Why are people opposed to background checks on firearm sales?

I have a question to all Americans, why are supposed law-abiding gun owners so opposed to thorough background checks on people who purchase guns? If they are truly law-abiding citizens they have nothing to worry about. Enhanced background checks would only hurt criminals.

Other urls found in this thread:

backgroundchecks.com/learningcenter
nicsezcheckfbi.gov/
fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

SHALL

A simple background check to see if you are a criminal or not is sufficient.

Anything else is just pure bullshit. Mental health and all that is easily used to deny gun ownership to law abiding citizens since psychology is such a bullshit "science".

All firearms sales in the US from a Federal Firearms Licensee, do go through a FBI background check called NICS.

Well if that "bullshit" science you are talking about was taken into account, all the massacres done by people who were not psychologically sound would have never happened.

You're a fucking idiot, maybe go take a stroll through your nearest mental hospital some day and then go tell me it's a good idea to give all of them a weapon because it's a "bullshit science"

You sure don't understand what it means when I say that it's easily abused.

>oh look at this guy, he likes guns, he's a lunatic because of it!
>oh look this guy took antidepressants because he couldn't sleep properly, he must be mentality unstable to own guns
>oh look this guy is a right winger, he's mentality unstable!

This is the kinda of shit that I'm talking about. I don't give a fuck about a couple of shootings done by crazy people.

Psychiatry is not the same as psychology you moron.

I think user was trying to say that the tests could be misused to deny a majority of citizens their 2nd amendment rights.

because some slippery psychologist could classify being "racist" is a dangerous mental illness and take yer guns if you support border security?

Pretty much

Cause then the government gets to decide the definition of criminal, insane, or terrorist. Oh man you're looking to buy a gun? Only terrorists use guns.

nobody actually is

This wouldn't happen, psychologists have a code of ethics you know, and they follow them.

Leaf, you just don't know how to speak American.

"Enhanced Background Checks" doesn't mean they are going to enhance background checks. It means they are going to drastically delay the time it takes to purchase a gun to suit their purposes.

Scenario: You go to a gun store to buy a gun. You fill out your "Enhanced Background Check" authorization. 6 months later you still have no gun. Clerk says, "Sorry, the gubment is just taking a really long time to get these enhanced background checks done."

It's just like seatbelt laws. You really think the government gives a shit whether people live or die in car crashes? Nope, just another excuse to pull people over and take their money.

Give the government a tool to use against the citizenry, and they will abuse it, they've proven this time and time again. That's why smart citizens who support 2nd-amendment rights oppose ANY legislation that infringes on our gun purchasing power.

Except it wouldn't infringe on your gun purchasing power if you're a law abiding citizen and it would make your entire country more safe for everyone.

OP never actually mentioned mental health. The problem with "universal background checks" is that I order to enforce it, the government would have to know who owns what guns, in other words, they would need a registry. Registration has historically always lead to confiscation.

TL;DR:
We aren't against background checks, we are against registration.

fucking leafs, parroting bullshit without any reading comprehension

Is this sarcasm?

> expecting people to have morals
> expecting psychologists to be competent, a profession dominated by females and numales
> expecting anything from anyone
> being a leaf
This is why you fail. Assuming that people will just be succesful when you rely on them is the path to failure. Always assume that everybody will fail you, because they will.

truth
and you are fucking retarded. murder is already illegal, why am i not safe???

>Enhanced background checks

we already have those and gun crimes still happen

imagine that

background checks keep people safe from folks who aren't going to break the law, well done

A right delayed is a right denied.

Imagine if Canada all of a sudden said you couldn't buy a computer unless you pass an enhanced background check. You may be the nicest person on the planet but they see you are here on Sup Forums and are like, "he has autism, unfit to own a computer."

Same shit with guns. We already have background checks. That tells you everything you need to know. Everything else is an invasion on our right to own a gun. It starts with little shit then turns into more little shit until you have a big shitshow.

Because of all the guns in criminals hands due to improper background checks

Yeah like the same type of people that would claim that homosexuality was a mental illness and now say it's not anymore?

Considering that the amount of leftists that rule those institutions and openly say that gun ownership is lunacy, I wouldn't really be surprised when they consider certain political interests and even hobbies to be mental illnesses.

Because people with clean records will just sell guns secondhand to criminals, so the problem isn't solved

Also criminals don't buy guns legally anyway

And it infinges on everyone's rights

You don't need a background check to practice free speech

Because don't tread on me, faggot.

I could see the background checks growing more draconian as it goes anyway.

>And it infinges on everyone's rights

how

We do have enhanced background checks, the police take upwards of a month to evaluate an application for a firearms license to make sure that the person is not a danger to themselves or anyone else.

And our gun violence is a fraction of yours.

Coincidence? I think not.

I'm not against background checks, but I don't like the sound of these "enhanced" background checks. Sounds like jewery to me

Because whats really meant by "background checks" is a ban on private sales, meaning all sales of all firearms will be recorded in an FFL's black book, meaning every gun will have a name/address/serial number attached to it.

Thats not a background check, thats registration.

If people were serious about wanting expanded background checks to cover private sales we'd see a bill that would open up the NICS to the public. I'll believe the other side is being genuine when that happens, until then I'll oppose.

One of the gun control myths perpetrated by the gun control lobby is that there are no background checks. The other myth is the existence of the "gun show loophole."

If you make a living selling guns, or even make a substantial profit selling guns, you must have a Federal Firearms Licence (FFL). It doesn't matter where you sell guns with an FFL, you must have the purchaser fill out an ATF Form 4473 and you must run a criminal background check through the FBI database. This done over the phone or on online. For commercial sales, there are no exceptions to this.

Limited private sales without a background check are allowed. This is so someone can sell a gun occasionally without being licenced orca family can sell off a collection on the death of a relative. This is largely where the myth of the gun show loophole comes from.

How many blacks and hispanics do you have?

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it say the government can perform background checks on people that want to purchase firearms

It's infingeing on that right

Considering that in Switzerland they literally just check your crime records (or lack thereof) and you guys still manage to have a rate of 0.45 gun homicides per 100k people compared to the swiss one of 0.21 while having a fraction of the guns, I would say that your entire premise is bullshit.

I'm a psychologist and I do a fair amount of assessment. To adequately screen for likely mass shooters you'd need the kind of testing that takes around ten to twelve hours of my time at a going rate of $150 and hour. Thats an unreasonable burden to put on the exercise of a right. I'd support allowing assessment as a means of returning rights to someone with a history of having been committed, but its ridiculous to suggest it as a prerequisite to gun ownership.

Most guns used in the commission of a felony were stolen or acquired by friends and family members. The majority of gun crime committed in the us is committed by felons (citizens already prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms)

This is a bait thread. Even leaves know pollacks are against gun control

where's the infringement

The majority of gun crime in the US isn't just committed by felons, the majority of gun crime victims in the US are also felons.

Because the government is obstructing the ability to 'keep and bear arms', which it says 'shall not be infringed' , meaning that's infringement

Or are you just too stupid to understand

Correlation does not equal causation

And your correlation is tenuous at best. There is more gun crime in Mexico than in the US and yet guns are heavily regulated there. And before you go "well all the guns in Mexico are coming from the US" then why isn't there a huge firearm violence problem in Canada?

>obstructing

how

>the right of the people shall not be infringed

Would a background check on you registering to vote infringe on your right to vote? Is the background check placing an undue burden?

YES

SHALL

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

That is a great argument as to why all guns should be banned everywhere and I agree

Why can't we get background checks for truck rentals or fertilizer purchases?

Yep

And I assume you, like me, don't really see this as grounds to revoke a constitutional right.

You retard you have way less guns and people. Your logic is based on you thinking your right because of your opinion.

Stop replying to slide threads. About to filter all leaf posts, fucking dammit.

Because he government makes you wait for weeks or even months to 'process' the background check

Which is infringement

we already have background checks unless it's a private sale.
If they opened NICS to civilians I'd use it when/ if I were doing a private sale, but it isn't.

Nope. To be honest, I think convicted felons should only be prohibited from possessing weapons for five years after their supervision has ended so long as they do not have another conviction in the meantime. Maybe bump that up to ten years if a weapon or physical violence was used in the original crime.

3 days and its not an infringement

>hey buddy you can't buy guns until they determine you meet the governments arbitrary thresholds for firearm ownership
>hey buddy you have a right to bear arms, and it says here that it shall not be infringed (unless you are a convicted felon at which time the state may enslave you and take your property and your rights at their discretion) so any hinderance put upon you to exercise your rights is an infringement.

If you're a criminal, insane, or a terrorist you should be in prison. If you're a free man, you should be trusted with the same rights as anyone else.

I'm not. I'm not even opposed to checks on private sales. But if I'm cleared I want full auto. Definitely no touchy my semi auto sport rifles.

>arbitrary

?

>that picture
Now do a third map with the non-white population density.

The opininion of a leaf means nothing to an American. Your whole country does almost as much as Texas alone

3 seconds is an infringement
Where does it say 'the government can make you wait to buy a gun'
And background checks like liberals are proposing would take weeks or months, like in other countries

who says its the government making you wait

Bullshit and unenforceable without a national registry on private sales.

It's the white man's stop and frisk. If shitlibs think that stop and frisk is unnecessarily discriminatory and doesn't solve crime, why do they think background checks will save lives from shootings, when most shootings happen in gang territories?

>you're part of an SPLC-defined "hate group"?
>you recently traveled to the wrong country?
>you bought fertilizer for your garden at the same time as you bought pipes for plumbing?

>no guns for you lol

Mandatory waiting periods constitute three days of infringement.

Lets say you were wrongfully accused of a crime and arrested. You know you're innocent, you have an unassailable alibi and clear evidence proving that you couldn't have committed the crime, you even have Shmuel Bloomensteinbergfeld on retainer. So you get to the station, you say "I didn't do it, I can prove it, I'd like to talk to my attorney so we can get this straightened out" and instead of allowing you to contact your attorney (which is your right) they hold you for three days.

Would those three days be an infringement of your liberty?

You right hereAnd the university of Berkeley

Why would a gun store delay a purchase?

Well and here we reach an impasse

You want your monopoly on physical power (the government) to come and forcibly confiscate my firearms. I fight you with organizations like the NRA or the TSRA and they beat the brakes off your shit heel Yankee Jew lawyers who work for gun control groups like moms demand action or whatever other limp dick liberal organization that hates guns.

At this point you claim that you're going to force us to give up our guns, but how?

The state won't do it and you certainly can't (because you need guns to take guns lest you get shot) and here we remain, at an impasse. Why don't you just fuck off? You're a fucking pussy. You fear violence to the point that you think laws will protect you from it like children think blankets will protect them from monsters. I got news for you: laws are reactionary. No law stopped someone from being murdered or robbed or poisoned by pollution. Only fear of punishment did that, and if the fear isn't there then laws are disregarded.

i don't think liberals had anything to do with that criteria

read up on it

cite the case

never taken more than 3 days

to comply with the law

Look faggot. If you want them so bad. Come and get them. Shut the fuck up with your bullshit...and come on and get them.

NOT

What mythological world do you live in in that you think an America without guns is attainable?


More to the point:

How does restricting a law abiding person's access to guns make him or her safer when the criminals still have tens if not hundreds of millions of guns?

Do you think the existing guns out there will just disappear within five years?

Do you think the same liberals that want to restrict gun ownership will permit the police going door to door to nogs' homes looking for unregistered guns?

>who says its the government making you wait

>to comply with the law

???

Like I said, 3 seconds is an infringement on constitutional rights

Because background checks already exist in every state. The gun show loophole is a myth.

lol they already try to name whites terrorists just for wanting to keep their rights.

Isn't it know as the University of California (at Berkeley)? Sounds like fake news. . .

and you are wrong

what part don't you understand?

Worry about your own country you stupid fucking faggot.

God, i hate Canada.

Some jurisdictions make you wait 7-14 days.

Cite what case? Generally when someone opens a scenario with "Lets say..." thats an indication that they're presenting a hypothetical in order to make an analogy.

>to comply with the law
If a purchase is delayed in order to comply with the law then the law is creating the delay. Thats the government making you wait, not the gun store. Just because you're threatening a third party with coercive force doesn't mean you're not responsible.

Yeah, and for the purposes of this argument:

>you once told a shrink you had dreams about blowing up your school because you were bullied and he put a ding on your record because he interpreted that to mean you wanted to kill your schoolmates.

This is not the rule of law, this is arbitrary

It's just a shortening of the name

Read : backgroundchecks.com/learningcenter

>what part don't you understand?
The government IS making you wait.

How an I wrong?

>Poll taxes and literacy tests were used to deny regular African Americans the right to vote!
>Background checks for gun purchases will only affect criminals and the mentally ill, goy!

Liberal doublethink in action.

Seriously, I don't understand why it is so difficult for these retards to understand this fact.

Leafs are the worst.

I have a gun. I'm not a criminal.

Suck my cock, leaf.

Fuck Canada

and

the case to support your claim

>law
>coercive force

found the retard

you haven't presented an argument to support your claim

republican doublethink

Pass whatever laws you want. It's not like we have to follow them. If cities can declare themselves to be 'sanctuary cities' from federal immigration laws then states can declare themselves 'sanctuary states' from federal gun laws.

nicsezcheckfbi.gov/
fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

The only people talking about background checks are nogunz faggots that don't have a gun. There's also that stupid journalist that got denied a sale of an AR15 because of a domestic violence charge.

GOOGLE mother fucker. 2.5 million background checks made in the month of November alone.

Go die.

I hate little faggots like you who think three word responses are equivalent to making an argument

Just fuck off

We aren't going to convince you we're right because you're certain:

More guns=more death/injury

And:

More restrictions=more safety

Go believe whatever you want. I'm not giving up my guns and I know more about gun laws and gun science then you could ever desire to understand. I'm going to keep winning this argument in the courts for at least another 20 years.

To be fair, even the most anti-gun and reactionary of my colleagues are unlikely to do that. We're reflexively resistant to reporting requirements because we see them as attacks on our autonomy as clinicians. I have quite a few colleagues who use their judgement and often refuse to make mandated DCFS reports in cases of child abuse, despite there being pretty significant potential consequences, because they don't like breaking confidentiality.

Illinois actually tried to make us report to the Illinois State Police any patients we believed MIGHT be dangerous. Aside from Illinois completely botching implementation (you forget that our opponents are often incompetent), literally nobody but very large hospitals makes those reports. You can't even find a case of someone having their FOID revoked because of a shrink making a potential danger report.

I still don't think we should expand background checks beyond felonies and involuntary convictions, but I think your fear about what shrinks would do is unfounded.

>had mental health counseling
>apply for firearms license
>rcmp calls me and asks about my history
>they literally ask me if I wanna kill myself
>rcmp calls my dad too
>9 fucking months after application it comes in the mail

>buy bolt action rifle
>drive into the wilderness
>forgot hearing protection
>THUNDER followed by EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>tfw permanent hearing damage

Well
HereHereAnd hereYOU have provided no argument, and just said 'no' to all of my points

what court argument

Republicans weren't the ones who came up with poll taxes and literacy tests. That was dixiecrats dummy