Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums

Universal Background Checks


Recommended Posts

This was posted recently posted on another site.  He makes excellent points.  Since there’s no liberals of substance on that site, I though some liberals on here might critique it.

 

9072D51B-8D9B-4606-AB8F-590E8BC2C229.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've been banned from Facebook or Twitter because of your political post you fall in the "REVOKED" category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will never be a way to enforce "universal" background checks on private, person to person, gun exchanges. They aren't traceable,  there is no record of the transactions, no serial numbers involved,  therefore no proof they happened.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if I have to wait 3 days to buy a gun due to a background check.  My life is just not that exciting .  If I couldn't wait 3 days to buy a gun, then someone is very lucky.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want those who have protective orders against them to be able to possess a gun. I don't want those on the no-fly or terrorist watch list able to purchase weapons. I believe if you have certain diagnosed mental illness that there should be restrictions on you. I think those who are convicted of violent offenses should have their gun rights forfeited. I also think the Brady Bill should be re-enacted and that there should be an age limit on all gun possession, with the exception of hunting rifles. Don't try to whip out your knowledge on me of different acronyms or firepower, and I don't need to know how large your arsenal is. 
There, I contributed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

I don't want those who have protective orders against them to be able to possess a gun. I don't want those on the no-fly or terrorist watch list able to purchase weapons. I believe if you have certain diagnosed mental illness that there should be restrictions on you. I think those who are convicted of violent offenses should have their gun rights forfeited. I also think the Brady Bill should be re-enacted and that there should be an age limit on all gun possession, with the exception of hunting rifles. Don't try to whip out your knowledge on me of different acronyms or firepower, and I don't need to know how large your arsenal is. 
There, I contributed. 

You're going to have to expand on some of these, Barry.

The "no fly" list is problematic until it's reformed. First, if you're put on it (for whatever reason), my understanding is that you have no way to appeal and get removed from the list. So if you're put on the no-fly list accidentally (which there are stories of), you basically have no recourse. Secondly, people get placed on the no-fly list for a myriad of reasons. You can be non-violent and/or non-compliant once, and get put on the no fly list. The reason for being on it matters, and there should be recourse for being removed from it.

Secondly, who decides what sort of diagnosed mental illnesses would disqualify someone? I actually saw someone argue once that if you want a gun, you are mentally unfit to have one, and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to have one. What about undiagnosed mental illnesses? What about ADHD? Autism Spectrum Disorder? Schizophrenia? Who decides?

Will this be based on actual medical knowledge? Political pressure to include/exclude some groups? And therein I think lies the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'no fly' list does have the ACLU on the attack because of problems you listed, and there should absolutely be recourse and appeal clearly noted. I think the vast majority of those on the list are there because they are viewed as a danger to others, though, right? To my mind that would involve criminal or terrorist prior acts or current investigation or affiliation. I don't think those people need weapons. 
And the mental health question for me could be answered, not so much by specific mental illness, but by medically diagnosed suicidal ideation and/or harmful attempts. Not so much 'going postal' as having been committed or self committed time for that.
 

Violent acts are violent acts, regardless of mental health considerations, if prosecution is involved. And one more tidbit: there are three non-mitigating measures for actions in schools, for special education and 504 students, where disabilities aren't enough to consider reducing punishment, by the way: illegal drug use, alcohol possession and weapon use or possession. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

The 'no fly' list does have the ACLU on the attack because of problems you listed, and there should absolutely be recourse and appeal clearly noted. I think the vast majority of those on the list are there because they are viewed as a danger to others, though, right? To my mind that would involve criminal or terrorist prior acts or current investigation or affiliation. I don't think those people need weapons. 
And the mental health question for me could be answered, not so much by specific mental illness, but by medically diagnosed suicidal ideation and/or harmful attempts. Not so much 'going postal' as having been committed or self committed time for that.
 

Violent acts are violent acts, regardless of mental health considerations, if prosecution is involved. And one more tidbit: there are three non-mitigating measures for actions in schools, for special education and 504 students, where disabilities aren't enough to consider reducing punishment, by the way: illegal drug use, alcohol possession and weapon use or possession. 

I know we have probably talked about this prior, but who get to decide about the "medically diagnosed suicidal ideation and/or harmful attempts"? I know there are doctors out there, hopefully few and far between, that will work with a family to diagnose people who other family members might think are capable of harming themselves. And what is someone is called by a neighbor who thinks they are crazy? Are we going to allow the police/state to come in and take their guns, until they can prove they are not? This has been a problem with "red-flag" laws. 

I will say--I do feel that having a background check done at the point of purchase of retailers--I don't have a problem with. I have a small problem with the amount of time that it takes, I mean companies can get my credit score in minutes--but it takes 3 days to find out if I can own a gun, that doesn't seem correct. So check my background--you might find out I've had some tickets for speeding and running stop signs--or not wearing a seat belt--but that is about it. I don't have anything to hide, and yes, I am a somewhat financial conservative, yet moderate social individual. (depending on the subject). 

I don't fly enough to really understand the "no-fly" list, as I am a teacher and poor. LOL 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

I don't want those who have protective orders against them to be able to possess a gun. I don't want those on the no-fly or terrorist watch list able to purchase weapons. I believe if you have certain diagnosed mental illness that there should be restrictions on you. I think those who are convicted of violent offenses should have their gun rights forfeited. I also think the Brady Bill should be re-enacted and that there should be an age limit on all gun possession, with the exception of hunting rifles. Don't try to whip out your knowledge on me of different acronyms or firepower, and I don't need to know how large your arsenal is. 
There, I contributed. 

Lots of your wish list already exists.  When paperwork is filed on a gun purchase the ATF looks at that such information.   What you failed to address is who decides who is mentally capable, who decides if that changes, etc...

 

I believe you also have to be 18 to purchase as well.  If not 21

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Monte1076 said:

You're going to have to expand on some of these, Barry.

The "no fly" list is problematic until it's reformed. First, if you're put on it (for whatever reason), my understanding is that you have no way to appeal and get removed from the list. So if you're put on the no-fly list accidentally (which there are stories of), you basically have no recourse. Secondly, people get placed on the no-fly list for a myriad of reasons. You can be non-violent and/or non-compliant once, and get put on the no fly list. The reason for being on it matters, and there should be recourse for being removed from it.

Secondly, who decides what sort of diagnosed mental illnesses would disqualify someone? I actually saw someone argue once that if you want a gun, you are mentally unfit to have one, and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to have one. What about undiagnosed mental illnesses? What about ADHD? Autism Spectrum Disorder? Schizophrenia? Who decides?

Will this be based on actual medical knowledge? Political pressure to include/exclude some groups? And therein I think lies the problem.

There should be a test for liberalism .... if you are diagnosed with it, you shouldn't be able to own/purchase a gun, or vote .....

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

I don't want those who have protective orders against them to be able to possess a gun. I don't want those on the no-fly or terrorist watch list able to purchase weapons. I believe if you have certain diagnosed mental illness that there should be restrictions on you. I think those who are convicted of violent offenses should have their gun rights forfeited. I also think the Brady Bill should be re-enacted and that there should be an age limit on all gun possession, with the exception of hunting rifles. Don't try to whip out your knowledge on me of different acronyms or firepower, and I don't need to know how large your arsenal is. 
There, I contributed. 

I hunt with my 7.62. (AR) is that allowed under you rules?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KirtFalcon said:

There should be a test for liberalism .... if you are diagnosed with it, you shouldn't be able to own/purchase a gun, or vote .....

The founding fathers wouldn't have passed your test.  America was founded by classical liberals.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

I don't want those who have protective orders against them to be able to possess a gun. I don't want those on the no-fly or terrorist watch list able to purchase weapons. I believe if you have certain diagnosed mental illness that there should be restrictions on you. I think those who are convicted of violent offenses should have their gun rights forfeited. I also think the Brady Bill should be re-enacted and that there should be an age limit on all gun possession, with the exception of hunting rifles. Don't try to whip out your knowledge on me of different acronyms or firepower, and I don't need to know how large your arsenal is. 
There, I contributed. 

The problem is too many law enforcement agencies (mostly feds) do not report to the system because they title something different than the system lists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Youngcoach123 said:

I hunt with my 7.62. (AR) is that allowed under you rules?

Imagine you whipping out your weapon to show everyone. 

 

3 minutes ago, Olduy said:

The problem is too many law enforcement agencies (mostly feds) do not report to the system because they title something different than the system lists. 

It needs to be done uniformly or not at all, as far I am concerned. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

Imagine you whipping out your weapon to show everyone. 

 

So that’s a no answer. Imagine wanting to regulate something that you have no clue about. That’s the same thing these politicians are trying to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Youngcoach123 said:

So that’s a no answer. Imagine wanting to regulate something that you have no clue about. That’s the same thing these politicians are trying to do.

Imagine you offering up your opinions on election law and Covid, despite really showing a fundamental lack of understanding of both. Funny world...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Imagine you offering up your opinions on election law and Covid, despite really showing a fundamental lack of understanding of both. Funny world...

I realize it was out of frustration because of what he's being investigated for, but recently Andrew Cuomo even said politicians shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about.

But let me go about this a different way: Would you really want people who don't know anything about education and education administration to make laws having to do with education?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Imagine you offering up your opinions on election law and Covid, despite really showing a fundamental lack of understanding of both. Funny world...

Ahh but I actually take part in both of those things. You on the other hand do not when it comes to guns. Their is a difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...