Psych exams for gun purchases

[Nostra]

I'm self-employed.

Is that what you call standing on a street corner holding a cardboard sign?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You made the asinine statement, deflecting won't change that fact.

Deflecting?
So, what did Ramos purchase before he tried to murder his grandmother?

Waited all that time, saved all that $$$ when he could have used a knife or shovel.

Instead, Ramos used one of the AR's he recently purchased.

How convenient.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You are of course lying. The background check we have today was in fact the brain child of the NRA.

The problem is there's no follow up on those who fail a background check.

In the age of swatting and other types of false reports the kind of system you propose would make most people ineligible because anyone can make any claim they want they felt might disqualify you.

We have a right to equal protection and equal treatment under law so whatever restrictions you want to put on the right to keep and bear can also be put on voting rights, the right to free speech and expression as well.

Be very careful what you wish for.

For the clueless idiots like Smok'n OP.

The NICS – set up by the permanent provisions of the Brady Act, which frankly should have been called the NRA Act – is run by the FBI and is constitutional because Congress has power to tell federal employees what to do. Congress also has power to offer financial assistance to the States to enable them to report criminal convictions, mental commitments, and other disabilities that render a person ineligible to obtain a firearm. The States’ ability to make these reports to federal authorities was enhanced by the NRA-supported NICS Improvements Act of 2007.

The Fact Checker further states: “The NRA for years has claimed credit for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a database established in 1998 to conduct background checks on gun buyers. We looked at this claim previously, and the evidence was thin.” But it posts a law review article by Richard E. Gardiner and Stephen P. Halbrook that demonstrates the legitimacy of NRA’s claimed credit for NICS.
The NRA opposed the original Brady bill because it was nothing but a waiting period with a mandate to the States to conduct background checks only on handgun buyers. The NRA originated the idea of and supported an instant background check by the FBI on all firearm buyers. That became NICS.

NRA & National Instant Criminal Background System: Fact Checking WAPO's Facts

Perhaps Fact Checker deserves some Pinocchios for suggesting that NRA argued that the NICS is unconstitutional, when in fact it was the NRA that conceived of the NICS

www.ammoland.com

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You are of course lying. The background check we have today was in fact the brain child of the NRA.

Of course, you're the one lying.....................Again.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a background check system in the United States created by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 to prevent firearm sales to people prohibited under the Act. The system was launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998.

Background checks of firearm buyers was discussed as early as the 1930s.[4] The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) mandated that individual and corporate firearms dealers hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). It also created a system for keeping prohibited persons (e.g. a person determined to be prohibited of possessing a weapon due to criminal history or immigration status) from buying guns.

The problem is there's no follow up on those who fail a background check.

In the age of swatting and other types of false reports the kind of system you propose would make most people ineligible because anyone can make any claim they want they felt might disqualify you.

We have a right to equal protection and equal treatment under law so whatever restrictions you want to put on the right to keep and bear can also be put on voting rights, the right to free speech and expression as well.

Sure, the gun control act of 1934 had no effect on voting rights, the right to free speech or expression.

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 was enacted on June 26, 1934, and currently codified and amended as I.R.C. ch. 53. The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the federal firearms laws, with the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") as Title I.

All transfers of ownership of registered NFA firearms must be done through the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (the "NFA registry").[2] The NFA also requires that the permanent transport of NFA firearms across state lines by the owner must be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The only ones imposing on voting rights and freedom of expression are republican governors over the last two years.

Be very careful what you wish for.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

For the clueless idiots like Smok'n OP.

NRA & National Instant Criminal Background System: Fact Checking WAPO's Facts

Perhaps Fact Checker deserves some Pinocchios for suggesting that NRA argued that the NICS is unconstitutional, when in fact it was the NRA that conceived of the NICS

www.ammoland.com

Sure, clueless moron.

You stated brainchild of the NRA, like they created it.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act or the Brady Bill, is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was implemented in 1998.

The act was appended to the end of Section 922 of title 18, United States Code. The intention of the act was to prevent persons with previous serious convictions from purchasing firearms.

The original legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives by Representative Chuck Schumer in March 1991, but was never brought to a vote. The bill was reintroduced by Rep. Schumer on February 22, 1993, and the final version was passed on November 11, 1993. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and the law went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot and wounded by John Hinckley Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

The Supreme Court agreed with the NRA in Sheriff Jay Printz v. U.S. (1997), holding that the federal mandate to local sheriffs and police violated the Tenth Amendment.

Just because they agreed with a provision of the bill 6 years later, doesn't make the NICS, NRA's "brainchild".

 

[JoeB131]

Are you smoking the Crystal Draino again?

Sue them for how a criminal chooses to use their product? You won't be able to buy a car in the US anymore if that becomes the rule.

Cars aren't designed to kill people. But if you want to compare cars to guns, that's fine. Let's have licensing, mandatory insurance, registration, and a large portion of police resources focused on enforcement.

(Pssst... this is the part where you start whining about how the Founding Slave Rapists GAVE you the right to a gun!!!!)

You are of course lying. The background check we have today was in fact the brain child of the NRA.

And that's exactly the problem. The NRA works for the gun industry. They want to make it EASY for guns to be sold. No delays. No restrictions!

The problem is there's no follow up on those who fail a background check.

Why should there be? We barely have enough resources to lock up real criminals, not "You forgot about that pot conviction you got in 92 when you applied for a gun permit."

In the age of swatting and other types of false reports the kind of system you propose would make most people ineligible because anyone can make any claim they want they felt might disqualify you.

And why would that be a bad thing? It seems to me that if someone is scared enough of you having a gun, there's probably a good reason.

We have a right to equal protection and equal treatment under law so whatever restrictions you want to put on the right to keep and bear can also be put on voting rights, the right to free speech and expression as well.

You can't kill someone with a vote or a speech, so, um.. no.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Cars aren't designed to kill people. But if you want to compare cars to guns, that's fine. Let's have licensing, mandatory insurance, registration, and a large portion of police resources focused on enforcement.

Operating a car is a heavily regulated privilege.

To Keep and Bear arms is not only a constitutionally protected right, it is the one right that comes with the special prohibition on gov't, Shall not be infringed.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And that's exactly the problem. The NRA works for the gun industry. They want to make it EASY for guns to be sold. No delays. No restrictions!

Well that of course is a lie. The NRA supports every restriction listed on the Form 4473 and was in fact a big part of revising it to include the restrictions it has today.

What the NRA wants is to make it easy for law abiding eligible Americans to exercise their 2nd Rights with the least possible interference hence the "instant background check".

We also support opening the system to private individuals so we can ensure that any private transfers are completely lawful but the democrats keep fighting that.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Why should there be? We barely have enough resources to lock up real criminals, not "You forgot about that pot conviction you got in 92 when you applied for a gun permit."

No felon or wife beater forgets they can't buy legally.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And why would that be a bad thing? It seems to me that if someone is scared enough of you having a gun, there's probably a good reason.

Right just like nobody ever makes a swatting call on someone unless they are actually doing something to warrant it.

Right?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You can't kill someone with a vote or a speech, so, um.. no.

Over 100,000,000 people in the last century were killed as a result of a few inspirational speeches.

Words have been driving people to kill since we first developed language.

 

[Flash]

Liberals need to have a mental exam before they are allowed to vote. Of course then they all would fail.

 

[JoeB131]

Operating a car is a heavily regulated privilege.

To Keep and Bear arms is not only a constitutionally protected right, it is the one right that comes with the special prohibition on gov't, Shall not be infringed.

See, I said that was going to be your go-to.

BUT THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN!!! you whine like a five year old who has been given a time out.

The Founding Fathers shit in chamber pots and thought bleeding people was a valid medical treatment. How about instead of using the reasoning of 18th century slave rapists, we follow sense and reason today.

Well that of course is a lie. The NRA supports every restriction listed on the Form 4473 and was in fact a big part of revising it to include the restrictions it has today.

What the NRA wants is to make it easy for law abiding eligible Americans to exercise their 2nd Rights with the least possible interference hence the "instant background check".

But that's the problem. "Instant Background Checks" means stuff is going to get missed. The Buffalo and Uvalde Shooters passed "instant background checks", but if anyone had looked into these two losers, they would have seen they had no business having a gun.

When I got my current job, they did a thorough background check. When I got my last condo loan, they did a much more thorough background check than they did in 2004 when I got my last one.

No felon or wife beater forgets they can't buy legally.

They don't? I bet most guys forgot their ex-girlfriend they haven't seen since the early Aughts got a restraining order against them.

Right just like nobody ever makes a swatting call on someone unless they are actually doing something to warrant it.

Right?

Well, you see, that's why you do a thorough background check, to tell the legitimate complaints from the "Swatting". If that takes a couple of weeks, then it takes a couple of weeks.

 

[JoeB131]

Liberals need to have a mental exam before they are allowed to vote. Of course then they all would fail.

Really? It seems that the people who need mental exams are working class conservatives who keep voting for less rights at work.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

See, I said that was going to be your go-to.

BUT THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN!!! you whine like a five year old who has been given a time out.

The Founding Fathers shit in chamber pots and thought bleeding people was a valid medical treatment. How about instead of using the reasoning of 18th century slave rapists, we follow sense and reason today.



But that's the problem. "Instant Background Checks" means stuff is going to get missed. The Buffalo and Uvalde Shooters passed "instant background checks", but if anyone had looked into these two losers, they would have seen they had no business having a gun.

When I got my current job, they did a thorough background check. When I got my last condo loan, they did a much more thorough background check than they did in 2004 when I got my last one.


They don't? I bet most guys forgot their ex-girlfriend they haven't seen since the early Aughts got a restraining order against them.



Well, you see, that's why you do a thorough background check, to tell the legitimate complaints from the "Swatting". If that takes a couple of weeks, then it takes a couple of weeks.

How about you try amending the constitution.

Ideas and Ideals that are old are not necessarily bad and some are never outdated.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

But that's the problem. "Instant Background Checks" means stuff is going to get missed. The Buffalo and Uvalde Shooters passed "instant background checks", but if anyone had looked into these two losers, they would have seen they had no business having a gun.

The background checks worked, neither was ineligible to purchase or possess firearms.

Just how many of our rights do you want to violate to prevent us from exercising our 2nd Amendment Rights?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

They don't? I bet most guys forgot their ex-girlfriend they haven't seen since the early Aughts got a restraining order against them.

A TRO doesn't prevent one from being eligible after it expires and nobody other than someone higher than a kite or suffering a severe head wound is going to forget being convicted of a felony or domestic violence.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Really? It seems that the people who need mental exams are working class conservatives who keep voting for less rights at work.

And there we have it and why we'll never submit to such bullshit to exercise our rights.

 

[JoeB131]

How about you try amending the constitution.

Ideas and Ideals that are old are not necessarily bad and some are never outdated.

Actually, they are when technology changes. When the Slave Rapists wrote the Militia Amendment, state of the art was a muzzle loaded musket that took three minutes to reload.

Now we have semi-automatic rifles that can fire 30 rounds a minute.

The background checks worked, neither was ineligible to purchase or possess firearms.

Just how many of our rights do you want to violate to prevent us from exercising our 2nd Amendment Rights?

No, guy, if a crazy person buys a gun and shoots a bunch of people, THEN BACKGROUND CHECKS DID NOT WORK!!!!

Everyone in their lives knew they were crazy. A real background check would have alerted someone.

A TRO doesn't prevent one from being eligible after it expires and nobody other than someone higher than a kite or suffering a severe head wound is going to forget being convicted of a felony or domestic violence.

Well, that's a problem, isn't it? People really don't know when things expire, do they?

And there we have it and why we'll never submit to such bullshit to exercise our rights.

But you vote for that all the time, dummy, whenever you put Republicans in office, they take all sorts of rights away from you.

I would love to enjoy the kinds of rights at work my Dad had back in the 1970's...

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Liberals need to have a mental exam before they are allowed to vote. Of course then they all would fail.

Sure, we would.

Republicans RE elected this.