You're asking a very vague question and ignoring the grey area. Of course, this is on par for most subjects debated. Very few people have a problem with checking for mental or criminal issues. The problem lies in that in order for this to happen, it requires a national gun registry. W/out a gun registry, there is no way to enforce this. Gun owners do not like the idea of the government knowing all the weapons they own. There is no debating about this; All gun dealers should run a back ground check, regardless of loopholes. I do agree that private sells should not be allowed to advertise w/out running background checks.
Does it really require it? Why can't a background check be done without logging the persons info some some ZOMG database?
Aren't current background check records required to be destroyed within 24 hours by law? And the way the law is now, the government isn't made aware of what guns are trying to be purchased. Why would that change if it were extended to all gun sales?
It's a slippery slope. First, they ask for a background check, and the next thing you know, they're checking your back round and then BOOM you are gay married.
Because gun sales to people who aren't legally allowed to own them makes up a large percentage of business to gun companies. You don't want to take away American jobs, do you?
Doing background checks does not require a registry. A gun registry would make background checks easier but is unnecessary to run background checks. At the moment background checks can be done electronically. That means you run someone's name through a database. Given the multitude of purposes for running background checks, there is absolutely no way that the owner of the background check database would be able to differentiate between checks being done on a gun owner or on someone else. You never have to say the purpose, and you certainly don't have to mention how many guns the person is buying. These are all excuses, and if anyone was genuine about wanting these checks, they would simply undertake to destroy records within a certain period of time and not maintain any kind of database/registry. If all these things have been offered and both parties are aware it's possible but not happening, then the parties are in cahoots against you. This is the most likely scenario.
QUESTION: How much privacy is an American Citizen allowed to have? Answer: As much as he can afford Everything comes at a price tag it seems theses days . . . Rocket River
Why is there no big push for harder punishments across the board? I think everyone would be on board for punish wrongful use of these weapons. I am for no tolerance with violators. Say you have a gun on you in a place you are not supposed to, fined and not allowed to purchase a gun again for life.
A hell of a lot more people are killed by texting drivers than guns. Why is there no big push for harder punishments across the board? I am for no tolerance with violators. Say you text while driving, fined and not allowed to drive again for life.
The big problem is once you give the government more power all they do is abuse it. Next thing you know they'll be doing background checks on everything under the sun. Want some soy sauce to go on that fried rice from Panda Express? Background check! Want some fungal cream for that embarrassing rash? Background check! Want to buy some doggie treats for your canine spouse? Background check!
Well 805 gun related murders last year, I can't find a statistic for texting and driving related deaths. ~3000 per year fatal accidents so 30% texting related, sure ill give it to you. What you do see is a push against texting an driving, where are the gun safety ads? And sure if people are going to text an drive make it a way harder punishment I am all for safer roads.
Just like all of that happened when you had to prove you could drive a car before getting a driver's license, am I right? I think that was the watershed moment where you lost all your rights. Or, it could also be that your post makes absolutely no sense, because while things like cars and guns can easily kill people in the blink of an eye, soy sauce and fungal cream cannot (though i have never tried mixing them, truth be told.)
Don't be ridiculous, this is a major issue. If you could pick 3 things on which background checks should be done, gun ownership is definitely one of them. For everything else, when they propose it, you can reject it. This argument is so stale. It's not even the same government all the time. The only part of the government that doesn't change and behaves consistently - you have no control/say over anyway. They will keep registries and databases in the "interest of national security" without your knowledge or approval, and punish anyone who tries to out them. To argue that the government will keep wanting more is just a stubborn child-like rant to make a prideful point with something that is dangerous. To think that drawing the line at checking if people are mentally ill before they buy guns is a necessary line to draw is absurd. Pick some other issue where people's lives are not at sake to make your point or draw your paranoid line about where people's privacy ends/begins. How about you start with the Patriot Act which is a much bigger abuse of your privacy.
