Posted on Oct 15, 2016
Politics aside, do you agree with Clinton's suggestion, recommending stricter background checks for those wanting to purchase weapons?
18K
128
67
5
5
0
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?
2nd Amendment
Weapons
Handguns and Pistols
Hillary Clinton
Constitution
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 47
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...
(17)
(0)
17
17
0
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?
(17)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Well said. Majority of gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners - definitely not responsible gun owners.
(Yes, I'm shooting from the hip with that, no data to back up the claim above and far too lazy to Google someone else's research- but it's most likely true).
I'd support harsher penalties for crimes, but more red tape to legally purchase isn't the right answer.
-background checks may not be a bad thing, but this process needs to get better
(Yes, I'm shooting from the hip with that, no data to back up the claim above and far too lazy to Google someone else's research- but it's most likely true).
I'd support harsher penalties for crimes, but more red tape to legally purchase isn't the right answer.
-background checks may not be a bad thing, but this process needs to get better
(3)
(0)
CWO2 Richard Rose
MSG (Join to see) - Well stated. I have been around firearms for 60+ years. We had loaded guns in the house as I grew up. Every car and truck in the high school parking lot had a gun in them for deer season and depending on the weather the windows were down and doors unlocked. We do not have a gun problem in this country. We have a gang problem that due to political correctness and lawyers makes it nearly impossible for law enforcement agencies to squash. Fear of being called a racist bigot is another problem with dealing with inner-city crime that is way out of control. Profiling is verboten, as is "Stop and Frisk" this puts police officers in a very bad position. Punks believe they get respect by getting a gun and using it to threaten people. If I was governor of Illinois I would activate the National Guard and put them in Chicago with loaded weapons. Preferably MP units. Plus, the State Police. Team up with Chicago PD. Illegals account for a very high percentage of violent crime throughout the country. This needs to be ended with extreme prejudice. (Not racial, but butt kicking force.)
Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. As a former police officer I never worried about the honest citizens with guns. Criminals by their very nature ignore laws and love restrictive gun laws, because that helps protect them from an armed homeowner.
Just look at Britain. They have extremely tough gun control laws and the IRA and PLO never seemed to be short of fully automatic weapons and explosives.
Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. As a former police officer I never worried about the honest citizens with guns. Criminals by their very nature ignore laws and love restrictive gun laws, because that helps protect them from an armed homeowner.
Just look at Britain. They have extremely tough gun control laws and the IRA and PLO never seemed to be short of fully automatic weapons and explosives.
(4)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
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.
(8)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
LTC Jr Hutto
Best idea I've heard in a long time. Problem is liberals, progressives, are gun grabbers, by any other name. They don't want a system that works, they want your guns, period. Then then the will silence you because you have no means to enforce your 1st amendment right or any other right for that matter.
Ben franklin said "those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I say any liberty you give up, you'll never regain.
Ben franklin said "those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I say any liberty you give up, you'll never regain.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google