Would you support 100% background checks?

[uncle money bags]

No.

Forcing me to check the background of some body to buy a tool is ridiculous. I am not responsible for the intent of another person. I will concede that i may be liable in some way if i know that the other person will do evil with that tool, but ultimately the responsibility for ones action lays squarely at the foot of the perpetrator. If they are not legally able to possess a firearm they, and only they, should be held accountable for acquiring one.

 

[twoguns?]

It was sarcasim dude....I just got the "shall not be infringed" lecture a few posts ago.

AHHH, "shall not be infringed" IS a good point

 

[caojyn]

I'm willing to compromise. If they repeal the machine gun ban, and allow the market to become a little more reasonable. They can even keep the transfer fee.

 

[uncle money bags]

For those who voted yes because, "you have nothing to hide"...

http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html

 

[DFarcher]

It's already illegal to buy a gun and then commit a crime with it.
It's illegal to buy a car and then commit a crime with it as well. It's illegal to commit crimes, already with anything.

In countries with extreme gun control, like UK, the violent crime rate is WAY higher than the USA. 5 times higher in the UK than the USA. What makes you think that restricting law abiding good people from purchasing useful tools like guns or cars will stop criminals from committing crimes?
In fact the opposite, it will encourage criminals to commit more crimes. Consider the crime of mass shootings. There is a reason why mass shootings are successful in gun-free zones like at Newtown, but fail in areas where a good person with a gun stopped the shooting, like in the Oregon mall.
Consider Reading : "More guns, less crime", by Dr. John Lott, for starters.

I Don't think law abiding citizens should be restricted, never said anything close to that.

 

[uncle money bags]

You two have different definitions of of what restriction is.

 

[farmerbyron]

I reject the premise that background checks will prevent bad guys getting their hands on guns. Most criminals get their guns through straw purchasers, or off the street. This whole crap about "gun show loophole" or "internet sales" is a red herring.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

http://www.buyagunday.net/2009/sources-of-guns-used-in-crimes-fbi-report/

 

[vvvvvvv]

This is a popular sentiment but makes no sense if you read the second amendment and related case law. The right to bear arms is not absolute and can and should be regulated.

I'm well-versed in the Second Amendment and related case-law, including the Slaughter-House cases that the courts nearly unanimously agree were wrongly decided and merit revisiting. They could have been revisited in McDonald had the NRA not screwed supporters of the Second Amendment by dropping the P-or-I arguments that had gotten the case to the SCOTUS (without the NRA's help) and instead opting to pursue Due Process. To me, that shows that the NRA would rather look out for themselves rather than the right to keep and bear arms.

P-or-I would have largely closed the door by subjecting any firearms laws to strict scrutiny rather than rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. The Due Process route ensured the survival of the NRA and other supposedly pro-2A groups by requiring the SCOTUS to evaluate each specific infringement of the Second Amendment individually and directing lower courts to presume any prohibition prior to McDonald as being Constitutional post-McDonald.

 

[vvvvvvv]

mass murderers should be allowed to buy guns and anyone with enough $$$ should be able to purchase or build a nuke.

They already can.

 

[Cinaet]

Nope.