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

oh hell no!

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.

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.

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.”

how about enforcing the current laws

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

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.

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.

No

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.