What is Your Position on Expanding Background Checks for Firearms?

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:30:53 -0500

I myself am a strong supporter of gun rights. However I do not see anything wrong with expanding background checks because the way I see it, if you are a law abiding citizen it should give you a little peace of mind knowing that taking a couple extra minutes to get a background check done could prevent guns from falling into the hands of people that shouldn't have them such as mentally ill people, etc. What say you?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Nov 29 at 2015 6:36 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:36:35 -0500

Well Past Due.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Nov 29 at 2015 6:38 AM

PVT Robert Gresham — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:38:59 -0500

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member, the problem that I see with background checks is that our mentally ill are very rarely identified as such. There is no central database of the mentally ill that a background check is going to find. So basically the background check is just to keep a record of who has what gun legally. This would be very useful if our future POTUS were to decide that, for example, Veterans are likely to have PTSD, and therefore should not have firearms, and thus they should be confiscated. Federal background checks just open a door for the Government to tighten down on ALL guns. Plus the requirement would not apply to people who would buy the guns illegally, or privately. It just sounds like a big mess to me.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Nov 29 at 2015 6:56 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:56:50 -0500

SGT Gresham already hit on the issue of a lot of mentally ill people not being defined as such and you'd also have to amend HPAA laws to allow more freedom to mental health professionals to report such people without violating their privacy.

That said, a criminal, by definition, doesn't obey the law so to think that they'll comply with background check laws, rather than buying them black market, stealing them, etc. just doesn't make sense. Frankly, I think most gun control laws have more to do with the people who support them wanting to 'do something' or feel good than really examine the effects of these policies.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Nov 29 at 2015 7:12 AM

SFC Stephen King — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 07:12:52 -0500

I am in favor.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 7:32 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 07:32:56 -0500

I oppose all gun laws as they restrict the rights of citizens while having no impact on crime.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Nov 29 at 2015 8:42 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:42:44 -0500

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member Describe in detail the "background check" that would have stopped the last years shootings
Once your done outlining the comprehensive and intrusive nonsense law that only law abiding citizens would even dream of subjecting themselves to...
You, your family and your friends first.
Then get back to us..
PS.
"I myself am a strong supporter of gun rights."
and
"However I do not see anything wrong with expanding background checks "
Are diametrically opposed statements

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 8:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:59:04 -0500

I am ok with background checks what worry's me most is how to go about the check how do i check that you can get this weapon. Some states issue pistol permits for that purpose. But some have talk about a national registry to make sure that the background check was done. I really have not seen a lot of how to's. Also a background check is only as good as the data that we have which we all Know is far below standard and must be improved before anything else on background checks. I do wish more law abiding people had and carried guns.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Nov 29 at 2015 9:00 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:00:05 -0500

If you are proponent of gun rights can you tell me where you are legally buying a weapon with no background check? Everyone I have ever bought I had to fill the form and have a check done. I also went under a much more rigorous process to get a conceal carry permit. One of the benefits of going through that level of scrutiny is I no longer have to go through it when I purchase a weapon. The check in FL can take up to three days. How much more time and scrutiny would be okay with you?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 9:29 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:29:43 -0500

The problem isn't the people who are legally purchasing weapons. In the U.S. there are a lot of weapons sales that happen off the books, a lot of weapons change hands for many different reasons.
Personally filling out extra paperwork wouldn't bother me because I'm a legally abiding citizen...weapons sales don't just happen in a store so additional checks are unlikely to help curb someone who has other than honorable intentions.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 9:31 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:31:26 -0500

I honestly think it's much ado about nothing. How do you balance the privacy requirements of one's health with his constitutional rights? What is mental illness? Is it high-functioning autism? Depression? PTSD?

Furthermore, what are expanded background checks? We've heard much about the general concept, and we're being asked to support the general concept, but I'd like to see specifics on what we're signing up for.

Lastly, I'm not comfortable with trusting a government committee to define mental illness vis-à-vis my rights. My wife, for example, struggles with depression, but has every right to protect herself and our child, especially given that I'm overseas and unable to help.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 9:31 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:31:50 -0500

One of the issues I have seen and experienced, is that the background check is not just a check but a registration. Hence the problem that many Americans have with a background check. The government has no need/reason to know what forearms I own, unless of course they have motives that do not parallel the constitution. Why do they need to know? They don't tax me annually, like with a vehicle or home. I have broken no laws that disqualify me from legally owning a firearm. They are not government property that is to be accounted for. It just doesn't add up in my view. They can check my background all they want. My two cents.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Nov 29 at 2015 9:31 AM

BG David Fleming III — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:31:55 -0500

My response is a simple one, bad guys will always get guns! If you want to stop mass shootings, make it easy to put guns in hands of those who aren't affair to use them to stop mass shootings!!! Background checks, wait periods, licenses to purchase per weapon, all deter good guys from buying!

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 10:04 AM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:04:54 -0500

Nothing will stop people from getting guns even when they aren't suppose to have them

Response by SGT Patrick Reno made Nov 29 at 2015 10:41 AM

SGT Patrick Reno — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:41:08 -0500

Really, how many convicted criminals or escaped mental patients try to buy guns using back ground checks? There are just way to many ways to buy fire arms in our country to try and regulate it. All the back ground are for is to have a record for the federal government on those of us who buy them. Having back ground checks does not stop some one from buying a gun then turning around and selling it to who ever they want to.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 29 at 2015 12:20 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 12:20:57 -0500

Sure, let's expand background checks. Let's check the backgrounds on everyone so that we can eliminate the waiting period. You go to buy a gun, the seller knows instantly if your a qualified gun buyer. Also, the database of background checks then becomes useless as a means of the government tracking gun owners. It doesn't reflect if they're gun owners, only that they're qualified or not. Won't it be expensive building and maintaining such a database? Of course it will. But what's another expense to our already bloated government?

Of course, there's the issue of what are the criteria for qualification? Some want all veterans disqualified. We're all a bunch of nutters, aren't we?

Of course, anyone with a criminal record should be disqualified. There is no redemption, is there? Think about that one. Among progressives (the ones driving this whole question) there is no forgiveness, not from the heights of their moral superiority. All whites are guilty of racism. They're all descended of slave owners and guilt attaches automatically (even for those of us whose forebearers immigrated to America long after slavery was abolished and for those descended of Union soldiers who fought and died to end slavery). So what?

Of course, conservatives and Christians should be disqualified.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 29 at 2015 12:55 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 12:55:41 -0500

I agree, as long as all dealers are actually performing the checks as required. A lot of them may not, which would be a huge issue...

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Nov 29 at 2015 2:41 PM

SCPO Joshua I — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:41:27 -0500

"Expanded background checks" is typically code for "ban all private sales of firearms". So no, I don't support that, and almost no gun owners do.

Response by SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra made Nov 29 at 2015 3:46 PM

SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:46:38 -0500

My question is this:

Why is it ok to violate the 4 Amendment Rights of Americans in order to exercise the 2nd Amendment? Is that not completely offensive to American Constitutionalism?

Response by SPC Michelle Nelson - Thompson made Nov 29 at 2015 4:34 PM

SPC Michelle Nelson - Thompson — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 16:34:22 -0500

It's obvious back ground checks don't work. The criminals and mentally ill don't do them. Period. They only collect private data. In Florida you have to have a basic back ground check to buy a weapon which takes about two weeks. You then have to go through an FBI back ground check that takes a month or longer for a concealed carry permit. Disqualifications, criminal record and if you've every been federally mandated to a mental institution. If you checked yourself in that's OK.

The only possible "upside" to it has nothing to do with reducing gun violence. What it would do would (as I've heard as part of discussions) is standardize the laws across the US. That way if your going on a long trip you don't have to look at the regulations for each and every state you're driving through. Take Ohio, in a car the gun has to be in the trunk or otherwise locked and inaccessible area, inside a gun case, with bullets / clip removed and stored in another separate area. Absolutely ludicrous. To me the invasion of privacy is not a good trade off for some convenience.

Everytime someone tells me they don't like guns I tell them not to buy one.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Nov 29 at 2015 4:35 PM

SGT Steve Oakes — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 16:35:28 -0500

I do not support expanded checks. I think a quick check for felonies and diagnosed mental illness resulting in a person being a danger to themselves and others is plenty.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Nov 29 at 2015 6:02 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:02:12 -0500

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member - Spec; The main problem with "gun laws" is that they simply don't work.

I agree that there are some people who simply shouldn't have firearms in their possession/control but "background checks" are only going to stop them from getting those firearms legally.

Now if you want to talk about a MAJOR increase in the severity of penalty for DELIBERATE misuse of firearms (i.e. using them while committing crimes) I'm all for it.

Couple that with serious penalties for agreeing to any "plea bargain" that reduces those penalties and I'll be happy as a lark.

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Nov 30 at 2015 2:41 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 02:41:56 -0500

The issue is that the Democrats will eventually make conservative thinking a mental illness. The liberal bias in so called higher education is out of control. I have always had to have a backround check to buy a firearm. In some states the process is so ridiculous that it is impossible to buy a firearm without suing the state. How do cities like New York keep people from their Constitutional right to bear arms? The dems want what happened to the Aussies...they want guns taken from the people...all the guns...from all the people. Its funny that they only want police officers to have guns when according to liberals all cops are racist killers. Backround checks are common sense and they already exist. The Dems want total gun confiscation and any headway they make with backround checks is just a step closer to what they really want...a completely disarmed Amercia.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Nov 30 at 2015 4:35 AM

SPC George Rudenko — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:35:31 -0500

First the fed has to fix its system to be able to integrate with states. Then we can talk about expanding BC, if necessary

Response by SPC Mitchell Cox made Nov 30 at 2015 4:55 AM

SPC Mitchell Cox — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:55:18 -0500

Let's enforce the current laws on the books. There are plenty of gun owners that legally own their guns that have done nothing wrong and a small percentage of people who own guns that use them for illegal purposes do not get them through legal means.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2015 7:40 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:40:52 -0500

No, not in the way they are talking!!! The "back ground check" is just a name to cover what they really wanted. Look at what they proposed, they actually want a national data base of gun owner.

Response by SGT William Howell made Nov 30 at 2015 11:36 AM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:36:21 -0500

I say that as soon as we enforce the laws on the books to the fullest extent then we can talk about some new ones. Until that time, politicians can kick rocks because all they are really doing is playing you and me for votes.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Nov 30 at 2015 12:00 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:00:55 -0500

The problem comes with the government's continual improvement model. Each new Congressman needs a cause celeb to tie his or her name to. So, you end of with legislators who believe that if instant background checks are good, then why not have a two week (or two month or two year) waiting period? Then, why shouldn't the buyer prove a need or use for the weapon (gun club membership, hunting license, self protection permit, etc)? Then, if someone is hurt, the government may have to pay for their health care, so why not make the gun owners buy special insurance (its only fair)? Then, shouldn't gun owners be proactive and have gun safe's? trigger locks? separate locked storage of the ammo? Then, shouldn't someone be able to ensure and enforce proper home storage of the guns (unannounced home inspections and searches)? or even better, why not require the guns to be stored in a central location (gun club, police armory, etc). Then, we need a system for the government to be notified of any emotional instability of a gun owner (national gun owner database that is constantly being compared to a list mental health patients) tied to a system for instant gun confiscation (just to protect the public from possible mass shootings). The mission creep of gun control never ends and when things don't work, they are never repealed.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Nov 30 at 2015 3:08 PM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:08:07 -0500

until we END the privacy secrets for people with mental problems expanding background checks will do zero to help stop the crazies. As it is, that will only stop the ones that want to buy a gun legally, wont do a dang thing to an illegal purchase.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Nov 30 at 2015 3:28 PM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:28:20 -0500

OMG I should have known. Everyone in this stream is against it except one person Thorton. Of course he wants to take away your rights

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Nov 30 at 2015 3:29 PM

MAJ Alvin B. — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:29:13 -0500

I would prefer to see weapon safety training over a background check.

As to an expanded check, it depends upon the definition of an expanded background check and the new scope of same. Wha is included, how is the data stored, who has access, etc...
If I were to believe all that I am seeing and hearing, the background checks do not work, they only disadvantage the honest citizen and they can be used against you. What is the real point of the background check? Will it cross-reference your medical history, financial history, etc...? Once collected what will become of the information?

In the 1990s DoD decided to collect DNA samples from everyone. We were told our DNA samples would only be used to identify our remains and never ever used for any other purpose. We were also instructed that if we refused to give the sample we would face punitive UCMJ action. However, that assurance no longer exists. Times change, policies change, there are always possibilities for mischief.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Nov 30 at 2015 3:34 PM

SSG Audwin Scott — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:34:38 -0500

If it's going to make our streets safer, than I am all for it.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Nov 30 at 2015 4:37 PM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:37:41 -0500

The existing system is flawed, so how would an expanded one work any better?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html

Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says

A loophole in the law and an F.B.I. error led to the sale of the gun used to kill nine people at a Charleston, S.C., church, the bureau said.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2015 5:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:43:06 -0500

It's only common sense, we don't want criminals, people who are mentally ill or who have a history of domestic violence to be able to legally buy guns.

Response by MSgt Joe Tafoya made Nov 30 at 2015 8:46 PM

MSgt Joe Tafoya — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:46:58 -0500

All the laws in the world will not keep the criminals and maniacs from aquiring guns. It's not the gun, it's the person in control of the trigger. Bad guys never worry about a background check because they don't want the weapons they use to make a paper trail. Some bad guys make enough money doing their bad guy stuff to pay way more to have a weapon they can afford to throw away after they use it (thank gosh they all don't throw them away cuz it helps to catch them). A lot of the weapons used for bad things are registured and stollen from other legal owners, some in their own household. By the time the authorities find out where the gun came from, it's too late. One guy used a knife to stab and cut a bunch of people, they sell kitchen knives in Wal-mart, no ID, no questions. It's not the weapons, it's the mentality of the person who has controll of them. The USA has allowed help for the mentally ill to slide because of the "cost." What better way to spend our tax dollars than to spend it on citizens who are in need of help mentally. The prisons are full of criminals who have mental attitudes geared for crime and mayhem to create their lifestyle, I don't know what the percentages are exactly but they will probably never be back in society without having those tendencies and acting on them. There are some of the others that may be able to live with us but will still need help. Bottom line is; it's not the guns, it's the help that the USA can give to the people who need it. Crazy people do crazy things and criminal people do criminal things.

Response by PO3 Bob Walsh made Nov 30 at 2015 10:56 PM

PO3 Bob Walsh — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:56:17 -0500

Expanding Background checks may put a few more clerks to work but it will not keep Guns out of the hands of criminals. SrA Art Siatkowski, pointed out how easy it is to bye a gun. Keep in mind that the people who can not pass a background check to purchase a gun may be criminals or mentally ill and will not be restrained because it is illegal to obtain a weapon. If they can't buy them they will steal them.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Dec 1 at 2015 1:34 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:34:04 -0500

The only way they can expand them further is to have people doing backgrounds checks when they sell to other people. And only law abiding gun owner would do that. So not only would it be an extreme intrusion on personal rights , you can bet they would charge for it , it would prolly take days/weeks to get a reply. And also the gov would attempt to tax such transactions too. And it is already a fact you can be held liable if you sell a gun to a nut/criminal. and it is later used in a crime.
Criminals buying and selling stolen guns would not be affected at all , because they don't and wouldn't do background checks.

The major effect besides stifling honest citizens from being able to buy and sell guns amongst themselves, would be to shutdown all gun/militaria/surplus/outdoor/hunting private vendor shows. Another aspect of American (particularly white) culture they(anti-American commie liberal bastards) want to erase along with all the rest.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Dec 1 at 2015 4:03 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:03:11 -0500

It's a slippery slope. There are already background checks in place, so where do you expand them to?!

Some other food for thought that might border on conspiracy theory... Let's pretend for a moment that the 2nd Amendment is repealed. It IS a possibility, just like the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed. You've just turned millions of gun owners into criminals, and you have ways of identifying exactly who they are and where they live. Selective enforcement of the law provides a convenient way of eliminating political rivals, and anyone who backs up their "When you pry it from my cold dead hands" ethic with action would by definition be a terrorist.

Sound outlandish? Google Randy Weaver... he sawed off shotgun barrels to short, because a federal agent offered to buy them that short.

On the flip side, I sat on a jury where a Felon was caught with a pistol sewn into the liner of his jacket. He was acquitted because he wasn't wearing the jacket and there was another person in the car (who wasn't a felon) when he was caught.

So, how effective could expanding the background checks be? In the case of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting Adam Lanza (the perpetrator) was not legal to purchase firearms, but his mother Nancy was a "gun enthusiast" and he used the guns legally purchased by her.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Gun Checks/NICS

Response by SSG Jason Penn made Dec 1 at 2015 6:38 PM

SSG Jason Penn — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:38:53 -0500

I disagree with any and all control measures. The second Amendment states "A well regulated militia being necessary for the establishment of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now let's break it down and understand the meaning and intent of the Amendment a put forth by the founding fathers. 1) They understood that you can't have a free state unless you have a militia, and you can't have a militia if you disarm the people. 2) What was meant by well regulated is that there was an established hierarchy (chain of command) and an adherence to rules of war, otherwise it would be an unruly rabble and not a militia. 3) Note the placing of the comma; grammar is important, the comma denotes a separate clause and train of thought. The grammar shows that it is the right of the people, not the militia to be armed. 4) The Reserves and National Guard are not the militia. They are an arm of the uniformed services. The militia is every man and woman who is physically and mentally capable to conduct war operations. 5) The term arms includes ALL weapons; otherwise, they would have said muskets, not arms. The founding fathers knew that there would be more advances in weapons and intended for the people to be armed just as well as the government with the intention of keeping the government from becoming tyrannical just like the British Government that they just fought a war of independence with. 6) The dictionary definition of the word infringed is to encroach or trespass on. I am a strict constitutionalist. I still take my enlistment oath to protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign, or domestic. Now that the Amendment's meaning and intent has been addressed, anyone can see that background checks, registrations, permits, licenses, restrictions, bans, and all other means or attempts at gun control are strictly unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Got a concealed carry permit? Yes you do, it is called the Second Amendment! Are you allowed to own, buy, or sell an M2 .50 cal machine gun without a dealer's class III license or authorization from the ATF? According to the Amendment you do! Do I think it is a good idea to walk down the streets with a machine gun or RPG? NO, but that is not the point. Whether or not it is a good idea, it is still our right as the people to do so!

Response by SGM Billy Herrington made Dec 1 at 2015 6:59 PM

SGM Billy Herrington — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:59:43 -0500

I oppose any background check; even the current ones being used. Do I need to undergo a background check to vote? What about to practice religion? How about speaking? No I don't. Those, along with the right to keep and bear arms are inalienable rights endowed by my creator. They are affirmed by the constitution, not granted by it. I also oppose any training requirement for the same reasons.

It's is illegal and a felony to ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm by a prohibited person. Guess how often those people are prosecuted? Very rarely, to the tune of less than 1%. So why expand a flawed system? Simple. To ban the private sales. All I have to do is be reasonably assure you're good to purchase. If I suspect something, I won't. If you tell me you're from out of state, legally, I can go to jail.

Gun shows do background checks. It's required by law for an FFL dealer to conduct when transferring a firearm. There is no gunshow loophole. It's rhetoric gun grabbers use to sway the ill informed and misinformed.

/end rant

Response by SSG Keven Lahde made Dec 1 at 2015 8:59 PM

SSG Keven Lahde — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:59:01 -0500

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member They can make the background checks as tough as they want. If someone wants to own a firearm, then they will. Nothing will stop them for wanting to own one....not even the law.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Dec 1 at 2015 9:11 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:11:59 -0500

Not only Expand it but Follow up!

Response by SGT Scott Henderson made Dec 1 at 2015 11:06 PM

SGT Scott Henderson — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 23:06:23 -0500

It's a bullshit feel good measure. Mentally ill people who have never been to treatment will still come up clean and be able to make a purchase. Mentally ill people who have been to treatment will come up clean and still be able to make a purchase because the two databases are not linked and linking them would probably violate HIPAA. Background checks don't apply to criminals who don't care about gun laws anyway because they have other avenues to use to make their purchase.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2015 4:08 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 04:08:21 -0500

Absolutely. It seems most responses focus more on the "not having guns" argument elsewhere, when that's not what the question is about. I am also a firm believer of having guns in a household. I am also a very firm believer in everyone that purchases a gun having extensive background checks, as well as training on handling and deploying the weapon, at a bare minimum. Every person who has the opportunity to answer this question on this site has went through months of extensive training on the proper handling and respect for firearms, and how to react in a situation involving them, not to mention the basis of a psychological evaluation and numerous background checks for security clearances we all had to endure. Is it too much to ask for a version of this for anyone entrusted with a firearm?

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Dec 2 at 2015 4:46 AM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 04:46:04 -0500

It sounds good, as long as you don't think it through very far. Liberals love things like that, because "who could possible be opposed?", and then refuse to address underlying issues and confine the debate to bumper stickers and memes.

The problem is, who gets to decide who is qualified to own a gun and who isn't? Who decides who is mentally ill? Who decides what the criteria is? (Liberals, of course, think they are the ones who are most qualified to make those decisions. I disagree with their assessment of their own abilities.)

We already have background checks. Libs propose expanding them as if they would somehow do some good -- but the current checks result in a number of flags already, of which only a tiny percentage is ever prosecuted, so what the hell is the point?

I suppose that's a liberal characteristic -- instead of putting more effort into enforcing laws that already exist, they'd rather make more laws.

Response by LTC David Brown made Dec 2 at 2015 8:15 AM

LTC David Brown — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:15:14 -0500

I could see unscrupulous politicians using gun laws as a choke point to deny rights. Here in Augusta Georgia a few years back a young lady had dated a real sleaze ball who beat her. He was put in Richmond county jail but was getting bonded out. The lady heard about it and called the sheriff's office. The officer told her" we can't protect you 24 /7, buy a gun". She did and that night he tried to break into her home. She had barred the front door so he broke a window and was killed climbing through it. Now consider what happened at the IRS when conservative groups tried to organize. Louis Lerner block multiple groups from being able to exercise their right to free association. I don't want the same to happen with our 2nd amendment rights, especially if you have an urgent need to protect yourself like that young lady!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2015 10:44 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:44:40 -0500

I agree that something has to be done. But that's a slippery slope. Criminals will always be able to get guns. Most of these men that do these mass shootings have no criminal record or any history of mental disorders. So it would be hard to implement.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2015 1:56 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:56:06 -0500

I'm a Texan. It is safe to say I am pro-gun. I, however, find it irresponsible to think that it is ok to let someone with a criminal background or a diagnosed brain disorder/injury or mental condition own a gun. NRA is over stepping its bounds when it objects to background checks. There is room for compromise here. Its just a matter of how many innocent lives are lost before the NRA gives in. I suppose it will have to be the child of NRA leadership before they say, ok, lets have some background checks. I for one would gladly give up some gun rights if it means anyone one with a muslim sounding name has to wait a while for a gun. In fact, I volunteer to be one of the people who does the background checks.

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Dec 18 at 2015 12:05 AM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:05:00 -0500

I could not agree more.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 3:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 15:39:02 -0400

We don't need "EXPANDED" check... the problem is that the Government is not doing what they are supposed to do now.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. Benjamin Franklin,

Response by LCpl Larry Compton made Jun 4 at 2016 8:31 PM

LCpl Larry Compton — Sat, 04 Jun 2016 20:31:46 -0400

I'm a giant 2nd amendment lover- basic background check- nothing crazy though

Response by SSG Andres Guarnizo made Jun 16 at 2016 2:28 PM

SSG Andres Guarnizo — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:52 -0400

So we should ban alcohol to those with a DUI, food to the obese, ban swimming in the beach cause of sharks, etc..... Tightening laws will only affect those that follow them. In Chicago where I grew up, go see how many of the bad guys have a legally owned firearm. At least here in Florida where I'm at, I have a legal option to respond to those who would terrorize our way of life. " I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Response by SGT Scott Henderson made Jun 23 at 2016 3:37 PM

SGT Scott Henderson — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:37:36 -0400

First of, what qualifies as"mentally ill"? Simple depression affects millions of people, PTSD affects millions more; many of which wire the same uniform you do. Are you saying that these men and women were good enough to get fucked up but aren't good benign for a constitutionally guaranteed right? Serious mental illness like schizophrenia I could understand but being seasonally depressed or jumping at auto backfires does not a mental illness make. Secondly, what do you mean by"expand"? Expand to what; include your watch lists? That sounds good but who decides who gets on that list? The government? You really trust obama and God forbid Hilary to protect your rights? They could potentially list every veteran as a threat because of the training we've received. They've already got your address and DNA on file. Just let your mind wander around the playground of possibility that presents for some one bent on fucking over America. Expand background checks? Sounds good in theory but it's too vague a concept to be implemented in any way that works.... kind of like a"war on terror"