Reply
Madi's*Mama Due November 2; 1 child; Holland, Michigan 7391 posts
17th Apr '13
Quoting Moses.:" I never said they should be right now, as the law doesn't require a background check....If it's really not that big of a deal, why don't we just do away with all background checks?"

I have no problem with stricter background checks since I have nothing to hide but I don't think it will change anything at all. There are still ways for the people to get the guns and that's not going to change.

Always♥Faithful 2 kids; CHERRY POINT, North Carolina 21664 posts
17th Apr '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Moses.:</b>" Wait, what? I am confused as to how that was in response to what I said :oops: I already know in states that do not require background checks the sellers are not doing anything illegal........."</blockquote>
Then what are the sellers being held accountable for? Doing nothing illegal? They didn't have to do a background check therefore they didn't know the purchaser was a felon. What is there to hold accountable? They are within their legal responsibility if its not required of them.

Moses. Due October 27; 3 kids; Texas 16003 posts
17th Apr '13
Quoting Always♥Faithful:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Moses.:</b>" Wait, what? I am confused as to how that was in ... [snip!] ... was a felon. What is there to hold accountable? They are within their legal responsibility if its not required of them."


I think we are both confused with what the other is saying :lol: I don't think they should be now, if the law stays as is. If the law changes for ALL states, they obviously should be, just as say any REAL store would be for selling to someone illegally, kwim? And I don't see a reason why people adamantly oppose placing background checks in ALL states. Personally, I agree with you, I don't think it'd make a dent in crimes. But I also think it could maybe make a tiny nick and I don't see the issue. Does that make sense?

Always♥Faithful 2 kids; CHERRY POINT, North Carolina 21664 posts
17th Apr '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Moses.:</b>" I think we are both confused with what the other is saying :lol: I don't think they should be now, if ... [snip!] ... it'd make a dent in crimes. But I also think it could maybe make a tiny nick and I don't see the issue. Does that make sense? "</blockquote>
I agree with ya. I'm all for stricter background checks like I said, but we all know there's no perfect fix. The media makes a lot of this worse, imo. With all of the media outlets, news spreads like wildfire, before so many media outlets, there were still shootings, etc, but the panic of media shoving it in our faces wasn't everywhere we turned around. I'm not desensistizing the tragedies by any means, but the world has never been perfect, we just hear about the tragedies faster and well..based on what the social outlets deem important.

TheNuge 1 child; Pennsylvania 23132 posts
17th Apr '13

If they enforced laws regarding illegal possession of guns and made it VERY painful when caught, there would be fewer guns with the bad guys.

Kaleighshaleigh 3 kids; USA 6067 posts
17th Apr '13

In my state a felon isn't supposed to get guns. Our current laws also require background checks at gun shows as well as stores. I see no reason to change that by making background checks more extensive. What exactly does that mean anyway? What additional info does the government think they have a right to know?

αuτumnαl ~, FL, United States 67068 posts
17th Apr '13

They'll find a way to get a gun regardless of stricter background checks.

Moses. Due October 27; 3 kids; Texas 16003 posts
17th Apr '13
Quoting Kaleighshaleigh:" In my state a felon isn't supposed to get guns. Our current laws also require background checks at gun ... [snip!] ... more extensive. What exactly does that mean anyway? What additional info does the government think they have a right to know? "


Not every state requires background checks at gun shows and for online purchases. That was essentially the purpose of the D&D. A lot of people REALLY oppose the background checks at gun shows, yet demand background checks for those applying for welfare.

Moses. Due October 27; 3 kids; Texas 16003 posts
17th Apr '13
Quoting mαkαnαni:" They'll find a way to get a gun regardless of stricter background checks."


Again, it's not STRICTER background checks, it's a background check, period :lol:

⚓Misty⚓ 4 kids; Keenesburg, Colorado 7276 posts
18th Apr '13

we just passed New laws so I'm not sure how it works now but before if you were a licensed dealer you have to so background checks but if your a private seller you don't have to. but when you buy a gun from a private person then you have to go down & get it registered under your name. felons cannot legally Own a firearm

~Manda Panda +3 1/2~ 16 kids; Arkansas 39074 posts
18th Apr '13

I think the reasoning with stricter checks for welfare is because we're all essentially paying for those who lie and get food and assistance and then go buy a caddy and the newest phones etc. I know here a dhs worker friend of mine can CLEARLY see on her screens when someone has a job then gets "fired" before each renewal or can see if they're employed and claim unemployed yet cannot do a damn thing about it. So I think weeding out forgeries would be wonderful. So that's what I assume people are thinking with stricter welfare checks.
As far as background for ammunition I just think its redundant. If you have a check for the gun why ammunition too. And there are criminals who will scrape a serial number off to sell to someone illegal. So those laws should be used for stronger punishment in illegal buying/selling of guns instead of the background checks Imo. And to further it some people don't like the idea of registering for ammunition and such because if some people have their way they'll be knocking down our doors soon to take the guns away and what better way than to have a list of all gun/ammo owners.



Wow.....I'll step off the soap box for now lol.

K and N TTC since Nov 2012; 2 kids; Denver City, Texas 1890 posts
18th Apr '13
Quoting ~Manda Panda +3 ~:" I think the reasoning with stricter checks for welfare is because we're all essentially paying for those ... [snip!] ... guns away and what better way than to have a list of all gun/ammo owners. Wow.....I'll step off the soap box for now lol."


<3 Bingo!

Moses. Due October 27; 3 kids; Texas 16003 posts
18th Apr '13
Quoting ~Manda Panda +3 ~:" I think the reasoning with stricter checks for welfare is because we're all essentially paying for those ... [snip!] ... guns away and what better way than to have a list of all gun/ammo owners. Wow.....I'll step off the soap box for now lol."


I am not talking about the ammo, the gun itself. I know that people will get them if they really want them, blah blah blah. So, if that's the argument as to why we should not require background checks for "private" sales, then why have them at all?

K and N TTC since Nov 2012; 2 kids; Denver City, Texas 1890 posts
18th Apr '13
Quoting Moses.:" I am not talking about the ammo, the gun itself. I know that people will get them if they really want ... [snip!] ... So, if that's the argument as to why we should not require background checks for "private" sales, then why have them at all? "


IMO... I don't think we should have them at all. The whole purpose is to make it harder for criminals and mentally ill to get their hands on them, right? Well everyone already knows that a criminal is going to get them if they want them.. legally or illegally. I say fuck it! Let everybody own guns... including the psycos and bad guys...(they are going to get them no matter what the law says)... the law will only keep the law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves from the assholes that are going to have them anyway (ironically)... as long as everybody has them, then everybody has a fair shot at protecting themselves.

Madi's*Mama Due November 2; 1 child; Holland, Michigan 7391 posts
18th Apr '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting kacti:</b>" IMO... I don't think we should have them at all. The whole purpose is to make it harder for criminals ... [snip!] ... to have them anyway (ironically)... as long as everybody has them, then everybody has a fair shot at protecting themselves."</blockquote>



I think this is taking it to far. We should be doing what we can to keep them out of the hands of mentally unstable and dangerous felons but I think we need to do it without stepping on the rights of everyone else.