Personally I don't think everyone should be able to buy a gun, but who can and can't shouldn't be determined by the state. It's up to each individual business to make that decision on their own, free of any coercion. The state can't keep anyone safe, on the contrary it usually endangers citizens. Here's a good example. ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because if you are a stoner, you would fail a background check (the current one), or commit perjury to get around it. Unless you believe nobody should own guns. Including the government.
So because I agree with background checks for gun purchases I agree with how they are done currently?
I have bought several guns recently. I did the back ground check, when it was called in they(ATF)could not complete the process. After 3 days with no reply you get the guns. They can not even do the one available now "what difference does it make" LOL Dems are funny
I think its a brilliant idea, without it you would just have random ruthless idiots walking into schools and other public areas and open firing. Sick sick people out there. So yeah im with it man...
How should they be done? Should "criminals" be able to pass background checks? And honestly, the polls don't mean shit. Even the "scientific" ones. Why? Because none of them asked if people agreed with S.649, which is what was actually being voted on. If you asked "Should police be able to use phone records in court as evidence to convict terrorists?", you'd get a bunch of people to say yes. If you asked "Do you agree with the PATRIOT Act", you'd get vastly different results.
I'll be in line for my background check... ...right behind my Congressional Representatives. When those corrupt fuckers can pass one, I'll gladly stand up. I voted Not Sure because I have a feeling this isn't about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, which yes, on the surface any sane person would accept as wise. I have a gut feeling though that this is about re-defining who and who cannot legally own a firearm in the eyes of your Government. Perhaps they'll use this as a catalyst to re-define ownership of firearms to mean limited to long guns only now for those who have a misdemeanor on their record...of course continuing to create more laws to apprehend more "felons" to disarm them altogether... Perhaps they'll use this as a catalyst to re-define mentally "ill" in our society, such as those who are found with any illegal Schedule I substance in their body... Refuse to accept traditional health treatments in favor of your own, or travel out of country for treatment? Hrm, you might be defined "ill" in the head when you return...no more guns for you... But, perhaps I'm just spitballing here and being way too paranoid, right? I mean, after all, it wasn't that long ago when I was going to corner drugstores to buy handguns, and Target stores to buy ammunition (now they don't even sell cigarettes.) Not much has changed, right?
That would obviously depend on what time of crime you committed. I don't see any reason why I would want someone who had an attempted murder charge to have access to the weapon.
Not in Louisiana mate. Louisiana Judge Rules That Violent Felons Have Gun Rights Too | Mother Jones A New Orleans judge ruled last Thursday that a law forbidding felons from owning firearms infringes their rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the state's newly amended constitution. Although Louisiana already had extremely permissive gun laws (and the second highest gun-murder rate in the country), last November voters overwhelmingly passed an initiative backed by the National Rifle Association that made gun ownership a fundamental right with the same levels of protection as the freedoms of religion and speech. The amendment requires judges to review gun-control legislation using "strict scrutiny," the most stringent standard of judicial review. In his decision, Judge Darryl Derbigny wrote that statute RS 14:95.1, which bars firearm ownership for people convicted of violent crimes, such as murder, assault, rape and battery, and certain misdemeanors, is "unconstitutional in its entirety." There goes the neighborhood.
Dont worry they will find a way. Its not hard to get a criminal conviction and anyone with a serious one ie murder, rape class a drug involvement or any crime close. These should be rejected from owning a gun. These things can be prevented the ones that we cant prevent are things like black market guns and other illegal gun ownership. Atleast we can do something to prevent gun deaths like we hear of everyday. Your crazy if you dont think its a good idea. One day it could be one of your own familys lives thats ended with a single bullet...
Then I will protect myself. I do not need or want the states "protection". Criminals dont buy guns from the gun shop and take background checks. They get them on the street for cheaper and much easier. The only people these laws touch are good, law abiding citizens who should not be hassled like this. It also opens the door for more and more laws like ITguy said. Just another step towards disarming the whole country and you are crazy if you dont think the government wants to disarm the people. The constitution is nothing but a thorn in their side and a roadblock from full on tyranny.
Have I not just said about black market gun buying or street buying. I know little can be done about this. But a more strict gun licence wil ensure they dont get in the wrong hands. All this I will protect myself is up to you man if you have big balls but it might not protect more vulnerable people or innocent pole such as children that had no idea it aas even going to happen. Your choice is yours bro...
The whole purpose of a firearm for self-defense is so that you don't feel vulnerable. Women, disabled, and elderly people benefit the most from firearms for protection.
With an increasingly authoritarian state and and a prison-industrial complex that benefits from a system of laws designed to create criminals. no I cannot say I agree with background checks. Currently, mental illness is too broad of a term that can be used at the government's discretion and most criminals are innocent victims of a system that makes everyone guilty of something. Until people can't be dragged to a mental hospital against their will for a turn of phrase and people can't be labeled criminals for victimless personal choices, we cannot have a logical background check in place.
I agree, if they didn't they would have sold my ex a gun, had they not done a cheak and saw I took out no less than three restraining orders for dv, them cheaking may have saved me and my kids life at one point ,