Gun Purchase Without Background Check | What's Your Stance?

It would be illegal for him to do so. That would be an impeachable offense.

 

I voted "no" but, for clarification, that's no in regard to professional sellers. I don't support background checks on transfers among family or neighbors.

 

So. Apparently, there are no longer any crimes being committed by anyone but Mexicans. Alright, Mr. 'not all conservatives are racist'.

 

ahhhhhhhhh another race-card issue............I didn't see that anywhere in his post. You have to admire someone who jumps in the middle of a debate and tosses the idiotic race card down. It takes balls when we haven't addressed the race issue. Obama freak? illegal gun owners are criminal. (To those who are forbidden by law to own or hold) It doesn't matter what race they are. A criminal is a criminal. Got it?

 

.....Why? If all it takes is your neighbor to sell a firearm to you, what's the point in checks for professional establishments?

 

Because such a law would make me felon for giving my sister a gun when she felt threatened.

It's not just stupid but unenforceable. It's a small local community that ought to have every right to free transfer between individuals but, if you don't want that, how the f*** are you going to keep a wife from taking her husband's gun if she snapped and went Sandy Hook? "Just say no"?

 

What circumstance is preventing her from going to an establishment? A charge? Price? Why would it make you a felon if she has no priors?

 

I'm curious why you avoided the point of enforcement?

What circumstance is preventing her from going to an establishment? Technically none, and that's technically irrelevant. Why, when my sister is in under serious threat, should I have to pay for a background check to be done (which can take seven days) and then wait a further seven days (MN waiting period - 10 if you're in CA)?

 

Because plenty of laws aren't enforceable, or "only if caught" type of laws. That doesn't mean they should just go away.

I'd think if you knew she was under that serious degree of a threat that you'd notify the proper authorities.

 

Of course that would be the first step. But, what exactly do you expect the authorities to do?

 

It was merely a first step proposal. I haven't an issue with lending a firearm, but I'd hope that wouldn't be the only answer to discovering your loved one is in dire straits.

 

Why on earth would any American citizen who feels threatened have to move to an "establishment", whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) that might be, when they have a Constitutionally guaranteed unlimited freedom to purchase and carry the firearms of their choice?

What kind of fascist is it that believes putting law abiding citizens in prisons "for their own good" is preferable to allowing them their natural human freedom to own guns and defend themselves, their families, and their homes from violent others?

Fascists who vote for Obama, of course.

 

A background check is a precondition to the exercise of a natural and Constitutional right, meaning it is unlawful and immoral. It would be no different if background checks were required for purchasing subversive literature.

 

But, like he said, this law would have made that illegal without both of them going to a dealer. The dealer would have had to take the firearm into his inventory. They would then have to pay the dealer for a background check (which ranges from $25-$80) and go through the standard gun purchase process. In some states, that purchase process has a fairly long waiting period. So what is the sister to do for the ten days that they would have had to wait before he could legally loan her the firearm?

She could get a restraining order, but people are beaten or killed by people that they have restraining orders against all of the time. Locked doors and windows only slow a motivated person down. The police wouldn't and couldn't put every frightened woman in protective custody, nor could they provide 24/7 security.

The system can't protect every individual person. It isn't even designed to try. The system prosecutes the offenders to protect the masses and future potential victims. It is up to each individual to protect themselves. This law would have made that slower or illegal in circumstances like this one.

 

What we need is background checks on all these crooked senators and congressmen who support the war crazies again and again.

 

lol Stay with her brother, who has the weapon?

 

Why should she have to? She did nothing wrong. The only reason she can't stay in her own home would be because the government had decided to impede on her right of self protection.

Why shouldn't she be allowed to borrow a gun to use to protect herself? How does taking that right away from her make anyone safer - other than maybe the criminal who is threatening her?

 

Because her life's in danger.

Why is shielding yourself with an armed family member punishment?

Which would be quite the point if the only people attempting to get guns were pretty little defenseless ladies. Thankfully, adults know otherwise. Every right has it's small print.

 

According to this article
http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...und-checks-because-of-people-like-larry-pratt
40 Percent of Guns Are Sold Without Background Checks...