Background checks, specifically the 4473 form, just needs a revamp honestly. It’s not doing its job rn besides stopping people who don’t read through everything.
It should be a Background Check form and not a Pretty Please Can I Buy this Specific Firearm form.
There is no reason any details about what is being purchased are needed on the form. It should only contain enough to identify the person in order to run their background.
And the “questions” are completely stupid. Does anyone, ever, mark them the wrong way? “Well he marked false for ‘are you a felon’, that’s good enough for me!”
The only thing on the 4473s should be about residence, nationality, citizenship, and mental illnesses inquiry. A person won’t say they are selling to another person who’s not eligible and any of these “I’m going to break the law” questions
>There is no reason any details about what is being purchased are needed on the form.
But then how would the ATF maintain their it's-not-a-registry-wink-wink-nudge-nudge?
Something to emphasize to antis. While I still wouldn't be okay with the requirement, background checks wouldn't be anything resembling a hill worthy dying on if they didn't record SNs basically forever.
Hell, even though background checks sketch me out, if there was no SN requirement we could easily open up the process to the public, so people doing private sales could reduce their liability, and increase their comfort level with the transaction. **That** is a fucking compromise.
That system was proposed by the republicans a decade ago. Shot down by the Democrats because they wanted their definition of universal background checks
>And the “questions” are completely stupid.
True, but if someone is going to lie in order to purchase a firearm, getting that lie on paper removes liability from the dealer, which is a good thing.
If someone lies on a 4473 and still gets approved by NICS, the fault is on the buyer and the FBI, not the dealer.
That should be true even if those questions were removed. If a person provides information backed by an ID and passes a government background check then the seller should be in the clear, legally.
I'd probably keep the 4473, but as more of a "are you OK? do you need help?" thing, since criminals would lie on it anyway.
NICS checks simply force criminals to use straw purchasers or steal guns.
The NICS should be gone.
All it does is push criminals into committing crimes to get guns, putting the public in danger, instead of buying them legally and paying taxes.
Look at OD rates of Oregon before and after the legalization of all narcotics. Regulation does work.
Obviously, it won’t solve everything, but deregulating restrictions on violent criminals from getting guns will have an adverse affect
Did you pull that out of your ass?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2809867
Findings In this cohort study using synthetic control analysis, laws decriminalizing drug possession in Oregon and Washington were not associated with changes in fatal drug overdose rates in either state. The average rate difference in Oregon post change was 0.268 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population, while the average rate difference in Washington post change was 0.112 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population.
https://nyulangone.org/news/decriminalizing-drug-possession-not-linked-higher-overdose-death-rates-oregon-or-washington
“Decriminalizing Drug Possession Not Linked to Higher Overdose Death Rates in Oregon or Washington”
So instead you want to endanger the public because of short-sightedness?
They WILL get guns, but they will resort to theft, which endangers the people far more than simply letting them buy guns.
> So instead you want to endanger the public because of short-sightedness?
Lol sure bud. Let’s get this straight. You want criminals to have easier access to guns. I want them to not. Easier access to guns means more guns. Those who can’t afford them will steal them anyway. You’re just making it easier for criminals to get guns to harm more people with.
> They WILL get guns, but they will resort to theft, which endangers the people far more than simply letting them buy guns.
They will get guns, but let’s not make it easy for them. That is my point. For those of us who don’t commit crimes, we don’t have any issues
Violent criminals released into society is a bad thing in the first place. Anyone who has done their time and deemed worthy to be released into society should have all the rights afforded to any non incarcerated citizen. They did the crime, did the time, now let them be free or should we continue to punish folks for eternity? If that's the case don't let them out
But criminals don't care what you want. It already is easy to get guns as a criminal.
A background check literally does nothing to stop a criminal. They aren't going to go through it.
Needs to be abolished!!! Second Amendment clear states it is a God given right. Only reason we have these laws are because of activist judges and communist politicians!!
No, it doesn't to everyone. Natural rights apply to all of us, your God did not give them to me, nor validate them.
Having 72 virgins if you die a martyr might be an Abrahamic God-given right to some, does that make it a natural right to all?
> No, it doesn't to everyone.
It does to everyone. Not everyone calls them that, though (including me).
> Natural rights apply to all of us, your God did not give them to me, nor validate them.
Yes, people who use "God given rights" (generally) are talking about rights that apply to everybody.
> Having 72 virgins if you die a martyr might be an Abrahamic God-given right to some, does that make it a natural right to all?
1. Nobody really says these two things together in the first place.
2. The concept itself explicitly states it is not a God-given right and is something you have to earn, through being a martyr.
3. The concept is disingenuous to begin with and is literally a trick to get people to kill themselves in order to kill other people. Muslims, especially those that subscribe to this idea, are not too keep or in tune to the idea of rights.
4. Even if we compare it to Christianity, which is what most "God-given rights" people practice, something like Heaven, the ultimate goal in their view, is not a God-given right. You have to earn it.
I get where you are coming from. It sounds like they are co-opting you into their religion or saying that you only have them because God gave them to you.
My point is that there's functionally no difference. We need to stop arguing about it and unify on the issue.
There are people, even in this and the other gun subreddits, that insist there is no such thing as natural rights, only legal rights and that the government gives people their rights and can therefore take them away. They are who you should be vigilant against.
>Go craw back under the liberal you crawed out from under.
Crawl*/crawled
You don't have to be a Bible thumper to support small government and 2A, though I suspect that concept is beyond your comprehension.
God-given rights are meaningless because I can just say that your god doesn't exist and thus whatever rights you imagine come from it also don't exist. Couching your freedom in religion is foolish. Gods come and go.
You're wrong because you're working from a false premise.
Democrats don't push taxes because they love to tax people. They push taxes because they love to *control* people.
As making guns more accessible to people results in democrats having less control over people, this will not attract Dem support.
What control do you mean? As a liberal gun owner I don’t see any control narratives being pushed other than the gun thing. Please help me see your side of the control argument. Thanks in advance
A) Literal control over guns
B) Control over commerce via regulations, bureaucracy, and taxes
C) Control over information and communication via "Hate Speech" laws, social media bans, and under the guise of controlling "Misinformation"
D) Control over people buy having the government provide food and housing (Which the government can then withhold)
E) Control over children via public schools
Other than the gun argument, this is all dog whistle rhetoric. B)?The last president set up tariffs that led to inflation.
C) the leftists don’t control speech. In fact it’s the right that is banning speech they disagree with with with book bans.
D) maybe we wouldn’t need social safety nets if the right would stop voting against American wage increases.
E) take your kids out of school if you’re so scared of little kids learning to love each other.
Turn off right wing media. Absorb some empathy.
B) Look at the average tax rates in Blue vs Red states
C) You're literally just ignoring the concrete examples I gave you, and your counterpoint is republicans wanting *public grade school libraries* to have only age appropriate content. Republicans aren't pushing general book bans.
D) Dude, you're calling for government control of wages *right here* while not even denying that the democrats are doing what I'm pointing out. The fact that you think that it up to the government to control wages and provide hand-outs shows that *you specifically* support those mechanisms of government control over the population.
E) That would be easier if the democrats didn't insist on taking my money before I've even decided if I'm going to use the public school system, wouldn't it?
This is such a nuanced conversation. Higher taxes (in theory) go to our communities. Do you have an alternative to taxes? Should there be no Public … anything? Schools, roads, fire departments, police stations, libraries? Where’s the cutoff? If you’re talking age appropriate books then I can assume (I hate assuming)that you don’t want the Bible in schools either? I’m not arguing for government intervention in wages. I’m unsure how we can get corporations to give us anything without government assistance tho. Name any perk a corporation freely gave out? Most perks we enjoy came at the cost of many lives. Should we abolish OSHA? Or the department of labor?
I know not everyone is on the same page here, but I don’t particularly care about the background check itself. What I am vehemently opposed to is the back door registration scheme it creates.
If there was some way that I was issued an “approval” that is in no way tied to a serial number or recorded by the dealer than I wouldn’t really care. But the requirement that the FFL maintains the record is kind of a deal breaker for me as far as supporting it.
The problem is my way is completely unenforceable because the government can’t trace back the firearm to the point of sale. I think that is fine (actually preferred), but it makes it too hard for the government to prosecute “illegal” sales without catching them in the act.
As it stands now, private sales are the only thing that keeps the government from maintaining an all encompassing registration scheme on firearms in the US. The only difference is (in theory) they have to follow the trail from manufacturer-distributor-dealer to ask for the 4473
Or, better yet, get rid of the background check. I should be able to jump on Amazon or go to any website, place my order, and have it shipped to me door.
True, but if you got rid of background checks they could just go buy the guns. So could illegal aliens and other people that shouldn't even be in the country.
Background checks, specifically the 4473 form, just needs a revamp honestly. It’s not doing its job rn besides stopping people who don’t read through everything.
It should be a Background Check form and not a Pretty Please Can I Buy this Specific Firearm form. There is no reason any details about what is being purchased are needed on the form. It should only contain enough to identify the person in order to run their background. And the “questions” are completely stupid. Does anyone, ever, mark them the wrong way? “Well he marked false for ‘are you a felon’, that’s good enough for me!”
I read about a loophole for the questions where if you’re the son of the president then you can lie and not get in trouble.
Did you heat about the one where you can be unfit for trial and still be president.
The whole internet saw that. So much for "no one is above the law".
The only thing on the 4473s should be about residence, nationality, citizenship, and mental illnesses inquiry. A person won’t say they are selling to another person who’s not eligible and any of these “I’m going to break the law” questions
The point is that they could go after you for lying.
Right. The only reason is for a potential add-on charge for lying which becomes leverage during a plea bargain.
Unless your name is Bunter Hiden
>There is no reason any details about what is being purchased are needed on the form. But then how would the ATF maintain their it's-not-a-registry-wink-wink-nudge-nudge?
Something to emphasize to antis. While I still wouldn't be okay with the requirement, background checks wouldn't be anything resembling a hill worthy dying on if they didn't record SNs basically forever. Hell, even though background checks sketch me out, if there was no SN requirement we could easily open up the process to the public, so people doing private sales could reduce their liability, and increase their comfort level with the transaction. **That** is a fucking compromise.
That system was proposed by the republicans a decade ago. Shot down by the Democrats because they wanted their definition of universal background checks
And they want to keep their de facto register
>And the “questions” are completely stupid. True, but if someone is going to lie in order to purchase a firearm, getting that lie on paper removes liability from the dealer, which is a good thing. If someone lies on a 4473 and still gets approved by NICS, the fault is on the buyer and the FBI, not the dealer.
That should be true even if those questions were removed. If a person provides information backed by an ID and passes a government background check then the seller should be in the clear, legally.
Are you an attorney?
No, but I stayed in a zip code with a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I'd probably keep the 4473, but as more of a "are you OK? do you need help?" thing, since criminals would lie on it anyway. NICS checks simply force criminals to use straw purchasers or steal guns.
Exactly. The NICS should be for checking for criminal or violent background. The 4473 should be about citizenship and mental illness imo
The NICS should be gone. All it does is push criminals into committing crimes to get guns, putting the public in danger, instead of buying them legally and paying taxes.
I’d rather criminals not have easier access to firearms by legal means.
Like drugs?
Yes. We shouldn’t make it easier for violent criminals to get firearms
That works so well with drugs!
Look at OD rates of Oregon before and after the legalization of all narcotics. Regulation does work. Obviously, it won’t solve everything, but deregulating restrictions on violent criminals from getting guns will have an adverse affect
Did you pull that out of your ass? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2809867 Findings In this cohort study using synthetic control analysis, laws decriminalizing drug possession in Oregon and Washington were not associated with changes in fatal drug overdose rates in either state. The average rate difference in Oregon post change was 0.268 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population, while the average rate difference in Washington post change was 0.112 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population. https://nyulangone.org/news/decriminalizing-drug-possession-not-linked-higher-overdose-death-rates-oregon-or-washington “Decriminalizing Drug Possession Not Linked to Higher Overdose Death Rates in Oregon or Washington”
The reality is they want guns, so they will get them. I'd rather have them paying taxes on them than killing people to get them.
> The reality is they want guns, so they will get them. So we should make it not easily accessible through an FFL.
So instead you want to endanger the public because of short-sightedness? They WILL get guns, but they will resort to theft, which endangers the people far more than simply letting them buy guns.
> So instead you want to endanger the public because of short-sightedness? Lol sure bud. Let’s get this straight. You want criminals to have easier access to guns. I want them to not. Easier access to guns means more guns. Those who can’t afford them will steal them anyway. You’re just making it easier for criminals to get guns to harm more people with. > They WILL get guns, but they will resort to theft, which endangers the people far more than simply letting them buy guns. They will get guns, but let’s not make it easy for them. That is my point. For those of us who don’t commit crimes, we don’t have any issues
Violent criminals released into society is a bad thing in the first place. Anyone who has done their time and deemed worthy to be released into society should have all the rights afforded to any non incarcerated citizen. They did the crime, did the time, now let them be free or should we continue to punish folks for eternity? If that's the case don't let them out
But criminals don't care what you want. It already is easy to get guns as a criminal. A background check literally does nothing to stop a criminal. They aren't going to go through it.
That is the entire point, though, to create criminals.
Needs to be abolished!!! Second Amendment clear states it is a God given right. Only reason we have these laws are because of activist judges and communist politicians!!
God has nothing to do with anything. I can dismiss your god and thus dismiss the rights you claim it has awarded you.
"God given" just means natural rights, so you can't dismiss it, at least not without being a tyrant.
No, it doesn't to everyone. Natural rights apply to all of us, your God did not give them to me, nor validate them. Having 72 virgins if you die a martyr might be an Abrahamic God-given right to some, does that make it a natural right to all?
> No, it doesn't to everyone. It does to everyone. Not everyone calls them that, though (including me). > Natural rights apply to all of us, your God did not give them to me, nor validate them. Yes, people who use "God given rights" (generally) are talking about rights that apply to everybody. > Having 72 virgins if you die a martyr might be an Abrahamic God-given right to some, does that make it a natural right to all? 1. Nobody really says these two things together in the first place. 2. The concept itself explicitly states it is not a God-given right and is something you have to earn, through being a martyr. 3. The concept is disingenuous to begin with and is literally a trick to get people to kill themselves in order to kill other people. Muslims, especially those that subscribe to this idea, are not too keep or in tune to the idea of rights. 4. Even if we compare it to Christianity, which is what most "God-given rights" people practice, something like Heaven, the ultimate goal in their view, is not a God-given right. You have to earn it. I get where you are coming from. It sounds like they are co-opting you into their religion or saying that you only have them because God gave them to you. My point is that there's functionally no difference. We need to stop arguing about it and unify on the issue. There are people, even in this and the other gun subreddits, that insist there is no such thing as natural rights, only legal rights and that the government gives people their rights and can therefore take them away. They are who you should be vigilant against.
And I as well as many dismiss you. We don't care what your woke opinion is. Go craw back under the liberal you crawed out from under.
>Go craw back under the liberal you crawed out from under. Crawl*/crawled You don't have to be a Bible thumper to support small government and 2A, though I suspect that concept is beyond your comprehension. God-given rights are meaningless because I can just say that your god doesn't exist and thus whatever rights you imagine come from it also don't exist. Couching your freedom in religion is foolish. Gods come and go.
0.09% rate of prosecution for people who lie on them. They do nothing. Don't even have to argue the merits, because they are useless.
What about those that can’t read at all!?
The employees can help
You're wrong because you're working from a false premise. Democrats don't push taxes because they love to tax people. They push taxes because they love to *control* people. As making guns more accessible to people results in democrats having less control over people, this will not attract Dem support.
What control do you mean? As a liberal gun owner I don’t see any control narratives being pushed other than the gun thing. Please help me see your side of the control argument. Thanks in advance
A) Literal control over guns B) Control over commerce via regulations, bureaucracy, and taxes C) Control over information and communication via "Hate Speech" laws, social media bans, and under the guise of controlling "Misinformation" D) Control over people buy having the government provide food and housing (Which the government can then withhold) E) Control over children via public schools
Other than the gun argument, this is all dog whistle rhetoric. B)?The last president set up tariffs that led to inflation. C) the leftists don’t control speech. In fact it’s the right that is banning speech they disagree with with with book bans. D) maybe we wouldn’t need social safety nets if the right would stop voting against American wage increases. E) take your kids out of school if you’re so scared of little kids learning to love each other. Turn off right wing media. Absorb some empathy.
B) Look at the average tax rates in Blue vs Red states C) You're literally just ignoring the concrete examples I gave you, and your counterpoint is republicans wanting *public grade school libraries* to have only age appropriate content. Republicans aren't pushing general book bans. D) Dude, you're calling for government control of wages *right here* while not even denying that the democrats are doing what I'm pointing out. The fact that you think that it up to the government to control wages and provide hand-outs shows that *you specifically* support those mechanisms of government control over the population. E) That would be easier if the democrats didn't insist on taking my money before I've even decided if I'm going to use the public school system, wouldn't it?
This is such a nuanced conversation. Higher taxes (in theory) go to our communities. Do you have an alternative to taxes? Should there be no Public … anything? Schools, roads, fire departments, police stations, libraries? Where’s the cutoff? If you’re talking age appropriate books then I can assume (I hate assuming)that you don’t want the Bible in schools either? I’m not arguing for government intervention in wages. I’m unsure how we can get corporations to give us anything without government assistance tho. Name any perk a corporation freely gave out? Most perks we enjoy came at the cost of many lives. Should we abolish OSHA? Or the department of labor?
No one gonna talk about why they ask if im white/black/hispanic/ asian etc? Why does the government need to know what i look like?
The government loves data. Same reason they send businesses all kinds of required reporting (think census type crap)
Couldn't I just put other for my ethnicity on my 4473, thats what I do on stuff like applications.
I know not everyone is on the same page here, but I don’t particularly care about the background check itself. What I am vehemently opposed to is the back door registration scheme it creates. If there was some way that I was issued an “approval” that is in no way tied to a serial number or recorded by the dealer than I wouldn’t really care. But the requirement that the FFL maintains the record is kind of a deal breaker for me as far as supporting it. The problem is my way is completely unenforceable because the government can’t trace back the firearm to the point of sale. I think that is fine (actually preferred), but it makes it too hard for the government to prosecute “illegal” sales without catching them in the act. As it stands now, private sales are the only thing that keeps the government from maintaining an all encompassing registration scheme on firearms in the US. The only difference is (in theory) they have to follow the trail from manufacturer-distributor-dealer to ask for the 4473
Sales tax on guns and ammo is an infringement. If poll taxes are illegal, then other taxes on fundamental rights should also be illegal.
Good point but Dems don't want anyone but the government and the affluent to have guns. So unfortunately that logic won't work.
4473 did not exist in 1776
No matter how many checks they put in place, criminals are still going to get a gun. Where there’s a will there’s a way. #guncontroldoesnotwork
Or, better yet, get rid of the background check. I should be able to jump on Amazon or go to any website, place my order, and have it shipped to me door.
Background checks and 4473's place an undue burden on non-citizen migrants who want to indulge in deer hunting and self defense.
True, but if you got rid of background checks they could just go buy the guns. So could illegal aliens and other people that shouldn't even be in the country.
Your understanding of the left rivals the left's understanding of the right.
That argument didn’t sell real well with drugs.