Politics aside, do you agree with Clinton's suggestion, recommending stricter background checks for those wanting to purchase weapons?

2016-10-15T00:29:14-04:00

Note: I am not saying I support Hillary Clinton, nor am I saying she plans on intruding on the 2nd Amendment. I am asking, do you agree with her recommendations for stricter background checks on those who want to purchase weapons? Do we, as a country, need a better system in place when it comes to purchasing weapons? Should these purchase be regulated or is it no one's business? What's your take?

Response by SPC James Harsh made Oct 15 at 2016 12:40 AM

2016-10-15T00:40:04-04:00

For example private sales require having a valid permit where I live and the laws on the books exist for background checks such as the Brady law and when we look at other states there are even more restrictive rules for people to obtain firearms. I would like to see many of the states that have more restrictive laws make a case to the SCOTUS. There are people that are negligent owners and they should be held accountable, I think there's a lack of that. There are people that don't even want to see guns and could care less about the laws. My biggest concern are attacks on the composition of arms, my handgun is considered high capacity and banned in the state next door, in the state next door. Weapons such as the semi-auto assault rifle are being mag capped to say 10 round magazines. I saw something about in California that there's law against reloading capabilities. Not everyone wants guns and those that do should be held accountable so only the responsible can be trusted. The system in place has problems, right now the FBI for example is not accepting erroneous disputes for example. And 'smart guns' wow.. I'll stop ranting

Response by SGT David Baker made Oct 15 at 2016 1:51 AM

2016-10-15T01:51:59-04:00

Nope. We have too many unconstitutional infringements, commonly and incorrectly referred to as "firearms regulations" or "gun laws" as it is. Indeed, the only lawful "gun law" in this old man's opinion is the Second Amendment.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Oct 15 at 2016 4:13 AM

2016-10-15T04:13:09-04:00

Some type of certified training. Better background checks.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Oct 15 at 2016 6:34 AM

2016-10-15T06:34:53-04:00

No ! Why you may ask, because if you can't ask a person for their I.D. to vote. And you can't vet a Muslim when they enter this country, without being labeled a Islamophobia nut, then why should an undue burden be placed on our own citizens, when they decide to purchase a weapon for self preservation? These are not separate issues, the principal is the same , if you place a stricter burden on someone who purchases a gun, but allow some Raghead easy access into our country with only a cursory background check. Then find out they come from a hornets nest of Terrorist. No way let's leave the average Joe American citizen alone, and start weeding out these Islamic Dick weeds that I fought against back in the 80's out of the country. And we did it without smart bombs, infrared devices, portable computers and very little satellite and definitely no Drone support. And we successfully kept these idiots off of U.S. soil. Now we have all this tech, and they move here by the thousands. What happened?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 6:41 AM

2016-10-15T06:41:56-04:00

How will stricter background checks stops the criminals from obtaining weapons? This is like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. Look at Illinois. One of the strictest States in the country on gun "control" , and how is Chicago looking now a days?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Oct 15 at 2016 7:15 AM

2016-10-15T07:15:09-04:00

As soon as she can spell out her plan to get criminals to participate in the program, I'll get on board.. Until that day, more anything, means more against the more common honest citizen...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 7:50 AM

2016-10-15T07:50:46-04:00

If tightening background checks limits our Constitutional rights, do Viter ID laws tightening up who can vote limit Constitutional rights? What about restricting Muslims or people from certain countries - does that tightening restrict Constitutional rights as well?

This isn't really a point about the 2nd Amendment as in the post, more just food for thought... Is modern-day interpretations creating tighter restrictions on things limit the Constitution or advance and evolve those ideals to fit modern-day beliefs. Most likely a good answer lies somewhere on a case by case basis.

The government can't take my guns, but I am not sold one way or another on background checks. Half of me sees it as a baby step toward massive restrictions, half of me sees it as a logical move to protect citizens from those who aren't responsible (or worse are a threat).

I tend to go with the goals of the Constitution, but it seems these days that modernization of certain clauses may be a good thing but they could also be detrimental to the core principles... Case by case I guess

Response by CW4 Angel C. made Oct 15 at 2016 8:34 AM

2016-10-15T08:34:35-04:00

Yes it's only common sense in my opinion!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 8:49 AM

2016-10-15T08:49:21-04:00

hypothetically speaking... do we need more strict background checks for gun purchases or for refugees?

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 15 at 2016 10:05 AM

2016-10-15T10:05:00-04:00

I don't agree with anything the lying bitch wants.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 15 at 2016 10:30 AM

2016-10-15T10:30:37-04:00

Which city in the USA has the most stringent gun laws on the books? Which city in the USA has the most shootings? Let's have a trial program of these checks in Chicago and if it has a positive result, go with it nationally.

Response by SFC George Smith made Oct 15 at 2016 10:36 AM

2016-10-15T10:36:03-04:00

Yes...
I think The Back ground Check should be done and to those who qualify and are not Criminals should be allowed to acquire the weapons...
the Reason... Take out the Wild cards
the problem... its away to go overboard and manipulate the process and laws so they can Control "who ...what ...and where ", the weapons go for easy confiscation...

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Oct 15 at 2016 10:58 AM

2016-10-15T10:58:35-04:00

If you really want an honest response from people, you should just ask if people support expanded background checks, and not evoke Hillary Clinton into the question.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Oct 15 at 2016 11:29 AM

2016-10-15T11:29:47-04:00

You know, I've wondered at these Stricter Background Checks. As a gun owner, I went thru a background check. I have a friend who buys and sells at gun shows, and I asked him about this "Loophole" that I've heard so much about. He gave me a rather blank look, "Huh? Look, when someone wants to purchase from me, I call in their information, same as any gun dealer, and I don't allow those who can't pass it, to purchase.."
Not sure if this is true for other people or places, but after checking on the 'rules' about gun buying, I'm not sure what this "Loophole" is.

I am all for background checks on buying weapons though, and I wish that there was some way we could keep those with mental problems from owning them, but I'm not sure what you could do that wouldn't be considered as invasive...

Response by GySgt Charles O'Connell made Oct 15 at 2016 12:10 PM

2016-10-15T12:10:52-04:00

I would agree that there should be greater responsibility placed on the sale of guns, greater responsibility in gun ownership, greater prosecution in the gun related crimes. The, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is fundamental to the safety and security of the U.S.. People should have the right to defend themselves against criminal intrusion, foreign aggression, or against an oppressive government.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 15 at 2016 1:04 PM

2016-10-15T13:04:34-04:00

No.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-the-second-amendment-need-to-be-amended

Does the Second Amendment need to be Amended? | RallyPoint

There's been a lot of debate about firearms and firearm ownership recently. I've been a part of a lot of it. I think one thing that is achingly necessary is some close reading of the Second Amendment itself. I slapped together a powerpoint for my sister a few years ago on the topic, and will post the text here with the title slide as an image (because it outlines the argument.) 2. Inherent Right to Self Defense All persons entitled to defend...

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Oct 15 at 2016 8:57 PM

2016-10-15T20:57:16-04:00

NO!!!! Get off my bolts.

Response by SrA Mike VanDeMark made Oct 15 at 2016 10:53 PM

2016-10-15T22:53:18-04:00

Further restrictions in law abiding citizens does little to curb crime. A proper solution would include the enforcement of current laws and disarm those who shouldn't have weapons.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Oct 16 at 2016 8:51 AM

2016-10-16T08:51:44-04:00

I do not feel that any form of gun control no matter how it is papered over will or could work other than to control law abiding folks. As many have stated the crooks, nutt jobs, whackos and corn-balls will always find a way to get their hands on a gun or guns if necessary. They are not opposed to using other forms of deadly weapons or force to carry out their maniacal schemes and you can't outlaw every little thing. Gun control is a pablum provided the masses by liberals who pander for votes in every way possible and are behind all the government controls, good and bad, foisted on US today.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 16 at 2016 10:43 AM

2016-10-16T10:43:53-04:00

1) Most people do not understand the actual process for purchasing a firearm OR the restrictions that exist that would prevent you from purchasing a firearm. #ignorance

2) We use a "null check system" or more simply put, "If you have not committed a felony" or "other disqualifying event" you are not prohibitted from purchasing/owning/possessing a firearm. This is because this is America and we don't punish you for things you haven't done yet. #JusticeSystem

3) We've got a lot of rules already in place. At the Federal Level. At the State Level. At the Local Level. These rules only work for honest citizenry. Criminals are criminals because they break laws. #CommonSense

4) You have the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to defend yourself. A firearm is an "equalizer." This includes from other citizenry, and from the Government. It doesn't matter whether it will be effective or not, you still have the Right. It's one of the Rules.

What this all boils down to is "there is no better system" which WON'T ALSO infringe on some other Right to an UNACCEPTABLE level. That's the trick here. The second the infringement crosses a specific threshold, it's out of bounds. We allow Background checks (Null Checks) but we don't allow "Need Checks" because you don't need a reason to execute or not execute a Right. That's what (Protection of) Freedom is about. Until you ACTUALLY HARM someone else, it must be assumed you are acting in a lawful manner. Gun Control (et al) makes the opposite assumption.

- Former Gun Dealer.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Oct 16 at 2016 12:19 PM

2016-10-16T12:19:30-04:00

With so many weapons out there I don't see how stricter background checks would have any impact. The average criminal doesn't need to go to a gun store to obtain a weapon; he/she has more than enough friends, acquaintances and sources to get any type of weapon whenever needed through sources that could care less about background checks. Most recent high profile mass shootings would have still occurred even with stricter background checks. Restrictions on ability to purchase assault type weapons would have had more impact than stricter background checks.
Know the 2nd Amendment fanatics out there will go crazy over this, but IMO something has to be done to control/eliminate the availability of these black market weapons. Plus limits need to be in place on assault type weapon purchase before any restrictions on people legitimately purchasing weapons for sport or self protection can have any impact.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Oct 16 at 2016 9:45 PM

2016-10-16T21:45:52-04:00

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2016 10:39 PM

2016-10-16T22:39:45-04:00

I think gun rights restrictions should mirror voting rights restrictions. If one needs an ID and NICS check to buy a weapon you need both to vote as well. If one can't have a weapon in Chicago than one cannot vote in Chicago. The second amendment and voting are both Constitutional rights one in writing and the other implied that should not be infringed.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Oct 17 at 2016 7:32 PM

2016-10-17T19:32:11-04:00

Exactly how can you put the politics aside, when it is a violation of the 2nd amendment to the constitution? That is not party politics....it is the guidance for our government.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Oct 17 at 2016 7:48 PM

2016-10-17T19:48:31-04:00

No. People who wish to do harm with them will do one of two things. Tell no one of their plan and obtain a firearm(s) legally. Or.....they will obtain them illegally. There are people who will get almost anything for anyone for a price. Just b/c you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Either way once the crime is done, most uneducated, misinformed will blame the firearm and do little to focus on the person. It is a tool. Almost anything can be used as a weapon. It is the intent and mentality of the person that is the problem, not the tool. Stricter gun laws than we already have are a problem for trained, legally licensed gun owners like myself.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2016 8:49 PM

2016-10-17T20:49:15-04:00

I'll give the process for my State.

You go to your local gun shop and pick out your weapon of choice. You fill out an ATF form and hand over your Drivers License so the shop can send that information to NICS the FBI background check system. If nothing pops up then you pay for your weapon including the tax and you can walk out with it.

What more is there? You have to hand over a valid drivers license and fill out a federal form and then get a background check through a federal agency. How do we increase the background check?

I sold a shotgun I no longer used to a friend of a family member. There was no background check, it was a private sale, no federal entity could have been involved even if they wanted to be. So how does her idea of background checks stop what I did? It was perfectly legal to do, at least in my State but even if it wasn't who was going to stop me? The invisible police?

More laws, increased background checks which doesn't make sense at least to me, and increased taxes will not stop criminals just restrict law abiding citizens.

Response by PFC Harry Leuchen made Oct 17 at 2016 9:42 PM

2016-10-17T21:42:48-04:00

I don't think that this plan goes far enough. I believe that we need a complete ban on assault rifles and the carrying of firearms in public.

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

Let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.
Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.
And don't give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime: http://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/
Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when I was 18. I bought into the propaganda because I was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so they should listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Stanford research reaffirms that right-to-carry gun laws are connected with an increase in violent crime. This debunks – with the latest empirical evidence – earlier claims that more guns actually lead to less crime.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2016 8:03 PM

2016-10-18T20:03:19-04:00

how much stricter can they get, the real answer is enforce the laws that already exist

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2016 8:16 PM

2016-10-18T20:16:37-04:00

how about enforcing the current laws

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Oct 20 at 2016 3:29 PM

2016-10-20T15:29:39-04:00

No I do not. I believe the regulations already in place are sufficient enough. To top it off, new regulations are not going to prevent someone who lawfully purchased a weapon to commit a crime with a firearm.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Oct 20 at 2016 4:04 PM

2016-10-20T16:04:16-04:00

Jeff Snyder explained such "preventive laws" quite well.

"Laws that criminalize innocent behavior in order to prevent crimes before they occur effectively presume guilt. Brady, for example, in seeking to prevent harm before it occurs, effectively presumes that all handgun purchasers are madmen or felons, and all firearm dealers are engaged in criminally abetting the commission of a crime with a firearm, unless the purchaser's innocence is proven by an absence of damning records in the hands of the authorities.
Second, laws that criminalize conduct not wrong in itself [malum prohibito] to prevent crime before it occurs make the behavior of criminals the measure of the rights and scope of liberty that the law will permit to the innocent. Assault weapons are dangerous in the hands of criminals, therefore, no one shall have them. Such laws tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the lawless. That the law will permit the innocent to have only such rights and liberties as criminals will allow.
Laws that criminalize conduct not wrong in itself [malum prohibito] to prevent crime before it occurs make the behavior of criminals the measure of the rights and scope of liberty that the law will permit to the innocent. Assault weapons are dangerous in the hands of criminals, therefore, no one shall have them. Such laws tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the lawless. That the law will permit the innocent to have only such rights and liberties as criminals will allow.”

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2016 11:17 AM

2016-10-25T11:17:00-04:00

I will answer your question with a different question: Will stricter background checks do anything to prevent the mass shootings the Dems are using as an excuse to get these things passed?
I will even give you the answer: No

As far as the TSA "No-Fly List"... I was on it for a short time, and I have as TS Clearance. Apparently, it took a genius to figure out that I wasn't over the age of 50 and they had the wrong "James Scott" flagged.

Response by CPL Bobby McKellar made Oct 30 at 2016 2:01 PM

2016-10-30T14:01:09-04:00

As a former FFL and manufacturer I can attest that the current NICS system works well and does the job. What Clinton and the "anti-gun" types want is not what they are advertising it to be. They want the rules to be so strict that essentially the FBI and ATF will SELECT who gets WHAT. The issue isn't firearms....the issue is CRIMINALS. None of these "background checks" do anything at all to restrict criminals from obtaining firearms or USING firearms illegally. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The only restrictions will be the ones placed on law abiding citizens who will never use a firearm illegally. One has BUT to look at the FBI's crime statistics concerning firearms use ACROSS THE BOARD to see that the issue comes back to the judicial and legislative system being too lenient on recidivist criminals...AND that situation was created by the same liberals that wish to further restrict gun rights on law abiding citizens who have nothing to do with this.
To boil it all down, "expanded background checks" and "sensible gun legislation/laws" are code for continued restrictions on lawful firearms ownership while doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to abate the REAL PROBLEM.

Response by Cpl Rob Bibber made Nov 3 at 2016 2:08 PM

2016-11-03T14:08:27-04:00

oh hell no!

Response by SSgt Bruce Wood made Dec 28 at 2016 12:56 PM

2016-12-28T12:56:03-05:00

The constitution affords us the right to own and bear arms. It don't put any restrictions on it. However I believe if a person is mentally unfit or have been convicted and done time for a felony there should be restrictions applied. I don't believe stronger vetting is necessary. I applied for a concealed carry and they denied it because one of my medications for nerve pain is an antidepressant. It had nothing to do with mental illness or any thing except for nerve pain. In my case it was wrong but in a lot of cases it would not. I think it is where you are vetted make a lot of difference. Criminals is where the most problem with gun problems are anyway. Just saying.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2016 2:36 PM

2016-12-28T14:36:58-05:00

No, we already do background checks for weapons purchases. You have heard people say that you can buy a gun on the internet. They are only telling you part of the story. The gun has to be sent to a licensed federal firearms dealer in your state. You must then go there fill out the proper paperwork and pass the background check before you leave with the weapon. What we really need is to enforce the laws already on the books, we don't need new ones.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 30 at 2016 6:20 PM

2016-12-30T18:20:40-05:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner. At the risk of being accused of changing the question the answer and loud YES. We have strict background checks out here in California and crimes committed using a fire arms have decreased. I will say at the risk of repeating myself. Every single firearm out there in a criminals hands was originally sold to some law baiting citizen just exercising her or his 2nd. Amendment rights.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2017 10:53 PM

2017-01-02T22:53:45-05:00

Let me preface my response by stating that I spent 18 months mobilized in charge or a small arms training detachment for deploying Soldiers. I myself learned not only to shoot expert with the M16A4 and M9, but also how to engage targets as far out as 500 meters effectively. I enjoy shooting and encourage everyone to purchase a firearm for defense and learn to use it responsibly.

That being said, I cringe every time I hear of a shooting by some mentally deranged individual. I believe more can and should be done to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them to kill innocents. I'm just not certain what specifically we should do.

I think back to when I commanded a basic training company at Fort Benning, GA in the early 2000s. If a Private didn't practice good muzzle discipline, he would get smoked to high heaven for his mistakes. I wish we could emphasize that point to the general public as weapon owners and trainers. We, more than anyone, want to ensure guns only go to responsible sane people.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2017 12:35 PM

2017-01-05T12:35:02-05:00

Not sure what stricter background checks would accomplish. There are background checks done already to make sure the person making the purchase is not a felon, not sure if they do a mental health check or not. When I purchased a handgun in NC, I had to get paperwork from the local sheriff that stated I was not a felon or had mental health issues that would preclude me from owning a firearm. What concerns me is using this as a means to deny law abiding citizens from owning firearms, while the criminals will still get theirs thru other means.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2017 3:48 PM

2017-01-05T15:48:41-05:00

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2017 11:59 AM

2017-01-10T11:59:57-05:00

Are we supposed to go through a background check like we're being investigated for a TS clearance? Come on now.

Response by SPC Kelly Grindstaff made Jan 11 at 2017 8:50 AM

2017-01-11T08:50:32-05:00

There is a very simple reason why you are hearing about more background checks etc. . This is just another avenue down the slipper slope of Big Brother knowing everything about its own citizens. Making it more difficult for Law Abiding Citizens suits their hidden agenda, especially in the area of fire arms. The Less "We The People" have firearms the more the Political elite will take and control us. I have said this before it is coming from many directions. Privacy is at a premium so few have Privacy from many Local, State and Federal Government Agencies than we had as kids. It has been one little piece here and one little piece there for Decades. Now when you look at the whole picture, I mean really look at the whole picture of what Information they are collecting and saving on all citizens you should be worried and be against anything. I mean anything that gives these same parts of the government more of "Your Information". My bottom line is when they say Gun Control, Start thinking what this meant for citizens of other Nations and what it meant in deaths after these agendas where put through there. This Slippery Slope has to be stopped and reversed to Have our Constitutional Republic back, read up on this we were not created to be a Democracy to many people have forgotten or choose to ignore that fundamental part of the "United States of America" and we took an "Oath" on that constitution. Remember that!

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made Jan 16 at 2017 12:28 PM

2017-01-16T12:28:25-05:00

First lets be clear. In my opinion most laws already infringe upon the 2nd amendment. Having said that, you can't make a background stricter, you can do better at including mental illness. What we really need is national reciprocity. People are scared to drive across state lines for fear that the new state makes you a felon.

Anything to do with the constitution / amendments, should be federally regulated. No state can diminish the 1st amendment, so why do they get to play with the 2nd amendment?

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Jan 18 at 2017 2:27 PM

2017-01-18T14:27:34-05:00

There has been entirely too much emphasis on more "malum prohibito" laws, which have no effect on criminals. More severe (and actually enforced) punishment for violation of "malum in se" laws against armed assault, robbery, rape, etc. would be far more beneficial.
As things stand, the agitation among the gun-haters in society is for more useless "regulations" that can only concern the law-abiding, and give further advantage to the criminals.
“A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals [or psychos] dictates the scope of liberty for the rest of society, in no sense ‘fights’ crime.”
For society has permitted its fear of crime, and craving for safety, to turn the force of law against the innocent and law-abiding. Far from fighting crime, the criminalization of otherwise innocent activities [ e.g. a peaceful citizen carrying a gun] represents a society in retreat from crime. This is a society desperately accommodating itself to crime.”
— Jeff Snyder

Response by TSgt James Carson made Jan 19 at 2017 6:25 PM

2017-01-19T18:25:39-05:00

I would IF, the back ground checks were done as the law was written when back ground checks were passed into law.

Response by TSgt Daniel Johnson made Feb 25 at 2017 7:35 PM

2017-02-25T19:35:14-05:00

No, its very simple. We have very well written laws already. They would work well enough if we enforced them and actually prosecuted people for lying on gun application forms. If we go any further at least IMHO we run the risk of violating more amendments of the constitution than just the 2nd.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Mar 2 at 2017 2:36 PM

2017-03-02T14:36:21-05:00

No.