Something like 80-95% of Americans have no problem with background checks. Check any polls. Big business is once again manipulating political parties to do the dirty work and protect its profits.
Over 90% of "the people" want guns regulated. That isn't the government telling the people what to do. It's the people deciding what we want.
100% of the people want the government to take the all the guns from the criminals. How's that working out?
9 out of 10 Americans agree with sensible background checks. Are we going to let the NRA (a lobby of 4m members) dictate policy in this country?
Yeah that's a clear 2nd Amendment violation. Don't need permission to exercise 2nd Amendment, just like you don't need to be screened to exercise 1st Amendment. A background check or doctor's declaration that prevents a citizen from obtaining a firearm would seem like a clear violation of due process and denial of a protected 2nd Amendment right. If it's just checking for a criminal record, that already exists and would have done nothing to stop Sandy Hook (as the proposed legislation would also have failed).
Sensible background checks already exist. NRA has the gun owners best interests by drawing the line and any win by anti gunners is marginalized thanks to them. Love it!
No, regulating is part of the 2nd amendment and written into the wording of the amendment itself. Not all guns currently have a background check required because of the loopholes. Getting rid of those and including mental background checks as well would have helped with Sandy Hook. The govt. regulates the sale of automobiles, alcohol, cigarettes, and plenty of legal things. There's nothing wrong with regulating the sale of guns.
I'm ok with regulation only as long as its not viewed as a step to do more...the problem is people want more so that is why you have resistance groups like the NRA. So what may seem as a common ground meet in the middle thing has to be fought against. I wish that wasn't the case but you have to have that to counter anti-gunners. Where I would like even more regulation than there already is alcohol, and autos....the pro-death status via alcohol and tobacco and autos will state it is regulated enough and those deaths are just going to happen...it is selective death acceptance rationale. It depends on what your interests are, what your chosen politician stance is and nothing much more
If anything the fact that alcohol and smokes are not overly regulated should show that the gun lobby has nothing to fear from a little of it. If the purpose is only to save lives, not take people's rights away. If the gov't know every gun has an owner then committing a crime with it becomes that much more risky. I would think that a gun owner would want that info to be public in fact. If the primary reason is self-defense, best if someone knows you are packing - they will probably leave you alone, right?
I have not seen/read/heard an argument against expanded background checks compelling enough to outweigh the greater good accomplished by enacting the checks. I have not seen/read/heard anything about the checks that would lead me to believe the guns I currently own, nor any guns I might intend to purchase would be affected in any way.
background checks aren't the problem (all new firearms purchases already have bg checks for those libs that don't know this tidbit).. it's opening up the mental health history and storing of information for future use that's the issue. Along with who's the person responsible for determining who is mentally fit. There is your opportunity for abuse. They don't like you or you've been prescribed anything in the past.. you are unfit. There's their reasoning for confiscation. Which has already happened.. A good example.. A Form of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun in New York State — Here’s the Justification Being Used As far as "loop holes" .. there is no loopholes, ftf firearms transfers are legal in most states. Besides.. how many criminals go through background checks if they know they have a record? None. The only people being affected are non-criminals. More background checks aren't going to do ****. Why not go after the damn criminals? What a concept.
Known criminals aren't committing the mass shootings with weapons of war, for one. What do you have to fear in this proposed (weak) bill anyway? Nothing, unless you make a lot of money at gun shows.
There certainly are loopholes. Gunshows, firearm transfers from person to person (depending on how their done) don't require a background check. Why are you acting like they aren't going after criminals? That is already being done. What's the problem with background checks? It only means that instead of right away, I think I had to wait three days before I got my guns that I bought. Also at least in CA. there is a waiting period between gun sales if you are buying more than one or two at a time and they are handguns.
Private transactions (intrastate) do not require a background check. Never has. Its not a loophole. Federal laws have never in any form or fashion implied otherwise. If im not mistaken, dealers are still required to do background checks at gunshows. This is a good example of why gunshows should require background checks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States Here is an example of why current legislation is practically ineffective and completely fails to deal with the larger issue at hand.
