Obama's order simplified

[Rodell]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

If it is only a background check, why are firearm details needed?

[norcal77]

If it is only a background check, why are firearm details needed?

That's a really good point! Never thought of that angle...

[JamesH]

I'm with you OP. No one needs to hunt with an ak15 ghost automatically semi-sweet magazineclip home built anti aircraft 30 boolit in a half a second gun, without passing a simple backround check.

Same reason why they should ban them AR47 weapons of war. I hunt with a bolt action, like a real man so it wouldn't make me no nevermind.

A background check to excorsice an enumerated, natural right is the least we can all do. After all, everyone who has common sense knows it will put the kibash on sensless gun murders.

To ensure effectiveness, why don't we provide DNA samples, casings, boolit samples, and mental evaluations for each gun purchase? Common sense says these would have prevented past and future murders.
Seroulsy guys, wake up to the real world and smell the utopia...

[calif 15-22]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

First off kudos for exercising your 1st amendment right in a forum where you are likely to get hammerd if it differs from the masses.

While on the surface it might seem logical to have a background check for any and all transactions related to firearms, but I would ask you "what happens in the near future if you don't pass the background check for some reason that has yet to materialize".

Then there is rhe matter mentioned by another poster "why do they need the detail of the firearm". I mean if you're going to do a check whether someone is prohibited from owning a gun, why does it matter what gun?

It's a slippery slop that could end badly for some people who choose to forgoe getting help for minor mental issues for fear of lossing their right to own a firearm.

But you are entiled to your opinion even if it differs from others!

[toiletfighter]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

Translation: "That's not fair, I have to do it so they should too!"

You sound like my eight year old daughter when she doesn't get her own way.

[Springfield45]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

Background checks don't work. Many of the resent mass shooters passed background checks and were not prohibited. Check for yourself. People who are prohibited do not try to buy guns through legal means. They steal them or get them on the black market. Many criminals get guns anyways and they do not care what laws they break because they are criminals.

Now ask yourself why are they not prosecuting existing gun laws like they used to?

[3006]

Still doesn't make it right.

So its morally wrong to give a gun that my dad gave me to my son or nephew when I die?

[3006]

Background checks don't work. Many of the resent mass shooters passed background checks and were not prohibited. Check for yourself. People who are prohibited do not try to buy guns through legal means. They steal them or get them on the black market. Many criminals get guns anyways and they do not care what laws they break because they are criminals.

Now ask yourself why are they not prosecuting existing gun laws like they used to?

Legal gun owners most likely are more profitable then some multi felon. Look at how much firearms prices have went up .

[rivraton]

The money for these new hires has to be budgeted by congress. Lets see what happens. There's many programs in the BATFe that are unfunded.

Those wusses will fund whatever he wants, haven't you been paying attention?

[Hammertime]

Obama didn't background check ISIS when he funded their weapons, and told them where millions in armament could be found after the withdrawal.

[JagerDog]

Nobody should have to go through a background check. A citizen living under the rights afforded by the Second Amendment should be able to purchase a firearm from a fellow citizen without interference, approval, or regulation from the authorities.

I would disagree. Rights can be removed via due process. Imho, I have no issue with some annual (?) bg check...then when I pass let me me buy any gun I want with no further impingment.

If I was selling, I have no interest in selling to a prohibited person.

[JagerDog]

Background checks don't work. Many of the resent mass shooters passed background checks and were not prohibited. Check for yourself. People who are prohibited do not try to buy guns through legal means. They steal them or get them on the black market. Many criminals get guns anyways and they do not care what laws they break because they are criminals.

Now ask yourself why are they not prosecuting existing gun laws like they used to?

^^^^^ truth

[Wes C Addle]

I never claimed to be a genius, just care about the constitution and its original intent

then I can only assume that you disregard 1934, 1968, and 1986 if that's the case.



edit: I highly doubt that you have SBRs, MGs and DDs LMFAO

[spyde12]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

The free states are the standard because it's in alignment with the 2nd Amendment. CA is not. I would prefer we repeal these unconstitutional restrictions than to force it on other states.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[teflondog]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

Finally! Someone that agrees with me!

I wish ALL the states had our handgun roster, 10-round capacity magazines, 1 handgun purchase per month limit, 10-day waiting period, bullet buttons for evil rifles, and non CCW-issuing counties. After all, that's just a common sense approach!