![kartandtinki1_guns-wallpaper_05[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zzfqPe3.jpg "kartandtinki1_guns-wallpaper_05[1].jpg")
What's wrong with background checks?
>>55861467
There's nothing inherently wrong with background checks, they can just potentially be used as a form of backdoor registration.
>>55861467
Feel good nonsense for absolute bottom of the barrel retards.
THen they have your address and that you have guns. You will be the first on the list when the government goes to collect all private weapons to suppress the people like in Nazi Germany.
I hide my weapons in my backyard under lead shields so metal detectors can't find them.
Nothing which is why you need one to buy a gun from a store or gun show here.
/thread
>>55861467
It's a buzzword that means nothing. It's something that literally has just come up in the past 20-30 years. We've been a nation much longer than that.
>>55861467
Because it's a pretty clear slippery slope. It starts with more intense background checks, and suddenly all guns are registered.
Which on it's own isn't BAD, but gun grabbers are never satisfied with compromise. They will inevitably move from registration to confiscation. First they'll come for "assault rifles", then they'll come for pistols because hey they don't need pistols! Eventually all guns are grabbed, and people still die, still get murdered. Just by knives and illegal guns, instead of all those legal guns.
>>55861467
AR15s are tacticool attractive, but AK47s are so much more reliable and deadly (bigger round).
Shit sux.
>>55861467
Because those are already a thing in the form of an ATF form 4473 when buying from Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders, enforcing background checks on private sales being impossible without a compulsory gun registry, and compulsory background checks being ruled Unconstitutional thanks to Haynes v. United States.
Stay mad, faggot.
>>55861467
>What's wrong with background checks?
They don't do shit. Something like 0.001% of people who fail a background check are ever prosecuted.
>>55861467
Look at all that freedom.
Background checks mean nothing. If a criminal wants a gun in a land full of guns he will get it.
Its a slippery slope. First checks, then registration, then restriction then bans.
What part f "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? If they hate the constitution upon which America was founded they are treasonous traitors and should be deported or killed. It is that simple.
>>55861467
We already have them.
>>55861467
They inconvenience people who dindu nuffin. That and very few shootings could have been prevented by them. These shooters don't usually show signs of classical mental illness but instead suffer from extreme personality disorders.
>>55862006
>There's nothing inherently wrong with background checks
They're an infringement
>>55863031
>bigger round
Are you retarded?
>airshit MP7
>>55865025
He is too much of a kek to realize that
Keep on fighting the good fight Ameribro
i have a psychiatric history prior to turning 18.
i think i was technically admitted to a psychiatric hospital when i was a young child 'cause i was a hyperactive troublemaker.
does that disqualify me from gun ownership?
my adult life is entirely spotless.
>>55861467
gov will know who owns what when doors get kicked down
>>55861467
What's wrong with minding your own fucking business?
The problem with background checks is that there gets to a point where they just don't fucking matter.
The guy with a clean background - all that guy needs is one bad day to undo that. Background checks don't do shit once a guy already has a gun, so we're basically making a huge bet that a gun owner won't go completely postal for the rest of his life based on the logical fallacy that a clean background check will stay clean for the rest of his life.
The guys without clean background checks - if they really want a gun so badly, they're going to get one through other nefarious means.
>>55865936
>Background checks don't do shit once a guy already has a gun, so we're basically making a huge bet that a gun owner won't go completely postal for the rest of his life based on the logical fallacy that a clean background check will stay clean for the rest of his life.
Nobody has argued that someone who has passed a background check is unable to commit a crime. Its just one more layer of a precaution. A bit of bureaucracy and some paperwork isn't a big deal.
As for the government knowing what guns you have, that's a good thing. There should be a mandated federal comprehensive database on every gun, tied not just to addresses but social security numbers. That may assist law enforcement when dealing with a straw purchase situation.
The idea that the government will come for all your guns is a false premise. The US military is not able to occupy a huge land mass. Nobody is coming for your guns, and if they do, it will be in a few generations when gun control laws become more sensible.
Lot of posters in this thread need to be hung for treason. No, you don't have the right to do x y or z. You operate under man made laws. The government should be in your life to some degree.
>>55861467
Name one criminal caught by firearm background checks.
>>55861467
>What's wrong with background checks?
Why is someone that is so dangerous that they can't be trusted with a firearm walking around free?
>>55861467
Because I'm a different person than who i was 8 years ago.
Isn't this common sense? Is a newborn baby the same person as that newborn baby 8 years later?
("person" implies personality)
>>55861467
>have no criminal record
>pass backround check
>buy gun
>commit crime as soon as i walk out the door
pre crime doesnt work faglord
>>55866351
>Its just one more layer of a precaution. A bit of bureaucracy and some paperwork isn't a big deal.
Yes it is. It's also money.
>As for the government knowing what guns you have, that's a good thing.
No it isn't.
>There should be a mandated federal comprehensive database on every gun, tied not just to addresses but social security numbers.
No there shouldn't.
>That may assist law enforcement when dealing with a straw purchase situation.
New York tried it, it didn't work.
Not that it matters since it's unconstitutional.
>Lot of posters in this thread need to be hung for treason.
Yeah, I know.
>The US military is not able to occupy a huge land mass.
Yeah, because we're armed. If they just controlled the water, the food and the power they'd be able to control the country, but because the people are armed they can't. Thank God.
>Nobody is coming for your guns
Well yeah, it's illegal. Also, we'd kill them.
>and if they do, it will be in a few generations when gun control laws become more sensible.
How would the abolishment of all gun control make it easier for them to come for my guns?
>No, you don't have the right to do x y or z.
I have a right to keep and bear arms.
>You operate under man made laws.
Which say "Shall not be infringed."
>The government should be in your life to some degree.
And that degree is outlined in the constitution. And the amendment says...
>>55861467
This.
>>55866351
Would the database be public record so criminals could see where disarmed people live?
>>55866739
>New York tried it, it didn't work.
Because its not comprehensive. They can easily get guns from outside of state. Chicago gun laws don't magically keep guns out of Chicago. It needs to be countrywide.
Every single transaction in every single state must be recorded and detailed. Background checks must be enforced with higher levels of scrutiny. ATF should be given carte blanch for random house checks. If you don't break the law then you're fine.
>>55863389
The feds prosecute around 100 a year.
They convict about a dozen.
Mind you, this is in the federal courts, where the feds have a 95%+ conviction rate.
Out of tens of millions of background checks a year.
Biggest fucking waste of time and money ever.
>>55866937
No. You have no right to that information.
Really tired of this "the people have a right to know" bullshit.
>>55861467
SHALL NOT BE IMPINGED!
>>55866416
My sister's x boyfriend was a felon trying to obtain a .45 in NH many years ago and was caught by the background check system and denied the handgun.
>>55867134
Why not? my taxes would pay for it and depending on the states involved its already public record who has concealed carry licenses.
>>55867047
There are half a billion unregistered guns currently in circulation in the United States.
Use your fucking brain for once, faggot.
background checks infringe on the rights of the mentally ill and retarded to own weapons.
If you're gonna arm morons, you have to arm them all. Otherwise, it's not a fair fight.
>>55867218
Was he prosecuted? Was he convicted?
Did he buy a gun elsewhere?
>>55867270
Search and confiscate as time goes along. Noone is advocating a magic bullet. This process will take generations.
Throttle the supply in the meantime with more scrutinizing background checks. As another anon pointed out, barely anyone gets denied.
>>55867220
State government doesn't have to share any procedure with federal government. If you live in a state that shares that information, thats your problem.
>>55867344
no, no and not that I am aware of.
>>55867426
firearms dealers are already to required to keep 4473s on file for 20 years. what more do you want?
>>55867426
You people are fucking delusional.
You honestly should be locked in a rubber room. You're a danger to society,.
>>55867047
Except even then, the existence of land borders and pre-existing firearms basically makes this impossible.
So if we're willing to tolerate tyrannical behavior by the government, we can still not be safe.
Right. You're making a great case there buddy.
>>55863031
Good lucking finding it during shtf
>>55867426
You think Paris was a shit storm?
Just wait till your faggot pals try confiscation in the U.S. Jihad will be a fond memory in comparison.
Further, you miss the painfully obvious flaw in your twisted logic.
Anyone with some scrap steel and a few tools can make this. Cheap and easy.
>>55867426
The point is that if it isn't a magic bullet then the process is fucking pointless. Firearm violence is already dropping like a stone without these measures, why would we implement tyranny when freedom is working fine?
If the best you can offer is "decades down the line we MIGHT be able to MAYBE reduce gun violence by an unclear amount, and in return we let the government randomly search your house, waste your money and scrutinize you to see if you deserve your rights," then the answer is no.
Shall not infringe
The only people that should not be able to buy guns, or exercise any other rise, are people currently in jail or prison.
>>55866701
but you're statistically very unlikely to have committed zero crimes before owning a gun, the gun being the only spark to set you on the path to unlawful behavior.
a gun might change your way of thinking, but if you haven't demonstrated behavior that's erratic and illegal in the past, it's unlikely to seriously alter you that dramatically.
there are background checks for a load of other things based on the unspoken notion that people will behave as they always have. It's reliable because we're fucking animals and everything we set out to do is based on brain chemistry and thus dependent on a combination of environment and our level of self awareness of how much our environment affects us.
free will exists to the extent that you are aware of this and thus "consciously" change your behavior. If you keep the same environment it's hard to consciously do anything that resembles autonomy.
>>55861467
theyre less than worthless. any tard can get a gun illegally with the slightest bit of effort. ive considered buying stolen guns myself for no other reason than because they were cheap.
>>55863767
They may love the constitution, though. So much that they want it to be relevant.
>>55866922
Not the idea that anyone CAN be "free"?
No one is free, poster.
We didn't have them till the 90s and there is no evidence they have stopped any crime.
>>55861467
Backdoor registration, plus they don't stop criminals and nutjobs from getting guns. Given how many people we throw in prison, we have a lot of felons in the US, and a lot of those felons get guns, despite it being illegal. If there is a demand for black market guns, there will be a black market for guns.
If you want to deny somebody the right to purchase a gun maybe that person should be behind bars instead of walking around trying to purchase a gun.
>>55870895
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."
But I will take more liberty please. Pretty please with a sprinkling of 155 HPBTs upside some heads.
>>55871395
Yup. If we can't trust them with a gun, how can we trust them walking free? Because if they are walking free, they can get a gun.
>>55865635
I'm not sure but I think it's only if committed by a court
>>55865635
Depends. You might need a psychiatric evaluation. Better to check /k/
