Background checks
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What's wrong with background checks? I know this belongs on >>>/pol/ but I'd rather get it from /k/ for obvious reasons.
>>29336924
Nothing. But 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' crowd is never happy.
The background check isn't just an answer of "Is Joe Anon a criminal?"
It is a complicated form containing up to the following:
Name
Address
SSN
Employer
Employer's Address
Occupation
Firearm Purchased
Caliber
Serial Number
This is the creation of a registry, not a criminal background check.
>>29336924
they are good
"universal" background checks are a myth however, since reginald the urban gangster will happily sell stolen guns to felons regardless of the laws
so it ends up just being a headache for law-abiding gun owners and having zero effect on gun crime
>>29336924
I don't think there's anything wrong with background checks, they're just annoying for people who have nothing to hide.
That being said, background checks don't exactly prevent gun crime by any means. I know of several felons (friends of friends, etc) who own firearms.
>>29336924
I'd be not pleased but I wouldn't really complain much even if "UBCs" were implemented, provided they were on transfer of ownership not possession, and the discriminatory parts of the GCA were removed, and some method of expanded access to NICS for normal people, as well as CCW exemption.
>>29336939
basicly this. i'm all for citizen ownership of guns but shit like Background checks to make sure your not A) insane, or b) a criminal are basic shit.
now that we DO have background checks, we need a competent mental health infustructure so that background check can actually do something.
Open invitation for the government to maintain a backdoor registry of law abiding gun owners and doesn't do enough to prevent illegal acquisition of arms. There's a balancing test to be employed when it comes to a restriction on a constitutional and fundamental human right, and universal background checks pose far more of a risk than they provide benefits.
>>29336955
There is no "employer" or "Occupation" section on a 4473
>>29336924
Why didn't you submit to a full background check, pay your $300 dollars and attain a license for permission to post?
>>29336977
>some method of expanded access to NICS for normal people
NO
I don't want the public to have free access to this, especally if each check isn't tied to a sale. I could easily create a database of "eligible gun owners" in the US if NICS were open.
>>29336989
>we need a competent mental health infustructure so that background check can actually do something.
like what exactly? let states restrict gun rights from anyone who's been treated for anxiety, depression, PTSD, etc?
>>29337001
Correct. But everything else he posted is true.
A lot of this "universal background check" stuff is really just a way for the govt to make us have to jump through more hoops while creating a defacto registration.
>>29336955
>This is the creation of a registry, not a criminal background check.
There's zero evidence of this ever happening, and if it were true it would be orders of magnitude more complex than a 9/11 coverup
>>29336955
Name
Address
(Not required) SSN
Employer (No)
Employers Address (No)
Occupation (No)
Firearm Purchased (No, not transmitted to FBI)
Type of Firearm (Handgun/Long Gun/Other) (Yes)
Caliber (Yes, not transmitted to FBI)
Serial Number (This is not transmitted to the FBI, so no)
Congratualtions you are dumb and don't know how a 4473 works. If you think there is a national firearms registry in the form of
>acquire Firearm serial number from local PD handling investigation. Return to manufacturer for trace to distributor. Track weapon from distributor. Find shop it was sold. Request a trace. And then find owner--- assuming the weapon was not sold again through private sale. Or heading to another shop where 4473 trail heads.
They don't do anything.
>be criminal
>can't pass background check
>steal/buy gun through other means
>be not criminal
>do background check
>your not a criminal
>ok
What about a mark on your license that says you are not a felon or insane. Kinda of like being a donor. It's not perfect but it is simple and quick.
I'd personally prefer no checks or restrictions of any kind.
>>29337044
>>29337001
To clarify >>29336955 I am not speaking of the 4473.
I'm speaking of the Pennsylvania State Police "This isn't a registry, it's a sales record" which contains all information for pistol purchases, and for a while also for stripped AR lowers.
>>29337044
I had a typo and missed a sentence in there
But you can figure out what I mean. Sure, there is a convoluted and literally impossible to maintain "registry" with multiple steps if that is what you consider a registry.
If you think there is some ctrl+f or v lookup function on an excel spreadsheet handled by the ATF then you are a moron
The problem is that 99% of people mistakenly believe that background checks are conducted on *sales*, when in reality they are conducted on *transfers*.
All of those fudds who support "ending the gun show loop hole" would flip their shit if they realized that doing so would make it a felony to loan their durr rifle to their uncle so he can zero it for the upcoming season.
>>29337029
You hit the nail on the head with that post. We have a right to privacy. Joe shmoe need not know who has guns.
How about they just make a national roster of people who cant own guns and have the LGS check to see if your on the list? ....but the gov has no nterest to protect gun owners.
>>29337029
>>some method of expanded access to NICS for normal people
>NO
>I don't want the public to have free access to this, especally if each check isn't tied to a sale. I could easily create a database of "eligible gun owners" in the US if NICS were open.
OK not open to the public but paying 25 bucks a gun when I'm trying to get Granddad's guns off of my uncle who lives in the next state is a bitch.
>>29337097
That's why a check on change of *ownership* not *possession* would work.
>>29337065
In some states, that is more or less a thing. Certain documents meeting certain requirements can serve as a 4473/background check. Can't be bothered to look up which, but if you look at page 2 of a 4473 there is a space for whatever it is that can void the need for NICS check IIRC
>>29337041
Not true, since pretty much all dealers have switched to a computerized GLS system to track their transactions. What would have taken an army of ATF agents weeks to do with manual A/D binders can now be done by a single person nationwide with a few keystrokes.
>>29336924
because I consider it invasive and things have happened to me in the past that if liberals had their way would bar me from owning a gun
>>29337111
>That's why a check on change of *ownership* not *possession* would work.
So you want congress to rewrite every gun control law dating back to 1934? After all, the language in every single statute is "possession" and "transfer", not "ownership" and "sales".
Good luck with that.
>>29336924
Because they don't accomplish anything but condoning the government's infringement on a Constitutionally protected right.
Criminals don't get their guns from a legal gun shop. All background checks do is inconvenience law-abiding citizens.
>>29337111
>That's why a check on change of *ownership* not *possession* would work.
There's no way to tell the difference between borrowed or sold (long as it was a cash exchange), it's literally an unenforcable concept and you should feel like a moron.
>>29337127
No, it literally cannot. When doing a NICS check a dealer does not transmit any firearm information other than "type of firearm" in the form of "handgun/long gun/other"
>>29336924
Why do you want them so bad? Most of the mass shootings you're probably thinking of were from people who would have passed a background check anyways or they stole the gun.
The most important reason, in my opinion, is it creates a registry where the government will know who owns guns and who doesn't.
It likely won't deter gangs either since their guns are normally stolen and sold among each other anyway. It only adds another hoop to jump through for law abiding citizens and we're probably going to have to pay some agency to do the check.
I'm pretty sure in many states you can ask the person you're selling to get a background check if you're going to be such a bitch about it.
>>29337029
>like what exactly?
glad you asked!
the first bit is free, socialize healthcare. nobody should have a reason to NOT get checked out.
secondly, required mental evaluations for children between 8-16 (similar to vaxxing kids) to nip any mental illiness in the bud, and develop good coping mechanisms
Thirdly, opening institutions similarly to rehab centers. smaller than forced hospital institutionalization, but big enough to give people somewhere to go for an appointment. kind of like a walkin therapist.
Fourthly, end the stigma around mental health. this requires early education and should be taught in health class.
and lastly, for those who have been cured, a signed affidavit by their doctor/therapist that they are infact not a harm to themselves or anyone else. in which case all rights will be restored.
and that is what i recommend for suring up the mental healthcare of the US.
>>29337146
In order for me to accept UBCs, among everything in >>29336977, and I would try to jockey for other tweaks to laws as well.
>>29337161
Welcome to WA. 594 is unenforceable but more than 50% of firearm owners here follow it anyway because we're law abiding citizens.
>>29336967
This.
People who support "universal" background checks don't understand them and believe the hollywood memes that you can buy a gun online and have it shipped to your door without a background check.
>>29337179
Dumbass, the dealer has a full database of what gun was sold to who, for as long as they've had a computerized system. A simple subpoena turns all of that over to the authorities, or a hack job turns it over to God knows who. Literally one person on a computer can do this.
>>29336924
Britfag here.
I feel like background checks should be be more strict and more invasive. However, i feel like once you pass that check you should be able to own any gun, whether it's a .22 handun, or a .50cal fully automatic.
And i really wish we were allowed guns on this side of the atlantic (although my wallet is glad we aren't, i spend enough on knives as it is)
>>29336939
So why is it okay we keep guns away from felons?
>>29337245
They don't. I actually own a milsurp shop with an ffl.
>>29337279
So you really want possibly violent felons to have access to guns?
>>29337278
Fuck off you haven't even thought about what you just said. Idiot.
>>29336924
There is no * next to the Bill of Rights.
>*except in specific circumstances or after background checks conducted by federal government
>>29337280
FFL here as well. You are required to keep those records for 20 years. When's your next ATF audit?
>>29337279
Because they've demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. Now if there was some way to appeal this and demonstrate that you have squared yourself away I'd be OK with that.
>>29337302
And just how haven't i thought about what i said?
>>29337294
Did you know a great many felonies have nothing to do with violence, some not even having another person involved? Yep.
>>29337245
No, actually you are a dumbass. How are they going to subpoena said dealers records. How do they know what dealer a gun ostensibly used in a crime came from without going through >>29337044
Please kill yourself you fucking idiot. Thanks in advance.
Btw
>subpoenaing an entire bound book
Not how it works
>>29337321
What kind of retarded question is that. Like what are you even asking?
>>29337324
But, violent felons, rapists, muderers, child molestors, you're saying they should still have access to firearms
>>29336924
when the royal decree that the non-freed men may not bear arms doesn't work, they will use it as an excuse to further infringe the "free" men's rights to arms.
>>29337312
You clearly do not have an FFL. Audits aren't scheduled dumbass.
>>29337340
furthermore, allowing the federal government to decide who may own firearms is a fucking retarded idea to begin with.
The federal government has no place making these decisions.
>>29337310
The BoR isn't absolute either. Speech is restricted by slander/defamation laws and fighting words laws, among other things. Not saying you're wrong, but there are limits.
>>29337279
Same reason they can't vote.
>>29337335
I'm asking exactly what i said that was so retarded you needed to make comment on it.
I believe there should be full back ground checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun. (mental health, criminal record, any illness, you name it)
however, i believe that ONE background check should be enough for them to own any gun at any point in their life, whether if be now, or 60 years from now.
>>29336924
I bought a gun in a background-check free private gun sale between me and a friend of mine yesterday, 'cause I helped him move some junk with my truck and the gun became part of the deal, plus a bit of green his way.
If the fucking federal government gets any more persnickety about this shit, doing that legally would be a whole world of shit, instead of just, here bud, have a hundred bucks, hand me the gun, and i get handed the fucking gun.
The niggers in the ghetto will do it this way regardless of whether or not it is legal, and I rather like that this gun hasn't been tracked by the feds in the entirety of its life so far.
>>29336924
because they do jack shit and giving your rights to big brother is for cucks
>b-buh-but
this is how you lose your rights. This compromise bullshit. Its all or nothing, and nothing means death.
>>29336924
creates de facto registry that can preclude the original purpose of the 2A, which is to resist tyranny
allows for blanket revocation of rights of all people convicted of even non-violent felonies or certain misdemeanors. only violent offenders who have had a jury determine their serious propensity for violence and/or complete disregard for public safety should have sentencing terms intentionally revoking their 2A rights for a specific amount of time should be allowed in order to be consistent with 5A rights to due process. no, getting caught once for smoking marijuana, a substance less dangerous than alcohol, or even shooting heroin should not be grounds for 2A disenfranchisement no matter how hard the bootlickers think it should be because those things have absolutely no direct relationship to current or future capacity to safely handle firearms.
regarding psychiatric background checks, allows for a pseudoscientific field like psychology/psychiatry to erroneously or abusively restrict the natural rights of citizens.
also, most fundamentally and prima facie: shall not be infringed. you don't need a background check to have freedom of speech, and you don't need to be "checked" to be given your rights.
>>29337402
>no, getting caught once for smoking marijuana, a substance less dangerous than alcohol, or even shooting heroin should not be grounds for 2A disenfranchisement no matter how hard the bootlickers think it should be because those things have absolutely no direct relationship to current or future capacity to safely handle firearms.
Is this the way the law is already set up in a state like Texas?
>>29336924
S H A L L
N O T
B E
I N F R I N G E D
>>29337379
Only a person who has no real interest in guns, vaguely aware of what Gun control is or how it works, would hold such a moronic belief like you have. It's completely fucktarded because it has no practical sense to it. You didn't even think much about anything before spurting some shit moderate stance to present yourself as reasonable when in fact you're an idiot.
Also it's not even enforcable.
>>29337402
>>29337432
>shall not be infringed
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
In this ruling it indicates that the SCOTUS has chosen to interpret "shall not be infringed" as a declaration that the right to bear arms exists explicitly prior to the Bill of Rights.
>>29337379
Being necessary
>>29337278
For fuck sakes shut up you ignorant cunt. You're a goddamn loon for saying something this idiotic. Can't even make up your mind propped.
>>29337442
y'know, i respect your opinion, however, "no interest in guns". i actually do have an interest in guns, however, on this side of the atlantic, it's not worth all the hoops you have to jump through (which btw include random police visits, to check your firearm is secured safely) for a .22 rifle, or 10ga shotgun.
I DO have an interest in firearms and weaponary, but the side of the atlantic i'm on kinda curses me.
>>29337349
Lol, still where are your records?
>>29337449
> creating fake agenda interpretations
I've never needed a time machine more in my life
>>29337105
Hey! As a canuck, I suddenly have relevancy in an american political argument!
This is exactly a problem, and open access to a firearms registry actually HAPPENED here. When the NDP (socialist party) created the long gun registry, it SOMEHOW ended up in the CBCs hands. This was a nightmare to law abiding gun owners, because the damn media had all the info on guns you have. Like, if you were interviewed on the street about something, you could wake up the next morning to see yourself on the news described as "Anon Anonnerman, gun nut and collector of soviet-era rifles, had this to say..."
>>29337191
We also have like, most of this. And yet the only real gun crime we cannot stop? Is mental illness related. At this point probably 95% of gun deaths with legally owned guns up here are mental health related, either suicides or murder-suicides. Basically crazy people will inevitably go crazy, while mental illness stops on gun licenses just mean that if Bill saw a shrink for anxiety three years ago, it's fuckin no dice on hunting season this year. Bill is banned from guns for another two years.
Not to mention your early-age mental health screening idea sounds both dystopian and poorly timed. Imagine screening 16 year olds for mental health. Like, 4% might pass. And the numbers on depression and angst would skyrocket. You could never field enough psychologists for that.
And as someone who has dealt with mental health? You don't get "cured". It is more like cancer, where you are "ok for now". A signed affidavit of being cured could literally never be taken seriously.
Anyhow, sorry for the rant, but I felt the need to throw in my two cents.
>>29337500
sorry friend, you're nothing but a royal subject. you aren't a free man.
your military swears allegiance to royalty, not to a document that protects your rights.
and what's rich is that they have so many of you fully cucked that you guys actively try and destroy OUR hard-fought rights through your liberal culture. sad part, is that liberal culture has a serious foothold in our nation.
>>29337326
They start at the manufacturer and see what dealer it was sold to.
Seriously, you think its going to be difficult for folks to find out where anything that's been sold over the counter in the last ten years? It's easy. The NSA probably already has it compiled...
1) most gun owners are ok with background checks because they aren't criminals
2) the problem is that it is a very slippery slope towards registration, bans, removing people's rights, etc. For example, the ideas of banning anyone on the no-fly list from owning guns. Requiring a federal government background check to exercise 2nd amendment rights is akin to requiring a federal government background check (with ID, permission, criminal background checks, registration, etc) in order to exercise 1st amendment rights. Nobody would accept that allowing the government to approve or deny your ability to speak freely based on their background check isn't infringing on your first amendment rights. Imagine if the government came out with a statement saying "the media can be very dangerous when they say things that can cause violence. the government should regulate it, and we need common sense laws and background checks in order to approve someone becoming a reporter or journalist. If you want to become a reporter or journalist, you need to pass rigorous government tests and checks, and if you violate these laws we put you in jail for 10 years". That would certainly be decried as infringing on the 1st amendment rights.
>>29337534
Oh trust me, if i could gain US citizenship i'd be there on the next flight i could book.
I fucking hate the firearm laws here.
>>29337551
>Imagine if the government came out with a statement saying "the media can be very dangerous when they say things that can cause violence. the government should regulate it, and we need common sense laws and background checks in order to approve someone becoming a reporter or journalist. If you want to become a reporter or journalist, you need to pass rigorous government tests and checks, and if you violate these laws we put you in jail for 10 years".
I know you posit that as a hypothetical, but Feinstein actually proposed that a year or two ago
>>29337551
>background checks for 1st amendment rights
funny because it sounds silly as fuck now, probably like how background checks for 2nd amendment rights probably sounded silly as fuck back in the 1800s
but i'm sure it'll come one day if we don't stand firm on the 2a. you can already see it - safe spaces, my words hurt my feelings therefore you deserve violence, etc.
it isn't outside the realm to think that the neoliberal, nu-male cucks, niggers, and illegals would seriously vote for background checks on 1st amendment rights to ensure you're not a "racist" or "xenophobe"
didn't you see when that reporter went on campus, and people seriously signed up to repeal the 1st amendment?
>>29337500
>More thorough, without exception mandated background checks.
>Only require once
>To prevent dangerous people from possessing
He actually believes this well thought out idea on implementing effective gun control legislation.
>What's wrong with it?
>>29337576
I'm not shocked. Leftists are pushing for restrictions on free speech. The average college kid in the US is in favor of limiting free speech and making it illegal to say certain things that are offensive. In europe there have been cases where someone says something offensive about muslims, and they get arrested for hate crimes.
It doesn't sound that silly, it sounds like something that's on the cusp of happening.
>>29337609
I'm partially mistaken, it was more a law aimed toward narrowing the scope of "shield law" protection to "real journalists" and not "bloggers"; and in doing so, would create legal precedent for defining who's a "real journalist" and who's not
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/12/nation/la-na-shield-law-20130913
Still scary shit nonetheless
>>29336924
Background checks from dealers actually work. My dad found out his identity was stolen when he tried to buy a gun, and got all his shit fixed before anymore damage was done. I think it works out since it limits the options of where criminals can buy guns significantly since licensed dealers or shops that are on every neighborhood are no longer an option.
I also think Private transactions between two unlicensed individuals should require the seller to ask a dealer or an institution to do a check on the buyer before he sells his gun.
>>29337529
>We also have like, most of this.
no, we don't. we don't have involuntary mental health screening for children (which is the best time to check and diagnose), we don't have socialize healthcare, we don't have mental health facilities, and we don't have a system that allows you to appeal a restriction on guns.
you're so fucking retarded i can't stand it.
>>29337770
we should really just open up the system to whoever wants to do it.
>>29337814
I started that very post with stating I was Canadian.
So actually yeah, WE have most of this.
Apparently it's you who is so painfully retarded, you cannot even read a fucking post from beginning to end.
Also, the bit we don't have is mandatory screenings, which were explained as doubly fucking retarded later in the post.
Get your shit together, you fucking halfwit.
If felons can't be trusted with a gun, why even let them out of prison?
>>29337481
Rolling
>>29336924
For all the problems that a licencing program has (like Canada's) it is nice to have a single piece of documentation that shows you have a clean background. It just makes the process hassle-free. I don't think any sane human would dispute that firearms are one of the rights which should be lost when committing certain crimes.
>>29337973
Is true.
I want PAL and RPAL rolled into one.
I want all of the named bans lifted (muh FAL!)
I want mag limits lifted
I want supressors allowed
I want full giggle allowed
But may as well keep the PAL.
Just so you can flash your card and be like "BAM, LEGAL!" And walk out of the shop with your new guns and ammo.
>>29337514
this
>>29337973
Better background checks and a basic competancy test coupled with a firearm knowledge test and a course on firearms safety should be coupled with a lift of the bans/red tape around full retard guns, CC, HD, silencers, mag caps, stock types, barrel lengths etc etc
>>29337294
>>29337317
>>29337367
But it says "shall not be infringed" and not "shall not be infringed unless you've spent some time in jail".
>>29338204
Non felony criminals should still be allowed firearms.
However, felony (especially felony criminals) should not be allowed.
It also says "a well regulated militia, do you honestly think firearms owners are even close to well regulated?
>>29338256
>doesn't know what a regular is
>>29337041
>Simple, basic paperwork
>Harder to cover up than 9/11
What
>>29338256
Read this guy's >>29337449 link and get back to us
>>29337481
BEST GIRL GET
>>29338256
>honestly think firearms owners are even close to well regulated?
Regulated does not mean what you think it means.
If you would like an accurate interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and not a bastardized version that is meant to push an agenda;
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
OP here
So let me get this straight, it's because you're being put into registry that you dislike using background checks?
>>29338899
plus extra hassle for law abiding citizens while criminals will just ignore laws? (OP here)
>>29338899
Its because it is not in the Constitution, and to put restrictions on a constitutional right (legally) requires an amendment to be ratified.
>>29337930
Few ever answer such things.
Are they not rehabilitated? Are they not fit to return to society? Why shouldn't they vote? Why shouldn't they have their rights restored?
>>29337930
Because we have punishment, not rehabilitation.
>>29338999
>Are they not rehabilitated?
Not usually.
>Are they not fit to return to society?
A prison sentence for any given infraction tends to make a career criminal, not a good citizen.
>Why shouldn't they vote?
Historically speaking there is precedent. Many early western societies have disenfranchised felons. "In the U.S., the constitution implicitly permits the States to adopt rules about disenfranchisement "for participation in rebellion, or other crime", by the fourteenth amendment, section 2."
>Why shouldn't they have their rights restored?
That idea has only come through in the later half of the 20th century. Frankly other forms of voter disenfranchisement and fraud are more of a concern, given that most people aren't felons.
>>29337481
roal
>>29337481
rolling
>>29336955
a lot of this information is already on 4473. My issue would be why the feds need to know my employer and occupation? With this information, the feds could tell my employer that I have guns
People talk about the wrong side of the BGC issue.
BGC are not necessarily bad but the current implementation is stupid.
Only FFLs can process. These are commercial entities with no reason to promote private sales. Because this wastes their time, they MUST charge. They can set any price they want. So now you have a RIGHT going through private business who can then get away with more shit than the government can.
It's dumb.
If you want a universal BCG you're going to need a system handled exclusively by the government with extreme protection for the citizen's rights.
Just imagine it this way: Anything you want to subject a potential gun owner to...you have to subject a potential voter to. How would people react? Both are equal rights in the Constitution.
>>29340498
Would you be opposed to a system in which you register to buy guns and provide your name and address, but after this registration you can buy whatever you want with no NICS check? And you have to let them know when you move.
>>29337481
testi
>>29340845
gdmf
>>29337481
henry rollins
Hasn't stopped a crime yet, but gives cops and governents a reason to harass people
>>29336924
Personally I don't have a large issue with what was Coburn's plan but we passed the middle ground so long ago that any further concessions without receiving anything in return would just not be acceptable, hence the position of "Not a single step more" that many dedicated gun rights supporters currently hold. At the minimum I would expect for the repeal of any 922r related restrictions, along with suppressors and short barreled rifles being removed from any NFA restrictions. My dream would be allowing fully automatic weapons without NFA restrictions, but even I know that is very unlikely to happen. However, reopening the machine gun registry would be great though, so prices may come down back to a reasonable range.
>>29340739
This is basically how states with a CWP waiver work. It's not a terrible idea. However, I think it still goes one step too far in that it isolates you as a gun owner.
The simplest solution is one we've already begrudgingly submitted to. IF this stuff needs to be tracked in simple terms of PASS/FAIL you just need an ID card.
I have a license with a little D and a little M since I took my motorcycle test. I can opt to register when updating my license. So now I have two licenses and registration done at once. My CWP references the same License photo and details and is printed to look nearly the same.
This same ID system is used to check for tobacco and alcohol purchases already.
Why not issue government ID's with simple information on them? All rights available when first issued. All privileges absent (driving, conceal in certain states, alcohol purchasing, etc.)
As you pass tests or if you are arrested for certain crimes, rights and privileges on the ID change. ALL points of approval share the same automated system.
So you couldn't tell a gun sale from an employment check from a quick confirmation of a babysitter, etc... All that is checked is that the ID classes displayed are still up to date. All the data present is public record knowledge so no privacy violation.
No one is singled out, no commercial interests involved, no registry, no felons with firearms. Any changes made to the rights section MUST be handled by a judge and/or jury.
>>29337127
Not the gunstore I work at
>>29337240
Hey now that movie about Columbine showed them buying full auto ak15 assault shotguns from guns.com and Hollywood would never lie to us... Right?
>>29337481
Rolling for 75, but I'd be fine with pretty much anything.
>>29341412
>Dawn
Well shit, I have a fuckload of pics to choose from. Lucky me.
>>29341221
Also, who the fuck is Cheryl?
>>29337326
>hello I don't know what I'm talking about
When a gun is recovered from a crime and not in the hands/belt of a generic white criminal when recovered it is checked to see if it was declared stolen, then if not they call up the manufacturer. Who calls up the distributor, who calls up the ffl it was transferred to, who then pops the 4473 out of his bound book and gives the relevant authorities a lookie loo. Then if it makes any sense to, they call up rusty shackelford and ask him some questions, potentially leading to them knowing who it was sold to in a private sale/the arrest of Mr. Shackelford. 99.9% of the time it is a massive waste of time and resources, but it does happen.
And if you quit the FFL game you are required by law to give the ATF your bound book containing all contents younger than 20 years old. IE where the keeping a can of fuel oil next to your FFL filing cabinet come gun control 2: electric hillaryboo
>>29337628
God damn fenstein
>>29340498
If "they" were smart we'd just have a FBI.gov page where you type in your social and date of birth and it tells you/a private seller that you are gtg to possess a firearm. The 4473 questions are just an idiot test anyway, since all the FBI does is type in your SS DoB, name, state, and hometown into a database and it tells them whether you're a felon/adjudicated mentally defective or not. Someone refusing to use the system is de facto saying they're a prohibited person in a private sale and it being free/not attached to a gun purchase, just eligibility it wouldn't #trigger all the registry fearing red blooded patriots.
But that wouldn't be a hurdle for gun ownership, so obviously we could never do that. If it was easy then more people would buy guns and realize they're just tools. Not machine spirit controlled Eldrich entities that posess you to take the lives of the innocent.
>>29341221
You have Bridgette, famalam.
>>29337481
rolling
>>29341890
fuck you Gary, re-rolling
>>29341900
oh for fuck's sakes, what a waste of dubs. ROLLING FOR THE FINAL TIME
>>29337132
I bet you think pedophiles should be allowed to hang around play grounds.
>>29336924
imo, I think we should just make it illegal to sell guns to fugitives that have been charged with a violent crime. Have a publicly-accessible database with photos and details. Ex-felon non-fugitive that's served time? No problem. Buy all the guns you want.
However, I also think that punishments for violent crimes should be significantly harsher for repeat offenders.
>>29337240
You can do that.
Background checks necessarily involve some sort of Federal agency and require the personal details of the individual buying the firearm to be shared with the government. This weakens the 2nd amendment and makes it easier for the government to control who can and can't purchase a firearm. Ostensibly this control is for the betterment of of the society as a whole, but we can easily conceive of a government who would use this control for its own benefit or for the benefit of a select few.
>>29343489
This.
>>29337481
rbh desu
Off topic, posting here instead of starting new thread so as not to shit up the board:
http://archive.is/7LKZk
HOLY MOLY. Link was on a site I normally more or less trust, and the piece started out OK, so I read the whole thing.
>I """""like guns"""""
>I've carried
>My wife has carried
>BUT
>defending yourself is evil
>being prepared to defend yourself is evil
I'm just going to quote this next bit because lolwut:
>In a sudden, unwieldy hauling-out of your piece, or just by having your piece in your pocket, you can fumble around and shoot yourself, as often happens and isn’t at all funny.
>often happens
>Guns — no matter who has them — are always seeking an opportunity to go off. Anybody who says different is a fool or a liar or both.
>Guns — no matter who has them — are always seeking an opportunity to go off. Anybody who says different is a fool or a liar or both.
>Guns — no matter who has them — are always seeking an opportunity to go off. Anybody who says different is a fool or a liar or both.
Literally
>muh evil spirits
And more!
>"""""""""saner gun laws""""""""""""
>crime is down but it doesn't matter because more people have guns (no, seriously)
>hurr drunk rednecks
>hurr small penis hurr
>concealed carry? OH NOES ERRBODY SHOOTING ERRBODY
>muh bitter clinging
>NRA are domestic terrorists
And the kicker--
>But when I try to think about what I can personally do to put a stop to this lunacy, my first thought is to take a pistol and shoot whoever’s responsible for making such travesties acceptable. Show them the terrible error of their ways in terrible terms they will understand. I probably won’t do that. But I think you can see our problem now.
I'm pissed at the author for spouting this line of facile, faux-folksy fuckwittery. But I'm more annoyed at myself (and impressed at the author and publishers) for having suckered me into reading this stupid shit. They got me. They got me good.
tl;dr GUN GRABBERS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>29336924
Most gun owners would be fine with a quick background check. The problem is with all the shit that gets tacked on. Saving all the checks is a De facto registry. Slow ones are used to make waiting periods. Using the secret no fly list is not using due premisses. And so on. It also makes openings for rights to be taken later.
>>29338256
>thinks the reason given for the 2nd's existence is in any way a requirement for the "people's right to keep and bear arms"
I've got some bad news buddy
>>29336924
The problem is that we already have them but they do fuck all to stop people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Largely due to a fucked mental health system and not enough support to fix it, short of declaring anyone with any mental health issue (regardless of how minor and easily treated) too unstable to pass a background check.
People will bitch about private sales all day but what they fail or simply refuse to understand is that there is literally no way to keep track of these. Unless you plan on placing camera on each individual in the country and monitoring it 24/7 along with installing a GPS chip in each firearm ever created. How do you even prove that the gun was sold after such a law went into effect if the original FFL purchase date was prior to it's passing? And do you really think that the vast majority of gun owners who are opposed to more gun regulations, let alone criminals, are actually going to take their shotgun down the the local FFL and pay a $20-$50 fee just to sale it to their buddy? Especially when they know that the state has pretty much no way to prove or even know that a now-illegal private transfer has taken place?
You could make a registry and then gain the complete mistrust of almost any gun owner in the country, as many feel that registry is only a prelude to harsher regulations or even confiscation. And with it being widely known that a registry would do pretty much nothing meaningful to prevent crime, why wouldn't they believe that? The politicians who want a registry are the same gun-hating fanatics that would ban most of the shit we own if given the chance.
Knowing this, do you really think that most people are going to go register their weapons? No. We saw first hand in New York and Conneticut.
>Tl;dr: Fix what you can, stop bitching about what you can't, and then maybe the background checks we already have will actually actually do something to prevent gun violence.
>>29336924
All sales requiring a check = registry = harassment and/confiscation
You already have to get a check to buy from a business even at gun shows, leave it at that.
>>29336924
I know /k/ is going to cursify me over this post but let me ask the question anyways.
A few years ago I took way too much lsd. About ten tabs of 150ug to be exact. Well long story short my parents find me on my bed while I am in the middle of ego death and call the paramedics. At the ER I was barely coming back to when the doctor asked me about what I was doing. I told them the truth and said I took way too much acid. The doctor in turn committed me for about 13 hours under a 5150 because they thought I was trying to over dose on lsd and kill myself. Well anyone who knows anything about psychedelics knows 1500ug will not kill you, but go tell that to a doctor who whose shit about that sort of stuff and kind of hated me for being transgender. Anyways, I know I am banned from buying guns in the state of commiefornia for a few more years, but I am moving out of state for work soon. Would I be able to buy guns in which ever state I move to after 90 days of getting my new drivers license?
>>29337029
the database of eligible gun owners would be majority of the US... and in effect useless.
