Englebert

I appreciate your quip and for most normal topics on this forum this would be a good cagey answer, but I am desperately trying to keep this thread on topic. Please, anyone, articulate what questions should be asked on a background check to prevent criminals from getting guns but not infringe on legal citizens second amendment right. Like I stated in the original post, I have a feeling there won't be much, if any response from the anti-gun side. I still want to give them a chance to respond without getting sidetracked.

The original questions have yet to be answered. So again, what questions should be asked on a background check to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights? And who has the auspicious task of determining what questions are actually asked to determine if one qualifies to exercise their constitutional right? The intent of this topic is to determine what qualifications should be applied to determine if one is qualified to exercise their second amendment rights. By your answer here, I gather that you feel that the current background checks are not sufficiently working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So please expound on this idea and tell us how you think background checks can keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on legal citizens exercising their second amendment rights. And while your at it, please answer these questions. Is a criminal allowed to vote? Does a criminal have to pass a background check to cast a ballot? Does a criminal have to pass a six hour course on how to safely vote (and pay a substantial fee) to exercise their right to vote? And why does the second amendment include the phrase "shall not be infringed" pertaining to the right to bear arms, but not one of the other rights bear this caveat?

I'm more worried about her infection with PLD (Progressive Liberal Disease) than this.

Thanks. I think we might be moving back to the intent of this topic. These questions are for everyone, not just 77. Why does the government need this information? Who decides what questions make up a background check? Should the government require you to also share this information when you register to vote? If current background checks verify that the purchaser has felonies or warrants, should that preclude that purchaser from owning a gun? If a home owner is selling a house, should he have to run a background check on the potential buyer to see if that person has felonies or warrants? Should the gun purchaser also be given this same background check to vote? And lastly, who will get to decide what (more) questions are asked, and who appoints these omnipotent deciders?

What do these background checks entail? That is, what questions are asked now? What questions should be asked? And who gets to decide what questions get asked to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights?

So if background checks are a good idea, what questions should be asked on the background check to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights?

You're exactly right. They have no clue what they're doing but yet feel the need to tell people what to do. I have much respect for some Congressmen. Some need never be allowed to be in charge of anything more than Kindergarten nap time. Some are just corrupt to the bone and need to be in prison. I saw a video a while back in which some anti-gun group (can't remember who) was trying to imitate Diane Feinstein's town hall assault gun presentation. Feinstein had several firearms placed on a pegboard in the background, all ominous looking "assault rifles", while proposing an assault gun ban. This group tried to duplicate her stunt. But someone snuck a hammer onto the pegboard. When the leader of the presentation started speaking, someone stood up in the crowd and hollered, "Which weapon on that pegboard was used in more murders in the last 5 years?" The presenter turned around and saw the hammer. (She apparently knew the stats.) She stumbled and bumbled halfway through a clearly unrehearsed and untruthful answer. It was one of the most comical things I have ever saw. I tried to find the video but to no avail.

This is exactly why we should stand up and say hell no to mandatory background checks.

Thanks for getting us back on topic. His whole premise is flawed. I don't know of anybody voting for Trump because they think Trump will defend the constitution. We are voting for Trump because we know the alternative is a person who will try at all costs to circumvent the constitution. Trump might also, but it is a given that Hillary will.

I agree with you on the type of crime. My main issue is with background checks. We agree that they do no good. But these will be used by anti-gun zealots to deny as many people as possible. If you think Lois Lerner and the IRS targeted people... I can't even imagine the scope that will be employed by the anti-gun nuts to write prohibited language into the background checks. A current Congressman has already proposed banning guns for anyone going through a divorce.

My personal opinion is that you should only be stripped after you are convicted of a crime with the use of a firearm. This would have to be worded very strictly. For example, if a person assaults another person, then it is later shown that the person had a firearm in his possession, this would not constitute the use of a firearm. It must be proven that the firearm was actually used (not necessarily fired) in the crime. And his second amendment rights would be fully restored after completion of sentence. Currently we have a Congressman proposing to strip second amendment rights from anyone that is going through divorce proceedings. I would not object to that Congressman being stripped of his own second amendment rights (also forcibly admitted to an psychological institution and stripped of his U.S. citizenship). So I am flexible.

I agree, so why go through the trouble and cost for something that admittedly does nothing? And I'm curious as to why you think a convicted felon should lose his second amendment right? Should someone that lies to Congress be stripped of their ability of personal protection? And if a convicted person serves his sentence, should he then have his second amendment rights restored?

You're right. I stated my question wrong. Should have been, "why try to ban guns from certain people (i.e. background checks)?" Shouldn't we focus on understanding the real cause of these murders instead of proposing distracting rhetoric that serves only to prohibit lawful gun owners from exercising their second amendment rights? If lack of education and/or poverty is the source of murders, why blame the guns? (This question is aimed directly at Hillary and her anti-gun minions.)

So if the actuate of the murders is not the guns, why ban them?

And another question I would like answered, do you support an assault weapons ban? If yes, please define what an assault weapon is and why these weapons should be banned but not all other firearms.

I'm curious as to why the gun murder rate is substantially higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Rural areas have a higher per capita gun ownership rate, but much lower murder rates. Can't be due to the prevalence of guns. What factors do you attribute to this phenomenon? (This is a question for any and all, not just TxHoops.)

Do you believe mandatory background checks should be applied to all gun purchases? Or any gun purchases? If you answer yes, please articulate what questions should be answered to determine a person's qualification to exercise their second amendment right. Also, please describe why these qualifications will curb gun violence without curbing an individual's right to self protection. And a third part of the question, if you think that a person is unqualified to own a gun, should that person also be unqualified to vote? I have a gut feeling there won't be much response to the latter parts of this question, especially from the anti-gun side. But please make your best attempts.

Although the gun issue might not be a big deal to you, it is to Hillary and a majority of the Democrats. We will have Chicago style gun laws enacted nationally if she wins, backed by a stacked Supreme Court. The baby step (leaps) laws will gradually get tougher and tougher until the average American cannot afford to own a gun. As far as background checks, this is the knife the Democrats will use to grind into the spine of legal gun owners. Cass Sunstein type people will be employed to write stricter and stricter rules on who can pass a background check. There is absolutely no doubt about this. We might not have total confiscation, but only the elites will be able to legally own a gun...in short order. And I'm curious as to if you support strict background checks? If so, what would you think qualifies as adequate limitations on passing one...that is, what questions would you ask an applicant to determine if they are qualified to own a gun? I think I will start a new topic on this.

No, but if he could've he would've...without doubt. He knew the Supreme Court would overturn anything he tried. I bet you are one of those who still deny Democrats are trying to get a single payer healthcare system. They denied it for years and years but now readily admit it. And the one's that opposed and exposed them were called fear mongers. Same old playbook. Deniers have been lying to themselves for years.

If you don't think Hillary is coming for your guns then you are woefully and willfully ignorant of the abundance of evidence showing otherwise. This is exactly why I vote Republican the majority of the time. Far too many Democrats willfully turn a blind eye to what their politicians say explicitly and implicitly. It is really scary. Although Hillary hasn't explicitly said she wants to confiscate guns, it is an easy conclusion to draw. She would love to say it, but she knows it would be political suicide.

Agreed.

This is true for many. But many vote for a D or R based on the fear of what the other party will do. "United we stand" against one party is just as pervasive as loyalty to a party.

I'm going to get on this board and complain regardless of who occupies the office. Whichever gets in, I have no doubt I will be complaining about the size and scope of the federal government.

Probably, but both will be damaging to America.

Where did you find these stats? I have a feeling you're pulling them from your amazing powers of observation while you are hanging out in Vidor, Lumberton and Buna.