What is Your Position on Expanding Background Checks for Firearms?

CW4 (Join to see) - Sir, you said it youself, there is a black market. So, you want to disarm the innocent people even though the criminals will still get and have guns? That is like punishing the rooster for the fox eating the hen!

I am absolutely not for disarming! Merely, for pointing out that all categories of "citizens" I mentioned would be free to purchase firearms without hindrance. Buying one at black market should not be as easy as walking into a Walmart. Criminals will always get a way to get firearms no matter what (even in France, Germany, or Australia). But is is hell of a more difficult with the background checks. Can you imagine what would be going on in France (20% Muslims) if any one could just walk in the supermarket to buy a gun?

But background checks only hurt the lawful. A retired CW4 at my last office was denied initially because he went AWOL after he was drafted for Vietnam. The man did 30 years in the Army after that. The was eventually approved but it shows flaws in the system.

The way i see it is there is no clear benifit to having background checks that out weighs the cost in money, time and liberty lost under the current system.

Every system has potential flaws. However, all the flaws with Driver Licenses (easy to counterfeit, issued in some places to illegal immigrants, costly, and encroaching on people's privacy) should not be an argument to do away with such document.
We are often forced to choose lesser evil. Having 100% background checks, even on private transfers, is such a case. Of course, everyone should have the right to appeal and to adjudicate any denial of firearm purchase.

Amen

Watch UNDERWORLD INC....Drugs INC....they show you how easy it is for criminals to get guns without serial numbers....Drugs Inc last night....New Orleans....' shadow' a drug dealer talking to NATGEO about how easy it is to get a gun....250 for a glock .40...350 for an AK...500 for a gernade! Gun control only makes law abiding citizens easier prey to the criminals who never will care if their is a law about guns, they will have guns and the law abiding people will be easy targets.

Hell , in America now , the gangsters in prison have guns too. Seen pictures taken on their contraband phones. Along with their "wives" male transgenders on hormones in prison too. Like more gun laws are going to stop that stuff.

Added laws will only stop citizens(and I don't consider criminals "citizens") from having guns to protect themselves and others.

My question what good will it do?

You've said exactly my feelings on it.

When they say "expanded background check" they want two things

Access to more confidential data

And they want to outlaw private transfer of firearms without a dealers license. Meaning it would be illegal for an individual to sell or give a gun to anyon, even a family member without paying a dealer to do the transaction.

That would be a problem for me. I'd pay to transfer a weapon to my son when he's old enough, but it seems like a silly and pointless effort. And unenforceable.

This issue doesn't really effect me because I am background checked annually and have to regularly requalify with my guns. In fact I just did that Monday. The state also knows what guns I have because I have to submit the serial numbers of each gun that I qualify with. However if I was a criminal or crazy I wouldn't do any of that. I would simply go buy some guns in the alley at the projects or steal a few. Like all laws only the law-abiding citizens would comply. I will add that veterans are a group who should be concerned because more than one politician thinks that all veterans are a hazard.

SGT Jerrold Pesz - Here in Alaska you have a State background check also, as long as you buy from a legal dealer. However, I have two guns that I bought privately, from friends, that are not in the system under my name. This can happen anywhere, just like in South Carolina where the shooter was given the gun as a gift. Background checks are like padlocks, they just keep an honest person honest.

Until the fix the HIPPA Laws

wow, that is a good one!

SGM Erik Marquez I am ok with background checks it is the how do we do it that worries me.

Prove it COL; when it comes to the discussion at hand the average 'conservative' has allowed advocacy for change year after year, in state after state, to no good effect. Our line has been drawn and we will allow no more abrogation of our rights. That must hurt, doesn't it?

I dont see why conservatives have to advocate change. Not all change is good change. Constant ridicluous change is liberal viewpoint not a conservative one. Constitutional conservatives allow for liberals because all' Free People' have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberals on the other hand do not have to allow for conservatives if their internal logic is marixst. The marxist liberal is very quick to not allow anyone who doesnt agree with their point of view.
liberals do not even have to be marxist to not allow for conservatives and we see this everyday with political correctness.
What internal logic are you talking about when you say liberals are forced to allow for conservatives? All i see everyday is liberal assults on conservative principles, and constitutional principles. When their arguments are silly (and its brought to light) they simply start name calling and pull the racist card or some other card in their deck of insensitivities. We have all seen how leftist thinkers have 'ALLOWED' conservative thinkers to exist in this last century...100 million killed by communist governments because they did not agree with their leftist policies.
I do not see any internal liberal logic that allows for anything other than blinders to the truth if it doesnt agree with their own viewpoint. Look at how many liberals have blocked me on this site already and had my postes removed because I have pointed out flaws in their humanist arguments. Col Ted Mc I dont not concure but I do appreciate the fact that you continue to debate with me unlike the others who have blocked me.

CDR Jon Corrigan - Commander; I think that you missed the point. What I said was "As I see it ..." and NOT "It is a fact that ...". One is an opinion and one is a statement of fact. There is no requirement to "prove" an opinion.

However, your statement "Our line has been drawn and we will allow no more abrogation of our rights." does appear to fit in with my observation that "the "conservatives" have no such constraints on their actions" as it indicates that "the conservatives" are no longer prepared to permit debate.

SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; I didn't say that "conservatives" HAD TO advocate for change, in fact they are quite free to advocate AGAINST change (the basic meaning of "conservative"). What I said was that "conservatives" had no internal logic to their philosophy which compelled them to ALLOW for any advocation of change. When "liberals" are no longer prepared to allow dissent then they are no longer "liberals" - they have become "conservatives".

"Constant ridiculous change" is not a "liberal" position it is a "ridiculous" position.

I don't quite know where you get the idea that all "liberals" are "Marxists" - unless you only listen to FOX and/or Christian Evangelical Broadcasting Network - but it isn't correct.

I also don't know where you got the idea that a "nepotistic, monolithic, bureaucratic, despotic, state monopoly capitalist police state" is even remotely related to "Marxism" - but that isn't correct either.

You might also want to note that "political correctness" isn't "liberal" either.

You might also want to consider that some people "block" others simply because they find them boring, redundant, intolerant, uninformed, excessively argumentative, and a whole bunch of other reasons.

You, at least, attempt to defend your position and when you do so in anything less than a screech of offended cant moralisms based on labels and not facts that semantically translate out to "Did too, did too, did too." you do so quite well.

1stLt Nick S - Lieutenant; You did ask for a "heads up".

You are correct I do associate police state communist governments as marxist and it is incorrect to do so since those governments are a far cry from what Marx invisioned. Liberalism as a philosophy taken to its political far left is communist. It is a generalization, but everything is. There are so many catagories you could put political philosophies into and it is crudely combined into a two political party system here in America. Some issues fall squarely on the left and some on the right. In my oversimplification of the liberal philosophy i see marxist roots that want a larger government role in many aspects of our lives which follows with a smaller amount of personal freedoms. I would answer that conservatives would be compelled for change if it was demostrated that the change was an improvement. We see technological change happening all the time without conservative argument simply because these changes are clearly improvements. Better military technology, better cell phone technology, faster computers, computers implemented in new roles. These are clearly improvements to the system and not even political in nature because its one of the subjects both mindsets agree upon.
Change in our freedoms, our belief systems, our way of life are a different story. The issue here that i see is a difference in core philosophy between a liberal ( generalization ) and a conservative ( generalization also ). I think the mindsets of liberals and conservatives are almost alien to each other with each side devotely adhereing to a few core philosophies that they will argue to exhaustion and never surrender. These core philosophies that cause so much tension between the two mindsets, in my opinion, is that liberals believe that mankind can form a rational society that operates morally and too everyones benefit without having a God in the picture. In my opinion most conservatives disagree and think that belief in a God is core to any system of values that is real because if the system of values is manmade it is fallible. Who knows better than me? Liberals ( again a generalization ) do not have a problem with blindly believing the scientific community or the academic community where conservatives either dont trust the scientific community because they tend to be more athiestic ( generalization ) or like myself, dont believe these people really have all the answers they claim to have, after all they are simply randomly evolved apes...why would they have such omnipotent understanding of complex adaptive systems like climate change? There is so much more here to the issue of change, but alot of it comes down to a marxists like quality of believeing that humans can make a perfect or more perfect society in the absence of a God and the conservative view that they really cant.
A third view would be needed IMO to allow for the other two. My problem with Marx is that I dont believe he should have even taken any action twords a greater society or more communal society if he was a consistent athiest. He had such a horrible life and being such a thinking man he probally mentally attempted to find a sort of social justice that just doesnt exist in an atheistic reality. Many of my athiest freinds simply live and let live because they dont believe in notions like justice or community. Maybe Marxs wasnt a very consistent athiest, and i suspect many liberal humanist fit into this same catatgory. Acting as if natural law allows for such notions as social justics and humanitarianism when in the most scientific view of natural law it really is amoral. TED talks and humanist keep trying to say that people act morally in the abscence of belief in a God, but do these same people have a thorough understanding of darwinism? is their morality simply there when its easy and gone when times get tough? My assumption is that tribal peoples that TED talks like to use as examples, and even the ancient greeks, these people did not and do not have a understanding of natural law and the random, accidental, amoral process by which they came to be. This most definetly changes the way one sees the world and their place in the world and their outlook twords society and even the human race. I know we got off topic abit, but the view that I believe many conservatives have and many athiests too....is that it is religion or nothingness. Some are fine with the nothingness and live consistently...not getting very worked up about much of anything. Others find order and purpose in religion. The third view is one I dont agree with and think represents many liberal arguments....the view that there is no God yet humankind is special and can form an orderly society that will prosper from nothing more than rational thinking. I see no reason for such a society to exist and i doubt the true motives of anyone using this philosophy because it is the core philosophy used by communism and one of their rational ideas is simply to kill off those who disagree with their view and rewrite history to shape the new generations view. This view has no real disclaimer for human rights and it also prevents people from obtaining a real picture of reality...if the past is simply made up by the current government to fit their agenda...does no one care about the true nature of this reality?
Alot more to these ideas but if our two party system here in America is to work I think we should try to understand the othersides philosophies and agree to disagree when we can.
In my perfect world a constitutional conservative party would be in power and the democratic party would exists only as a threat incase the conservatives neglect the well being of the people, if they get too greedy the people would vote democrat. It should be the conservative parties goal to improve the lives of the American voter so that they wont want to vote democrat....if conservative politicians kept that in mind we could allow for our personal freedoms and take care of our people.....then work on the world. But thats just an idealistic view for a more perfect world.