the same. I guess I'm just more on the felony that some gang banger shot someone and now wants to buy another gun, or like the other guy said standing up a bank, etc... But when you've put it the way you have, I can completely agree.
notes on 4473/Brady/NICS/background checks
One cumulative effect of years of gun control propaganda becomes obvious when, nearly every time this subject comes up, people immediately start focusing on convicted felons, while glossing over the loss of everyone else's rights. Many now equate the physical possession of the gun with the right, regardless of what they had to do to get it. The easier the process seems, the easier for them to become conditioned to it.
Careful about throwing around the 'F' word. Gun prohibition/restriction advocates will pursue a new angle to keep expanding the list of felonies so that more and more people are barred from buying, owning, or carrying guns.
If by "don't think it's right" you mean "don't think it's necessarily a good thing" I might agree, except that's not what was asked. The poll question is Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun from a Retailer? That means you. And me. All of us.
To no one in particular:
Should (your name here) Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun from a Retailer? No! Why? I have accused you of no crime. You owe me nothing, and don't need my permission to buy a gun. The reverse is also true. If not, what crime(s) are you accusing me of that I have to clear my name and character to be "allowed" to buy a gun? Make no mistake about it, that's what you're doing when you fill out the form and get a background check - applying for permission to be allowed to buy that gun. It's also an invasion of your privacy.
What's wrong with having to fill out a piece of paper? When you are required by law to fill out and turn in a form with your personal info, when someone has to check a box approved or not, when someone has to call or send your info in to "headquarters" and get approval/permission for you from a bureaucrat or "system" - you don't have a right - to do whatever it is you are applying for permission to do. In this case, buy a gun.
It wasn't originally called the Brady background check (and waiting period) for nothing. Using technology to speed up the process doesn't change a thing. Five days, five hours, five minutes, five seconds doesn't matter. If you have to apply for permission - you do not have a right.
Take away the rights of the many, because of the actions of the few. You and I do not, presently, have a right to buy a gun from a retailer (FFL). It's been taken away statutorily, replaced with a right to apply for permission to buy it, provided you pass your check. If it's a handgun, neither do you have a right in Indiana to carry it on your person or in your vehicle while off your own property. You must apply for a license granting authorization/ permission to do so or risk being charged with a crime - but that's a topic for another thread. That leaves only private sales, what Helmke/Brady call "the gun show loophole". That's why they keep screaming that it must be "closed", and about so-called "unlicensed dealers" at gunshows. They just can't stand that a gun transaction might take place without their nanny system knowing about it and recording all details before giving "official" approval after you've been "checked out". Even if you bought all your guns "off paper", it wouldn't get rid of the gun control regime the licensed dealers have to operate under. Besides, you might want a new instead of used gun.
If there were no gun control laws, would it be easier for a convict released or paroled, or anyone with criminal intent to get a gun? Maybe, probably, likely. What does that have to do with you? Answer: nothing.
Let's get your rights back first before we start obsessing over what to do about the dreaded "convicted felon". So what's wrong with having to fill out a piece of paper (with personal and private info and turn it in, hoping for approval, before you are allowed to buy that gun)?
It's one thing to comply simply because it's the law. It's another to get on a forum for gun owners and openly advocate for the violation of their rights because of the actions of convicted criminals, or on the pretext of "public safety". There is no way in Hell I will advocate or vote for any law or "system" that subjects all of us to a digitized version of the TSA treatment before we're "allowed" to buy a gun.
One cumulative effect of years of gun control propaganda becomes obvious when, nearly every time this subject comes up, people immediately start focusing on convicted felons, while glossing over the loss of everyone else's rights. Many now equate the physical possession of the gun with the right, regardless of what they had to do to get it. The easier the process seems, the easier for them to become conditioned to it.
(Not important who posted it. Heard this so many times wanted to share some views on it from past conversations.)
Careful about throwing around the 'F' word. Gun prohibition/restriction advocates will pursue a new angle to keep expanding the list of felonies so that more and more people are barred from buying, owning, or carrying guns.
If by "don't think it's right" you mean "don't think it's necessarily a good thing" I might agree, except that's not what was asked. The poll question is Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun from a Retailer? That means you. And me. All of us.
To no one in particular:
Should (your name here) Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun from a Retailer? No! Why? I have accused you of no crime. You owe me nothing, and don't need my permission to buy a gun. The reverse is also true. If not, what crime(s) are you accusing me of that I have to clear my name and character to be "allowed" to buy a gun? Make no mistake about it, that's what you're doing when you fill out the form and get a background check - applying for permission to be allowed to buy that gun. It's also an invasion of your privacy.
What's wrong with having to fill out a piece of paper? When you are required by law to fill out and turn in a form with your personal info, when someone has to check a box approved or not, when someone has to call or send your info in to "headquarters" and get approval/permission for you from a bureaucrat or "system" - you don't have a right - to do whatever it is you are applying for permission to do. In this case, buy a gun.
It wasn't originally called the Brady background check (and waiting period) for nothing. Using technology to speed up the process doesn't change a thing. Five days, five hours, five minutes, five seconds doesn't matter. If you have to apply for permission - you do not have a right.
Take away the rights of the many, because of the actions of the few. You and I do not, presently, have a right to buy a gun from a retailer (FFL). It's been taken away statutorily, replaced with a right to apply for permission to buy it, provided you pass your check. If it's a handgun, neither do you have a right in Indiana to carry it on your person or in your vehicle while off your own property. You must apply for a license granting authorization/ permission to do so or risk being charged with a crime - but that's a topic for another thread. That leaves only private sales, what Helmke/Brady call "the gun show loophole". That's why they keep screaming that it must be "closed", and about so-called "unlicensed dealers" at gunshows. They just can't stand that a gun transaction might take place without their nanny system knowing about it and recording all details before giving "official" approval after you've been "checked out". Even if you bought all your guns "off paper", it wouldn't get rid of the gun control regime the licensed dealers have to operate under. Besides, you might want a new instead of used gun.
If there were no gun control laws, would it be easier for a convict released or paroled, or anyone with criminal intent to get a gun? Maybe, probably, likely. What does that have to do with you? Answer: nothing.
Let's get your rights back first before we start obsessing over what to do about the dreaded "convicted felon". So what's wrong with having to fill out a piece of paper (with personal and private info and turn it in, hoping for approval, before you are allowed to buy that gun)?
It's one thing to comply simply because it's the law. It's another to get on a forum for gun owners and openly advocate for the violation of their rights because of the actions of convicted criminals, or on the pretext of "public safety". There is no way in Hell I will advocate or vote for any law or "system" that subjects all of us to a digitized version of the TSA treatment before we're "allowed" to buy a gun.
Last edited:
Antelope08
Plinker
As I read the question, the key phrase is "buy from a retailer". If I were a gun retailer I would want all buyers to pass a check for liability reasons. As a buyer it does restrict rights when buying from a retailer. The question does not addrsss the issue about the right to own a gun, which per our Constitution should be unrestricted, unfortunately the Constitution does not address the method of purchase.
Background checks are a reality of life today. Many employers now require background checks as do many volunteer organizations. The Salvation Army now requires them if you volunteer the "ring the bell". I am not saying I like this, just pointing out the ugly reality of it.
The biggest problem is where does this stop. The next step will be to require private sales to be run through a retailer or state check point. There has to be some balance and reason applied, unfortunately balance and reason are strongly lacking in our governement. Many of the "no" responses refer to the Constitution and the "right to keep and bear arms". which I am a strong advocate of. But, again the Constitution does not say we have an unrestricted right to "purchase and bear arms". Splitting hairs I know but those that oppose gun ownership can point this out, and correctly so.
I fear our government is getting too powerful and intrusive in our everyday lives. So for now, the right to own firearms by the citizens of our country is our last stand for freedom. As one great American once said. " No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Background checks are a reality of life today. Many employers now require background checks as do many volunteer organizations. The Salvation Army now requires them if you volunteer the "ring the bell". I am not saying I like this, just pointing out the ugly reality of it.
The biggest problem is where does this stop. The next step will be to require private sales to be run through a retailer or state check point. There has to be some balance and reason applied, unfortunately balance and reason are strongly lacking in our governement. Many of the "no" responses refer to the Constitution and the "right to keep and bear arms". which I am a strong advocate of. But, again the Constitution does not say we have an unrestricted right to "purchase and bear arms". Splitting hairs I know but those that oppose gun ownership can point this out, and correctly so.
I fear our government is getting too powerful and intrusive in our everyday lives. So for now, the right to own firearms by the citizens of our country is our last stand for freedom. As one great American once said. " No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
The question was, "should we have to", which takes liability and the wishes of the individual retailers out of the equation.
We currently have to because it is law. So the question becomes: should this be the law?
Infringing on the ability to purchase does infringe upon the ability if not the right to keep and bear.
We currently have to because it is law. So the question becomes: should this be the law?
Infringing on the ability to purchase does infringe upon the ability if not the right to keep and bear.
They won't have to come take anything away.
It will be given away one ideal, one infringement, one undefended liberty at a time.
It will be given away "for the greater good" by those who have forgotten their unique heritage
...and the American Revolution will come to an end - subjects once again.
Wake up.
Racerubber
Plinker
In my opion no they shouldn't have to/
So, I vote yes. Let me explain why.... you are standing in your local gun shop, sporting goods store or whereever you may buy a gun. In walks scum bag convict. Lets say convicted cocaine dealer, or armed robber, burgar or rape. Not just your typical guy who messed up once or twice, but a true piece of crap.
You and your son are standing there ready to buy his first shotgun for squirrel season, or your wife's handgun, or your new rifle. Do you really want this type of person being able to walk right in and buy a gun right along side you?
True-- criminal will get gun anyway. But do we want him to be able to buy it off the shelf right next to us who are the law-abiding guys. I would rather him have to buy the drug house junk gun without any warranty and box. Hopefully it is a p.o.s. that will jam every shot.
You and your son are standing there ready to buy his first shotgun for squirrel season, or your wife's handgun, or your new rifle. Do you really want this type of person being able to walk right in and buy a gun right along side you?
True-- criminal will get gun anyway. But do we want him to be able to buy it off the shelf right next to us who are the law-abiding guys. I would rather him have to buy the drug house junk gun without any warranty and box. Hopefully it is a p.o.s. that will jam every shot.
I voted NO for several Reasons...
1. I feel it is Unconstitutional...
2. The Currently implemented Background checks are doing SO well at keeping Firearms out of the hands of Peoples not allowed to have them...
3. The Currently implemented Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, Rules, and Guidelines do such a GREAT job of keeping Prohibited Weapon Types out of the hands of the Peoples who are not allowed to Own them...
I could go on and on and on. Gun Control DOES NOT freaking WORK people! When are the masses going to get this?!
1. I feel it is Unconstitutional...
2. The Currently implemented Background checks are doing SO well at keeping Firearms out of the hands of Peoples not allowed to have them...
3. The Currently implemented Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, Rules, and Guidelines do such a GREAT job of keeping Prohibited Weapon Types out of the hands of the Peoples who are not allowed to Own them...
I could go on and on and on. Gun Control DOES NOT freaking WORK people! When are the masses going to get this?!
This is the same line of argument used by Handgun Control, Inc and their media allies as they lobbied constantly and emotionally to persuade the American people to accept "common sense laws" and "reasonable restrictions" on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, reaching a crescendo after the '92 elections.
Already answered upthread. Want? I'd just as soon "that type of person" not have a gun, I'm just not willing to sacrifice your right, and the right of the people en masse, on the pretext of "keeping guns out of the wrong hands".
It's academic at this point, since the "system" is firmly entrenched and unlikely to ever be dismantled. The poll does demonstrate, however, that a huge percentage of gun owners have been duped into not only allowing their rights to be redefined for them by gun control proponents, but into lobbying for one of the main planks of the gun control agenda by rationalizing away their own - and everyone else's - right to buy a gun.
Site Supporter
Members online
- maceace
- wesnellans
- trimman83
- Eulogy32
- Ark
- shootersix
- BE Mike
- funeralweb
- indyk
- Tom Threetoes
- hammerd13
- Timjoebillybob
- Reale1741
- Meatstick
- slims2002
- JRR85
- IndianaJosh
- phil
- Gaffer
- Codyf44
- Pyro
- tjones
- bocefus78
- drillsgt
- Dog1
- jdhilder56
- indyartisan
- Beretta76
- Butch627
- jamil
- Wabatuckian
- Gabriel
- dsol
- Jeffforpresident
- Jmtbug21
- injb
- Basher
- klausm
- Jagermeister
- cobber
- BehindBlueI's
- kennedy759
- Bassat
- 22LRFan
- Justonemore1
- Life Member
- Bosshoss
- familyevents
- Grump01
- 257robertsimp
