Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Kasierith]

How far off do you think unnecessary car searches are from that?

Completely. Equating the information provided by a background check to private property ie what's in your trunk is very far out there. Anyone who has actually done a background check, which by the looks of it several people in this conversation have never had done for a job or what have you, can tell you this. The information disclosed by a background check is not entirely personal information; something that is emphasized by the exclusion of confidential information such as military service records, medical history, and certain aspects of education that cannot be released without explicit consent through a standard background check.

I have had background checks done, I have federal security clearance.. (which isn't what it sounds like).

Why should I give up my current rights for any reason? Just because the left seized the moment to make a stink out of it?

There are two possibilities here. One, you are making this up in a ridiculous attempt to claim personal knowledge on the topic. Two, you submitted yourself to a search protocol without fully educating yourself on said protocol in terms of its extent and focus, which makes you foolish.

So tell me... do you have a personal right to keep things such as... your driving record confidential? What right specifically is that? The information is technically the property of the State, if I'm not mistaken; it merely happens to apply to you. This is distinct from, say, a medical history involving antidepressants that might make an employee less likely to hire you, which is not covered by a standard background check.

---------- Post added 2013-02-16 at 09:17 PM ----------

No its not. Feinstein knowing her AWB is pretty much dead is trying to tie in some of her stuff into the background check law. Background checks are fine but not when it comes with her federal gun registry and registry of ammo. The other issue is will they spent money on the NCIS system to increase its capability fuck no they won't. That would take money away from them wasting it. The NCIS system is already bad enough with the checks it does now they want to flood it with even more checks. They won't need to ban guns that will do it on its own. It will take weeks to get a check done.

Alright, and this is something that is a very valid concern, and is a problem that I am more than willing to recognize. A background check being an unnecessary obstacle towards obtaining firearms is far more legitimate than outright ignorance or lying about what a background check entails and saying that it impedes on your civil rights.

[Zhangfei]

I wouldn't mind if it was just that. But you and I both know that eventually, they are going for something like is the case in New York, where you have to be a person of some affluence in society to obtain one, at least with any objective ease.

But hey! It's still totally legal to get one! Just have to get approval from the government for one.

Yes, ideally. It's how the UK does it and it works. It works for driving licences too.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Yes, ideally. It's how the UK does it and it works. It works for driving licences too.

What? You have to be an acting judge/prosecutor to get a car there?

[Zhangfei]

What? You have to be an acting judge/prosecutor to get a car there?

No, you have to go through the government to get one. It keeps the guns out of the hands of criminals.

[cymraeg13]

Yes, ideally. It's how the UK does it and it works. It works for driving licences too.

The UK also has cameras on every streetcorner in London and will soon require microchips in every dog (animal trials anyone?). Thanks, but we'll not be using them as a model for appropriate limits of governmental authority.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm pretty sure most people know exactly what a background check entails.

While "just a background check" seems innocent, a federal background check on the books is just inviting more intrusion and ultimately "infringement" which is obviously the issue.

PS the slippery slope only applies to things that are tenuously linked. You can't invoke it like a "I win" card when things are directly linked.

Sigh this common sense laws statement is garbage. It's just more shit made by the left. What's common sense to you isn't to me or to someone else. It's like there "assault weapon" saying. Basically in there eyes if you don't agree with me you have no common sense.

As demonstrated by the above two posts, people are only opposed to background checks because they have no clue what they are. A background check is just going through motions of showing information on you that is already publicly accessible, and allowing access to the few things that aren't (such as education). If you have nothing to hide, then there's really no reason to be opposed to it. Unless of course you are scared of a non-existent slippery slope.

Oblivion you think that a background check is some kind of invitation for invasion of privacy? You keep saying that but are unable to provide any sound reasoning to back up that statement. You sure do argue the slippery slope a lot. Federal background checks open the door for infringement? Really? There's a reason it's called the slippery slope fallacy. Just because a law gets passed that closes loopholes and requires federal background checks DOES NOT mean that suddenly something that previously wouldn't have barred you from getting a gun is going to do so now.

[Svifnymr]

No, you have to go through the government to get one. It keeps the guns out of the hands of criminals.

The difference in what you're saying and what Gemini was saying is the difference between "Shall Issue" and "May Issue" stuff.

Shall Issue: If the government doesn't demonstrate that you shouldn't have it, they shall issue the license (or allow the purchase, in this case).
May Issue: If you can demonstrate sufficient need, they may issue you the license. (Which for gun licenses in such places as NY and such, generally means you've got "friends" in the government, it requires some money and influence.)

Now, obviously a drivers license is Shall Issue. Demonstrate basic handling and such, and they give you one.

---------- Post added 2013-02-16 at 04:13 PM ----------

As demonstrated by the above two posts, people are only opposed to background checks because they have no clue what they are. A background check is just going through motions of showing information on you that is already publicly accessible, and allowing access to the few things that aren't (such as education). If you have nothing to hide, then there's really no reason to be opposed to it. Unless of course you are scared of a non-existent slippery slope.

Oblivion you think that a background check is some kind of invitation for invasion of privacy? You keep saying that but are unable to provide any sound reasoning to back up that statement. You sure do argue the slippery slope a lot. Federal background checks open the door for infringement? Really? There's a reason it's called the slippery slope fallacy. Just because a law gets passed that closes loopholes and requires federal background checks DOES NOT mean that suddenly something that previously wouldn't have barred you from getting a gun is going to do so now.

Plenty of folks understand what a background check is but object on principle to giving the government more influence over the process.

The "if you have nothing to hide" argument is not a good one to make, IMO, when addressing a right. That was the comparison to the searchs and such, if you've got "nothing to hide" then let the officer look in the trunk and it'll be over quicker...

For reference though, most of the last page of "pro background check" posts really don't understand how the firearm Nation Instant Check System works. They're not searching school records or anything. They have a list of prohibited persons, they look your information up to see if you're on that list, that's all. The issues with NICS are delayed responses (because if you've got a common name for your ethnicity, you may be close enough to a person on that list) or if the system is down. There's also the matter of enforcement, how do you enforce private background checks without knowing if/when something is being sold? Is there a cut off date based on original sale of the firearm?

[Kasierith]

The "if you have nothing to hide" argument is not a good one to make, IMO, when addressing a right. That was the comparison to the searchs and such, if you've got "nothing to hide" then let the officer look in the trunk and it'll be over quicker...

What right is it specifically that protects the information allowed by a background check? As I already said.... protected personal information is, by law, excluded from background checks already. Equating it to personal property is very facetious.

[ugotownd]

As demonstrated by the above two posts, people are only opposed to background checks because they have no clue what they are. A background check is just going through motions of showing information on you that is already publicly accessible, and allowing access to the few things that aren't (such as education). If you have nothing to hide, then there's really no reason to be opposed to it. Unless of course you are scared of a non-existent slippery slope.

Oblivion you think that a background check is some kind of invitation for invasion of privacy? You keep saying that but are unable to provide any sound reasoning to back up that statement. You sure do argue the slippery slope a lot. Federal background checks open the door for infringement? Really? There's a reason it's called the slippery slope fallacy. Just because a law gets passed that closes loopholes and requires federal background checks DOES NOT mean that suddenly something that previously wouldn't have barred you from getting a gun is going to do so now.

You really should try reading all the posts. I know very well what a background is. I've only had about two dozen done for my firearms. I also have no problem with increased background checks for everyone. I do oppose all the shit there trying to stack with it in there law and them not upgrading the NCIS system. I don't know why you keep comparing a background check for a job and such to a NCIS check its completely different.

The statement i made had nothing to do with your garbage in your post it was about your use of the stupid term common sense laws.

[Svifnymr]

What right is it specifically that protects the information allowed by a background check? As I already said.... protected personal information is, by law, excluded from background checks already. Equating it to personal property is very facetious.

the right I was discussing directly was right to arms, but it applies to just about anything in society. "if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind" is not a viable answer when discussing how to handle legislation.

And what "protected personal information" are you referencing, given that medical records are part of the experience? Social security number is "optional, but will help prevent mis-identification". Birth Date, ethnicity, sex, name, it's all pretty personal information.

[Kasierith]

the right I was discussing directly was right to arms, but it applies to just about anything in society. "if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind" is not a viable answer when discussing how to handle legislation.

And what "protected personal information" are you referencing, given that medical records are part of the experience? Social security number is "optional, but will help prevent mis-identification". Birth Date, ethnicity, sex, name, it's all pretty personal information.

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm
"Medical records. In California and many states, medical records are confidential. There are only a few instances when a medical record can be released without your knowledge or authorization. The FCRA also requires your specific permission for the release of medical records. If employers require physical examinations after they make a job offer, they will have access to the results. The Americans with Disabilities Act allows a potential employer to inquire only about your ability to perform specific job functions. (42 USC §12101)"

I'm afraid you are confused about what all is entailed in a standard background check. See my link on the previous page.

[Dillon]

Says who? I certainly don't. I'd like to see a contemporary justification for a 17th century right.

Says who? No one needs to say, that's the entire point. A right does not require justification for its use and I might even go as far as to say, neither does it for its own existence.

The very definition of a right is that it is an entitlement to activity. Honestly, I can't believe it's even necessary to explain this at all, but apparently some people don't understand the very concept of something being a right.

The "if you have nothing to hide" argument is not a good one to make, IMO, when addressing a right.

The very phrase "if you have nothing to hide" infuriates me. Innocence is to be assumed, unless proven otherwise. Things like the Patriot Act (existed before 9/11, forced through in fear) are directly contrary to our basic assumptions provided for every citizen. To insist repeal or nullification of rights that have been slowly built through sacrifice of blood and fought for by tooth and nail disgusts me to my very core. Rights should be expanding, not contracting.

[Kasierith]

Says who? I certainly don't. I'd like to see a contemporary justification for a 17th century right.

Eh... while it's far from a normal event, I have to agree with Dillon here. The right exists, and thus it is the standard. Its justification is provided by its existence. Therefore, the burden of proof is passed on to those who oppose the 2nd amendment to demonstrate that it is ultimately harmful to society.

[Svifnymr]

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm
"Medical records. In California and many states, medical records are confidential. There are only a few instances when a medical record can be released without your knowledge or authorization. The FCRA also requires your specific permission for the release of medical records. If employers require physical examinations after they make a job offer, they will have access to the results. The Americans with Disabilities Act allows a potential employer to inquire only about your ability to perform specific job functions. (42 USC §12101)"

I'm afraid you are confused about what all is entailed in a standard background check. See my link on the previous page.

I'm afraid you are confused about what we are talking about. Firearms background checks is what I have referenced and what we are discussing. They do not care about your school record, they do care about mental health issues.

[oblivionx]

I'm afraid you are confused about what we are talking about. Firearms background checks is what I have referenced and what we are discussing. They do not care about your school record, they do care about mental health issues.

The mental health records and medical records part is what is creepy about it imo.

[Deleted]

The UK also has cameras on every streetcorner in London and will soon require microchips in every dog (animal trials anyone?). Thanks, but we'll not be using them as a model for appropriate limits of governmental authority.

Since when do non criminals have anything to fear from being in PUBLIC? Those cameras are used to solve crime, help police catch criminals on the run then provide evidence against them in court.

As for microchips in every dog, how is this a bad thing? Every owner would be accountable for their dogs, also if they are lost and injured they can easily be traced back to their owners.

[Deleted]

Since when do non criminals have anything to fear from being in PUBLIC? Those cameras are used to solve crime, help police catch criminals on the run then provide evidence against them in court.

There is nothing to fear for those that is not criminal but people feel it's an intrusion on privacy having their every move tracked even if they are not criminals, that is where it comes from. Those people watching it do not give a fuck about what normal people does, its only for criminals as you say but people still feel they are being watched, and do not like it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I guess people are so opposed to background checks because they have absolutely no idea what they are, as demonstrated by this and many other posts.

The part about background checks that focuses on your education doesn't so much focus on how educated are, but rather what you did in school and if any disciplinary action was ever taken against you (misconduct on campus, cheating, etc.). Since these things are technically not against the law, but are against school rules, they can affect your future job prospects in many ways.

Background checks are a general process used for many things, and I doubt cheating on a test would ever affect your chances at owning a gun, but it probably affects your chances of getting a job that requires background checks that also frowns on cheating on a test.

If you don't think people should go through a background check for possible criminal activity to get a gun, I don't really know what to say. I can understand being against gun bans, but going against common sense laws is... well lacking in common sense.

Thank you for not answering a single question I had, and diverting my whole post.

[Catta]

There is nothing to fear for those that is not criminal but people feel it's an intrusion on privacy having their every move tracked even if they are not criminals, that is where it comes from. Those people watching it do not give a fuck about what normal people does, its only for criminals as you say but people still feel they are being watched, and do not like it.

You are in PUBLIC as Rich said.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Thank you for not answering a single question I had, and diverting my whole post.

I didn't address your questions because they were irrelevant or based in paranoia. You don't need wild paranoia validated on an internet forum, as much as you'd like for it to be.