Background checks don't stop criminals from buying guns

[OakRidgeStars]

And who came to this rather obvious conclusion? Two reporters at the Washington Post. Yeah, I'm shocked too.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/22/washi ... dont-work/

[Swampman]

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, the editors of the Washington Post still support background checks on private firearm transactions, along with bans on detachable-magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. And they’ll call you a “coward” if you disagree.

Then they won't mind if I call them the stupidest mutha-fraxkers to ever breath my good clean air.

[wittmeba]

I'm kinda on the fence about this. We are fighting a battle with all the anti's about guns landing in the wrong hands. Personally I am for guns not being available to some true criminals, mentally off balance people and the like.

What options are there to protect us from them without some form of background check? We have all seen what can happen.

[dorminWS]

I'm kinda on the fence about this. We are fighting a battle with all the anti's about guns landing in the wrong hands. Personally I am for guns not being available to some true criminals, mentally off balance people and the like.

What options are there to protect us from them without some form of background check? We have all seen what can happen.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Another conundrum; and a valid point.

Personally, I've decided I'll accept the REMOTE POSSIBILITY that a criminal or crazy person will get hold of a gun and hurt me rather than the VIRTUAL CERTAINTY that the antis will, if given any additional devices to keep "criminals" and "mentally off balance people" from getting guns, misuse those devices to label law-abiding folks like me as criminal or mentally off balance.

[Swampman]

If they still have the ability to acquire a firearm, what good does a background check do? It will likely limit the availability for them, but if they really want one they can still lay their hands on one.

The wack-job in Newtown stole his mother's guns. No background check would have stopped him.

The Columbine kids weren't on anyone's list of crazies or felons. No background check would have stopped them.

James Holmes (movie theater shooter) purchased weapons and ammo in accordance with CO law. No background check stopped him.

Eddie Ray Routh wasn't on anyone's list, he was a freakin' Marine! No background check would have stopped him.

The DC sniper and his accomplice weren't on anyone's list. No background check would have stopped them.

Need I continue? It's so easy to blow holes in the argument the anti's put up it's laughable. Colorado law doesn't require registration of firearms. Even if it did, there isn't a limit on what you can own.

These people have one freakin' agenda - AUSTRAILIA!

Don't let your emotions play into this at all. It's easy to do, but you have to rip your heart out of your chest and stomp on it! The only place background checks aren't required in most places is private sales. Even FFL sales at gun shows have to do the basic check before they can sell you a firearm.

[Swampman]

@wittmeba - I'll make one more observation about your post. You wonder -

"What options are there to protect us from them without some form of background check? We have all seen what can happen."

I would suggest that this desire to be "protected from them" is the deep-seated root of the rush in this country to regulate everything. American society has been conditioned over many decades to demand protection from "them." "Them", as it turns out, is everyone. Any person, no matter whose list they might be on, can do you harm at any time they choose, and for absolutely no reason at all. They don't even have to be on a list.

We have been conditioned to believe that any risk is unacceptable, and that we should be protected from that risk at all cost, especially at the cost of freedom and liberty. LEO - Law ENFORCEMENT Officer, not LPE - Law PREVENTION Officer. LEO's can't be everywhere they are needed to prevent bad things from happening.

Protect yourself from the risks inherent in everyday life. Take the precautions you think are necessary. I pray the steps you take are enough to prevent harm to you and yours. Good luck.

[WRW]

I'm kinda on the fence about this. We are fighting a battle with all the anti's about guns landing in the wrong hands. Personally I am for guns not being available to some true criminals, mentally off balance people and the like.

What options are there to protect us from them without some form of background check? We have all seen what can happen.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Another conundrum; and a valid point.

Personally, I've decided I'll accept the REMOTE POSSIBILITY that a criminal or crazy person will get hold of a gun and hurt me rather than the VIRTUAL CERTAINTY that the antis will, if given any additional devices to keep "criminals" and "mentally off balance people" from getting guns, misuse those devices to label law-abiding folks like me as criminal or mentally off balance.

^^^^^^
That, and the incremental overstepping controls that inevitably go with giving said authority to government. Looking back, the solutions provided by govt. for these issues have not worked and yet they continue to snowball those solutions to attempt to effect a remedy. Once said snowball starts downhill it is almost impossible to get it back uphill and unraveled.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

You know how you protect yourself from an insane person getting a weapon? You don't. You shoot the sumbeyatch when he/she draws on you.

Problem solved.

[MarcSpaz]

Quick point to make as far as the Columbine kids go... they didn't buy their guns from a dealer. They were too young to buy weapons, so they used a straw purchase method.

I'm with the folks who say that background checks are not realistic and totally unconstitutional.

First and foremost... when the Constitution and Second Amendment were written, there were plenty of bad guys with guns. Its not like no one was ever robbed at knife or gun point at that time. Yet, the Founding Fathers literally used one sentence to secure the respect of the people's rights to own weapons. There was no caveat for criminals.

With that said, my second point is, just because you are a criminal, that doesn't mean you lost the right to life. You still have a God given natural right to protect yourself from undue harm or death. And what if that criminal is reformed? Shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves, especially after finding the error in their ways and becoming a functional member of society?

And lastly, as mentioned above, incremental abuse of power will lead to a moving violation making you an unfit criminal; and crying at a funeral after losing a loved one will make you psychologically unfit to own a weapon.

Its BS... and I really don't want to deal with it. I say, each individual can make a moral choice to sell or not to sell to someone. Why make it a legal issue and disarm people that should not be? And if the bad guys step up with a weapon... they will have to pay the ultimate price for making a bad choice.

You can't justify these laws by saying its for the good of the people when the only people being disarmed are good people.

[wittmeba]

Points well taken. I don't worry about myself as much as others. Not that I'm above it all, but so many are kids who may not have the ability as we who carry. I do understand LE cannot be everywhere and not only that they apparently have no obligation to protect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=0

Background checks? Metal detectors and Armed personnel at school doors? Sometimes none of the options are good choices.