ANRA and 90% of Gun Owners Support Background Checks

Read the article

Comments 81 to 100 of 115

    • May 2012
      Member since
    8,564c 23,086B 30u
    #81 !Report
    This should strengthen the 2nd amendment for the responsible people of this country. Responsible people do responsible things. Bad people do bad things. Goverment needs to be able to distinguish between the two and respond accordingly.
    • Sep 2012
      Member since
    5,677c 15,090B 15u
    #82 !Report
    Drake_Burrwood wrote: #79
    q
    @Medicinebow there are privacy issues a normal purchase check answers Yes or no. That's it. Even no is no fault as they will day no if they have trouble telling you from someone else who is a definate no. Then you need to contact them and male clear you identity.
    @Drake_Burrwood Are you saying 2 people can go to a police station and get a background check? If so can you tell me where they allow this. Currently there is no method for me to background check another if I wish to sell them a firearm. I can't submit paperwork to the CBI.( In Colorado we use the CBI) to have another person checked. I just need to become a full time Wyoming resident....its easier !
    • Jan 2013
      Member since
    2c
    #83 !Report
    To prevent felons, people with restraining orders, and illegal aliens from purchasing weapons.
    • Nov 2012
      Member since
    12,400c 21,514B 22u
    #84 !Report
    seedtick wrote: #58
    q
    @NormalFlora The background checks are not blaming anyone. But, it is just a part of the massive regulation some want. Re-read what I wrote. Don't twist it into something you want it to mean. And, understand this...I will not cheer Barack Husssein Obama for any part of this...he is doing what he ...
    @seedtick "He has lied about his support for the 2nd Amendment until he doesn't need to be reelected."
    I don't think so. His first term the gun huggers were all in an uproar because he was going to take away their guns and he did nothing of the kind. Now, he had the opportunity to issue executive orders banning certain guns and he instead deferred to Congress. Does the guy personally have to drive to your house and give you a gift wrapped rifle before you'll accept he is not going to abolish the 2nd amendment?
    • Oct 2012
      Member since
    5,309c 7,307B 10u
    #85 !Report
    While we are at it how about doing some more background checks on our liar and chief. After fast and furious scandal, this guy has the nerve to judge gun owners? He is without shame. He hid the fast and furious gun give away to cartels with yet one more executive order. The Liberal partisan press just keeps giving this corrupt radical a free ride.
    • Oct 2012
      Member since
    37c 2B
    #86 !Report
    So, people that don't deserve them don't get them.
    • Nov 2012
      Member since
    551c 245B 1u
    #87 !Report
    last time i checked, criminals on the streets of Oakland didn't bother with the whole background check thingy. and even if they did, they would still gun each other down at an unparalleled pace! fix that oblamey!!!!!!!!
    • May 2012
      Member since
    7,152c 8,615B 9u
    #88 !Report
    Zazziness wrote: #84
    q
    @seedtick "He has lied about his support for the 2nd Amendment until he doesn't need to be reelected." I don't think so. His first term the gun huggers were all in an uproar because he was going to take away their guns and he did nothing of the kind. Now, he had the opportunity to issue executiv...
    @Zazziness Yeah...that's exactly my point....he no longer has to stand for reelection. "during his first term" he did nothing to irk gun owners so he could get their votes....He told them that he would not take their guns or infringe upon their 2md amendment rights, when in fact he has never been a friend to the gun owner.
    • Aug 2012
      Member since
    1,139c 540B 1u
    #89 !Report
    Medicinebow wrote: #82
    q
    @Drake_Burrwood Are you saying 2 people can go to a police station and get a background check? If so can you tell me where they allow this. Currently there is no method for me to background check another if I wish to sell them a firearm. I can't submit paperwork to the CBI. ( In Colorado we use t...
    @Medicinebow no they seem to be talking about facilitated transfers through gun dealer. The dealer can charge a fee and record the transfer in their records. And the dealer makes the call to OK the sale for the private transfer as if it was their own sale.
    • Sep 2012
      Member since
    5,677c 15,090B 15u
    #90 !Report
    Drake_Burrwood wrote: #89
    q
    @Medicinebow no they seem to be talking about facilitated transfers through gun dealer. The dealer can charge a fee and record the transfer in their records. And the dealer makes the call to OK the sale for the private transfer as if it was their own sale.
    @Drake_Burrwood Is this currently being done in any state? I'm unaware of that. A system like that could definitely be set up but I don't know if thats being done now.
    • Sep 2012
      Member since
    2,000c 2,966B 36u
    #91 !Report
    Gullibility.
    • Aug 2012
      Member since
    28c 24B
    #92 !Report
    I agree with the back ground checks for everyone buying a gun. It must be done in such a way that it is possible for the private owners to do and the ATF must stop keeping the records beyond the 30 days as required by the law. Background checks should not be used as a method to create a national registration. History shows us that registration is the first step to greater gun control.
    • Aug 2012
      Member since
    1,139c 540B 1u
    #93 !Report
    Medicinebow wrote: #90
    q
    @Drake_Burrwood Is this currently being done in any state? I'm unaware of that. A system like that could definitely be set up but I don't know if thats being done now.
    @Medicinebow a dealer has to obey state as well as federal law. In my state a dealer calls the federal government number verifies certain data. Then they get a yes or no. Why do you think there are so few convictions all they have to do is walk away and say "it wasn't me" that is federal. For my state issued CCW my wife and I had to go to the sheriffs get fingerprinted and wait a couple of weeks. To make sure our prints and other data didn't trip and alarms. A private sale or gift was not required to make the call since there was no way to allow it without having a way to prevent misuse. In state rules can be different requiring more hoops. At one point when I inherited my mother-in-laws revolver, I was required to get permission for the transfer by filling out a form at the sheriffs no more. So a good federal system is more important.
    • Aug 2012
      Member since
    1,139c 540B 1u
    #94 !Report
    Medicinebow wrote: #90
    q
    @Drake_Burrwood Is this currently being done in any state? I'm unaware of that. A system like that could definitely be set up but I don't know if thats being done now.
    @Medicinebow Oh, I get certain emails one a public ATF. It had a message for dealers reminding them of the rules for facilitated transfers which makes me think that they are going to require private transfers to go that way for the checks.
    • Sep 2012
      Member since
    5,677c 15,090B 15u
    #95 !Report
    Drake_Burrwood wrote: #93
    q
    @Medicinebow a dealer has to obey state as well as federal law. In my state a dealer calls the federal government number verifies certain data. Then they get a yes or no. Why do you think there are so few convictions all they have to do is walk away and say "it wasn't me" that is federal. For ...
    @Drake_Burrwood That's what i'm talking about...private sales. 2 people can't go to a gun dealer and use that dealer for a transfer between 2 private citizens. How does a private citizen know if another is qualified to purchase a firearm? Something on a federal or state level would have to be implemented. I know how it works from purchasing from dealers. I've done that once or twice.
    • Jan 2013
      Member since
    5c
    #96 !Report
    Cause we don't want criminals or nut jobs getting guns, but I only support background checks that are in know way tied to tracking and registration.....
    • Jan 2013
      Member since
    5c
    #97 !Report
    Bcaro33 wrote: #96
    q
    Cause we don't want criminals or nut jobs getting guns, but I only support background checks that are in know way tied to tracking and registration.....
    (correction) aren't no way
    • Dec 2012
      Member since
    261c 118B 2u
    #98 !Report
    They are playing word games in an attempt to confuse people in order to advance their civilian-disarmament agenda. Background checks are ALREADY required for ALL guns purchased by ALL persons from ALL licensed gun-dealers in ALL states, including ALL gun-shows. Furthermore, under ATF regulation 478.41 ALL persons engaged in selling firearms MUST be licensed. The few instances of private (i.e. non-licensed) citizens selling or trading from their private collection, does not comprise a source of guns for criminals - it is inconsequential. If there really are people engaged in the business of selling guns who are not licensed - it's only because the ATF has chosen to not enforce current law.

    The point is - there is no "gun-show loophole". There never was. It's a fictitious fabrication of the anti-gun zealots.
    • Oct 2012
      Member since
    2,413c 1,120B 7u
    #99 !Report
    I am all for Background Checks!
    • Apr 2012
      Member since
    4,140c 3,504B 37u
    #100 !Report
    Anyone else think this gun control issue is mainly a distraction from the debt ceiling issues and the economy?

Comments 81 to 100 of 115