Why sane people oppose background checks

[Quantum Windbag]

This explains why the NRA is against it.

If we ignore the fact that the NRA has always supported background checks your post actually makes sense.

But things change. You see, Obama and his administration is FOR it, so of course now they are against it.

This type thing has been going on since Obama was sworn in.

If we ignore the fact that the link you just posted says they are for it your post actually makes sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or does pointing out that this is happening prove I am paranoid?

The University of Iowa has been quietly sharing federally protected student information with Johnson County law enforcement officials who handle gun permit applications — an arrangement that one national organization calls a “license to snoop.”
The information includes some data on classroom achievement that by law can’t be considered by sheriffs when processing permit-to-carry applications and are normally protected from disclosure by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Mark Braun, chief of staff for U of I President Sally Mason, said that in some cases the information speaks to a student’s perceived status as a “troublemaker,” but could also include information on failing grades or signs of depression or anger.
“This is incredibly alarming,” said Justin Dedecker, a graduate student who sought a gun permit in 2011. “How does my performance in class become an indicator of my mental stability?”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...gives-private-student-data-to-Johnson-sheriff

The school's behavior in this matter is immoral, and is certainly not mandated by any background check that I've ever encountered.

In other words, local law enforcement was over-reaching, and the problem has nothing to do with mandatory background checks, and everything to do with people at the local level doing shit they shouldn't.

The problem would be solved with a simple class-action lawsuit.

This was a background check for a gun permit, not for a purchase. Those checks are mandatory, and usually left to the local police to conduct. Want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

You have a solution? Could you enlighten the rest of the world and solve something that has stumped us normal intellects for generations?

Wait, that was your solution, my bad. I thought you were being serious.

The press has killed people too, more people that nuts with guns, yet I haven't seen you demand we license newspapers.

 

[Vast LWC]

This was a background check for a gun permit, not for a purchase. Those checks are mandatory, and usually left to the local police to conduct. Want to try again?

I'm at a loss as to the point of this response...

What possible connection would the grades of the individual have to the ongoing mental stability of the individual?

Do smart people not become insane?

The point is that a background check that is conducted with a specific purpose in mind, would not be all-encompassing in it's scope.

For instance, a background check for employment as a security guard at a large chain of supermarkets would have no business checking into what sex acts the individual engages in with his wife.

If local law enforcement is conducting background checks in an inappropriate manner, they leave themselves open to civil, and sometimes criminal, liability.

 

[GuyPinestra]

This explains why the NRA is against it.

Please show me where the NRA has opposed background checks.

NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes.
NRA-ILA | Background Checks


Please look at the source of the link.

You realize that the term 'Universal Background Check' is Libspeak for forcing private citizens to do them. The NRA has always supported, and I believe had a lot of input into the writing of dealer background check legislation.

The NRA and the vast majority of gun owners oppose registration of firearms, for obvious reasons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This was a background check for a gun permit, not for a purchase. Those checks are mandatory, and usually left to the local police to conduct. Want to try again?

I'm at a loss as to the point of this response...

What possible connection would the grades of the individual have to the ongoing mental stability of the individual?

Do smart people not become insane?

The point is that a background check that is conducted with a specific purpose in mind, would not be all-encompassing in it's scope.

For instance, a background check for employment as a security guard at a large chain of supermarkets would have no business checking into what sex acts the individual engages in with his wife.

If local law enforcement is conducting background checks in an inappropriate manner, they leave themselves open to civil, and sometimes criminal, liability.

What makes you think I support that, I was just pointing out that your assumption that this had nothing to do with mandatory background checks was in error. This is the type of thing that we all have to look forward to if the Progressive/Statists get their way.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

What part of "shall not be infringed" aren't you getting?

 

[Luissa]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

What part of "shall not be infringed" aren't you getting?

Do you make that same argument when it come to your rights operating a motor vehicle?
How about drinking alcohol or selling alcohol?

 

[GuyPinestra]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

What part of "shall not be infringed" aren't you getting?

Do you make that same argument when it come to your rights operating a motor vehicle?
How about drinking alcohol or selling alcohol?

Driving is a privilege, not a right, unless you're driving on PRIVATE property.

I think the government has got it wrong on alcohol, too. What I do on my own PRIVATE property for my own PRIVATE consumption is none of your damned business.

With that said, neither of those activities is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the US Constitution.

Lousy comparison, Luissa.

 

[sitarro]

I would like to see background checks performed on anyone wanting to vote in a state or federal election. I also want them to show a photo identification and an IRS number.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What is the difference whether I buy one in a gunshow parking lot or a Walmart parking lot? Either way, no law against the "gun show loophole" will prevent private transactions - not without registration, that is, which is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

There's nothing in the second amendment that prevents registration.

Quite the contrary, "Well regulated" would imply registration at the very least.

 

[JoeB131]

I would like to see background checks performed on anyone wanting to vote in a state or federal election. I also want them to show a photo identification and an IRS number.

I'm sure you would, since you think "those people" cheated, not that you ran an awful candidate who said stupid things.

Hey, has it ever occurred to you that your side lost because people just don't agree with it anymore?

 

[rightwinger]

If I desire to shoot up a movie theater or elementary school, I should have access to the weapons of my choice

This is America for gods sake

 

[Seawytch]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

What part of "shall not be infringed" aren't you getting?

What part of "well regulated" aren't you getting?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part of "shall not be infringed" aren't you getting?

Do you make that same argument when it come to your rights operating a motor vehicle?
How about drinking alcohol or selling alcohol?

Driving is a privilege, not a right, unless you're driving on PRIVATE property.

I think the government has got it wrong on alcohol, too. What I do on my own PRIVATE property for my own PRIVATE consumption is none of your damned business.

With that said, neither of those activities is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the US Constitution.

Lousy comparison, Luissa.

Driving is a right. I cannot be denied a driver's license, the right to own a car, and the right to access the public roads

unless I am not qualified.

That is exactly the same right I have to own and use a gun.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most people agree with back ground checks. So I don't think there is a lot of sane people opposing them?
And yes I am sure what you posted would stand up in court. so in reality do sane people oppose background checks? Not many.

This explains why the NRA is against it.

If we ignore the fact that the NRA has always supported background checks your post actually makes sense.

So if that claim is true, then based on your thread title, the NRA, as an organization, is insane.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most people agree with back ground checks. So I don't think there is a lot of sane people opposing them?
And yes I am sure what you posted would stand up in court. so in reality do sane people oppose background checks? Not many.

This explains why the NRA is against it.

Please show me where the NRA has opposed background checks.

LaPierre: Fed Call For Background Checks ?Will Be Used To Confiscate Your Guns? « CBS DC

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you make that same argument when it come to your rights operating a motor vehicle?
How about drinking alcohol or selling alcohol?

Driving is a privilege, not a right, unless you're driving on PRIVATE property.

I think the government has got it wrong on alcohol, too. What I do on my own PRIVATE property for my own PRIVATE consumption is none of your damned business.

With that said, neither of those activities is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the US Constitution.

Lousy comparison, Luissa.

Driving is a right. I cannot be denied a driver's license, the right to own a car, and the right to access the public roads

unless I am not qualified.

That is exactly the same right I have to own and use a gun.

Here you go again with that nonsense.


It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive.

Turning 16 is not the criteria for deserving a driver’s license.

Driving: A privilege, not a right.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This explains why the NRA is against it.

Please show me where the NRA has opposed background checks.

LaPierre: Fed Call For Background Checks ?Will Be Used To Confiscate Your Guns? « CBS DC

If you read the artcile he said he opposes "universal" background checks because he believes it will lead to registration then confiscation.

When will you idiots ever be honest?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please show me where the NRA has opposed background checks.

LaPierre: Fed Call For Background Checks ?Will Be Used To Confiscate Your Guns? « CBS DC

If you read the artcile he said he opposes "universal" background checks because he believes it will lead to registration then confiscation.

When will you idiots ever be honest?

Universal background checks are the ones that don't have huge holes in them that the criminals and the rest of those ineligible to buy guns can stroll through. You idiot.