Background Checks

[M9FAN]

Fine..then the minimum requirement to get ANY social handout (WIC, food stamps, welfare...) the applicant MUST take and pass a urine test...MONTHLY, if the applicant fails...they IMMEDIATELY loose the right to that assistance...PERIOD!

I like your thinking, sir!

[anygunanywhere]

Requiring a license to exercise a right is unconstitutional.

Requiring a license to drive is not since driving is a privelidge, not a right.

The benefits of background investigations for anyone who wants to drive is obvious. How can anyone argue against such common sense laws?

Traveling is a right, but only by your feet.

Why is it that bikers had helmet restrictions removed because the helmet laws violated their rights?

Riding motorcycles without a helmet is a right but firearm carry is not? I don't see anything in the constitution or BOR about helmets.

Don't get me started about drug tests.

Anygunanywhere

[The Annoyed Man]

In order to truly not go tinfoil hatter on you, I believe those that serve (as in civil servants/military) should have the right to vote..all others are civilians...NOT citizens, but our founding fathers never intended America to be that way...unfortunately

I disagree. Fortunately, they did intend it to be the way it is. What about those CITIZENS who are deemed physically incapable of military service? You know, I never served in the military myself. Also, I have never been a paid civil servant - I work a regular job for a living, just like the vast majority of my fellow citizens. However, I have spent the better part of my adult life supporting the military in any way I could as a citizen civilian. I vote for those candidates that will best represent the military's interests. More importantly, I most vociferously support in any way I can those interests that most immediately impact individual military personnel and their families. I represent those interests anytime I have a discussion with some wrongheaded fool who thinks the money would be better spent on welfare queens. I have donated to (and promoted on my own website) various online efforts such as the Semper Fi Fund. I personally thank every single soldier/sailor/airman/marine I bump into at DFW airport (10 minutes from my house) for their service. I pray for them and their families. I stand in awe of their excellence. And, in the event of a national emergency in which the civilian militia were called into service, I would serve to the capacity that I am able to do so.

...and you think that people like me are not worthy of the title "Citizen" and should not be allowed to vote.

That's just wrong.

Moderators: if I've broken the rules with this post, I apologize. Delete it if you have to; but I just strongly disagree with the quoted sentiments.

[KBCraig]

Requiring a license to drive is not since driving is a privelidge, not a right.
. . . .
Traveling is a right, but only by your feet.

This is commonly accepted to be true, but I've never seen an explanation why. At least not one that I find acceptable, and "taxes pay for the roads" doesn't cut it.

The right to travel is the right to travel, and it doesn't matter if it's by foot, by horse, or by automobile.

Then again, I'm one of those hard-core people who believe that driver licensing is an unconstitutional infringement.

[shootthesheet]

Or.....

We could return to the Constitution, and stop pretending that we need the government's permission to travel, to bear arms, to have a job, or any of the other thousands of things that now require government licenses or permits.

[KaiserB]

Fine..then the minimum requirement to get ANY social handout (WIC, food stamps, welfare...) the applicant MUST take and pass a urine test...MONTHLY, if the applicant fails...they IMMEDIATELY loose the right to that assistance...PERIOD!

As the former parent of a foster child... I can tell you the monthly drug screening is a joke. Most "birth parents" stay clean for 3-5 days before their scheduled visits with CPS, that way they can then pee cleanly, if requested. It only takes a few days for most drugs to metabolized out of your system. The better test is "hair folical drug test" as it can track drugs in a body up to 6 months.

[Kythas]

In order to truly not go tinfoil hatter on you, I believe those that serve (as in civil servants/military) should have the right to vote..all others are civilians...NOT citizens, but our founding fathers never intended America to be that way...unfortunately

So...service guarantees citizenship?

I understand the sentiment, being a veteran myself, and have even discussed this with other veteran friends of mine. We fantasize about this but know, in the end, we fight to guarantee the rights of those who are unable to fight themselves.

Now, if you want to talk about some sort of mandatory national service, either military or civil, I'm all for that. Every 18 year old person should serve in the military or some sort of civil corps to serve this country which provides so much opportunity to all of us.

[pt145ss]

Now, if you want to talk about some sort of mandatory national service, either military or civil, I'm all for that. Every 18 year old person should serve in the military or some sort of civil corps to serve this country which provides so much opportunity to all of us.

Having served 4 yrs active duty (Infantry), 3 yrs reserves, and 1 yr IRR, I must say that I would not want someone next to me, covering me, that truly does not want to be there. Part of the reason why we have the best military in the world is because it is all voluntary. Civil Corps of some kind maybe…but defiantly not military. Even Civil corps is kind of iffy to me just because this is America and everyone should have freedom of choice.

[anygunanywhere]

Requiring a license to drive is not since driving is a privelidge, not a right.
. . . .
Traveling is a right, but only by your feet.

This is commonly accepted to be true, but I've never seen an explanation why. At least not one that I find acceptable, and "taxes pay for the roads" doesn't cut it.

The right to travel is the right to travel, and it doesn't matter if it's by foot, by horse, or by automobile.

Then again, I'm one of those hard-core people who believe that driver licensing is an unconstitutional infringement.

I agree with you, Kevin. I just didn't want the thread to go awry anymore than it has. The citizens er..uh...civilians....ummmm whatever..are restless.

I kind of wanted to get some refreshing ideas on background checks.

Anygunanywhere

[frankie_the_yankee]

I kind of wanted to get some refreshing ideas on background checks.

Anygunanywhere

How about the idea that they force criminals into the black market while allowing LAC's to just walk into a gun store and buy any kind of gun they want with no hassles?

[anygunanywhere]

I kind of wanted to get some refreshing ideas on background checks.

Anygunanywhere

How about the idea that they force criminals into the black market while allowing LAC's to just walk into a gun store and buy any kind of gun they want with no hassles?

I could always walk into a store and buy one. I presented my state issued drivers license and bought the firearm. Nice of the government to allow me to do that since it is my right.

The requirement to present identification to purchase said firearm is not an infringement of my RKBA. If everyone who drives had the background check done then the convicted criminals would be identified, wouldn't they? CHLs only identify the ones who want to carry. State issued ID would identify everyone. No infringement on anyone's rights. (Give the government time though, and I am sure thay will change that.)

The fact that criminals obtain firearms by stealing them will never change.

The fact that face-to-face firearms sales allow criminals access to firearms is unfortunate. Some folks do verify identification during FTF sales. I gladly produce it during FTF sales, but a state issued ID that everyone would be required to carry would accomplish the same thing. Give the antis enough time and FTF sales would be prohibited. Are you for that since it will keep the firearms out of criminal's hands. A little infringement is okay.

Firearms purchasers are the only ones required to do the background check. It has prevented some purchases, but skirts the whole criminal identification issue. You know, the old "equal protection under the law" thing that goes along with the old "All created equal" and "civil rights" thing.

Maybe convicted felons should have a big "F" on their cars.

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

I could always walk into a store and buy one. I presented my state issued drivers license and bought the firearm. Nice of the government to allow me to do that since it is my right.

The requirement to present identification to purchase said firearm is not an infringement of my RKBA. If everyone who drives had the background check done then the convicted criminals would be identified, wouldn't they? CHLs only identify the ones who want to carry. State issued ID would identify everyone. No infringement on anyone's rights. (Give the government time though, and I am sure thay will change that.)

The fact that criminals obtain firearms by stealing them will never change.

The fact that face-to-face firearms sales allow criminals access to firearms is unfortunate. Some folks do verify identification during FTF sales. I gladly produce it during FTF sales, but a state issued ID that everyone would be required to carry would accomplish the same thing. Give the antis enough time and FTF sales would be prohibited. Are you for that since it will keep the firearms out of criminal's hands. A little infringement is okay.

Firearms purchasers are the only ones required to do the background check. It has prevented some purchases, but skirts the whole criminal identification issue. You know, the old "equal protection under the law" thing that goes along with the old "All created equal" and "civil rights" thing.

Maybe convicted felons should have a big "F" on their cars.

Anygunanywhere

So I’m a little confused by your statements. In other threads you say you believe that RKBA is absolute. If you believe that, then a background check should be irrelevant when it comes to RKBA. It would also then be irrelevant if one is a felon or not as RKBA is absolute. That being said, in this thread, you are advocating both a background check…in general…and you seem to empathize that criminals should be excluded from RKBA. If you believe the latter (Background checks and felon exclusion), as opposed to the former (RKBA being absolute) then you must believe that there are reasonable restrictions that the feds can put in place, for example, required background checks and felon exclusion.

[anygunanywhere]

So I’m a little confused by your statements. In other threads you say you believe that RKBA is absolute.

Yes, I do believe my RKBA is absolute. I have also stated, and I will do so again, that rights have responsibilities, and actions have consequences.

If you believe that, then a background check should be irrelevant when it comes to RKBA.

Explain this to me.

It would also then be irrelevant if one is a felon or not as RKBA is absolute.

Felons must suffer the consequences of their actions. I agree. Certain violent felons must not have firearms. That is not an infringement.

That being said, I do object to infringements on my rights resulting from legislation and/or court precedent intended to prevent those who should not be allowed to possess firearms from doing so. I have done nothing wrong.

That being said, in this thread, you are advocating both a background check…in general…

For priveleges granted by the state or fed. Priveleges.

The state can also tell me I need to identify myself even when purchasing a firearm. Identification is not an issue. Preventing me from purchasing a firearm because I am a felon is not an infringement.

and you seem to empathize that criminals should be excluded from RKBA. If you believe the latter (Background checks and felon exclusion), as opposed to the former (RKBA being absolute) then you must believe that there are reasonable restrictions that the feds can put in place, for example, required background checks and felon exclusion.

Felon exclusion can be accomplished without infringing on my RKBA.

Tell me who undergoes background checks.

Military. LEO, other jobs in government, teachers and other service providers (supposedly). Firearms purchasers. Not a whole lot more.

The other day, a child was kidnapped in Houston by a day care worker. The worker, I believe, had a history, maybe criminal. The day care had not performed the required background check. They failed the children. *gasp!*

Armed with knowledge of this incident, where in the media is the furor over the lack of the background check? If this had been a firearm sale where a felon had bought a firearm FTF without a background check from a dealer the news coverage and furor would still be on the front pages and prime time.

Do not assume that my insistence on absolute rights means that I want a society without laws or adherence to the concept of consequences to actions.

Background checks could resolve a lot of issues. Why didn't the day care worker mentioned above have a state issued ID that indicated her status? Are not our children as important as firearms purchases?

Anygunanywhere.

[shaggydog]

Do not assume that my insistence on absolute rights means that I want a society without laws or adherence to the concept of consequences to actions.

But the problem is that you want it not only both ways but every way. You cannot have an ABSOLUTE "right" and then say that it is acceptable to exclude some from excercising that right. If that is the case, the right is NOT absolute. Make up your mind. If you truely believe that the RKBA is "absolute" or "God-given" then there can be NO, nada, zip, zero limitations placed on the "right" i.e. it is inherent and MUST be freely exercised by EVERYONE including felons, 6 year olds, the mentally incompentent, etc. EVERYONE.

[pt145ss]

Do not assume that my insistence on absolute rights means that I want a society without laws or adherence to the concept of consequences to actions.

But the problem is that you want it not only both ways but every way. You cannot have an ABSOLUTE "right" and then say that it is acceptable to exclude some from excercising that right. If that is the case, the right is NOT absolute. Make up your mind. If you truely believe that the RKBA is "absolute" or "God-given" then there can be NO, nada, zip, zero limitations placed on the "right" i.e. it is inherent and MUST be freely exercised by EVERYONE including felons, 6 year olds, the mentally incompentent, etc. EVERYONE.

That was my point.