[JudyinCanada]

Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?

So what check would have stopped this little pervert from getting a gun, seeing as the school district, as a matter of policy, did not report his crime of bringing ammunition onto school grounds in a backpack and as a matter of policy would not have reported any other crime he committed?

[Lurkinanloomin]

There is nothing wrong with correcting deficiencies of the current process such as making sure the military passes along disqualifying data to the FBI, such as allowed the Texas church shooter to get a gun.

What they are really after is outlawing private sales.
They want to make it illegal for me to sell to family, friends, neighbors, etc.
They want to force all sales of firearms through FFL’s so that they have a paper trail on each weapon which eventually gives them a de facto registry.

[Alberta's Child]

A background check is useless if the subject’s medical records are confidential under Federal law.

[Freedom_2_ADM]

More gun control will do nothing to solve this problem.

Stop Gun Free Zones; allow CCW permit holders to carry to include teachers who are willing.

A good guy with a gun is the only true fix.

Then follow laws on those being treated for mental heath to be listed by law enforcement in NICS instant check.

[grobdriver]

what is wrong with tougher background checks?

Define "tougher".

You're already checked for felonies, drug use, dishonorable discharge, etc, etc.

Have you ever filled out a form 4473?

[Charles Martel]

Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?

The problem is at the "other end" - reporting in by the various courts and mental health care providers is a cumbersome process. If the disqualifying info isn't there in the system to find, it doesn't matter how "tough" the background check is.

[from occupied ga]

Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?

When you have a background check of any sort, then you are requiring that the federal government grant you permission to purchase a firearm.

If you have to ask permission to do something it is no longer a right; it is a privilege, and privileges can be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason at all. You don't have to ask permission to exercise a right.

The framers of the constitution didn't say the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those whom the government approves of. they said the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Drew68]

Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?

You won't get eviscerated from me and I keep several firearms, including so-called "assault weapons" in my home.

Eventually the public is going to demand that there be a mechanism in place to keep mentally/emotionally unstable people from buying firearms other than waiting until they're either a felon or adjudicated mentally ill.

It's going to happen. Even gun-owners are growing tired of life's losers buying a $500 AR-15 and leaving a trail of dead schoolchildren.

[DivineMomentsOfTruth]

Nothing.. except Leftists Always take a good idea and turn it into a Commie/Fascist Agenda. They will make it more difficult for the good guys to own guns and easier for the bad guys to circumvent the law.

[SecAmndmt]

Background checks don’t achieve anything except to motivate socialists to ask for yet more gun control.

I don’t support ANY background checks at all. If someone is too dangerous for a gun, they are also too dangerous for cars, knives, fists, planes, baseball bats etc.

[familyop]

"Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?"

The system has been used in many cases in the recent past to allow judges and employees in various kinds of offices full discretion to have sane, law abiding veterans and other innocent people without felony convictions or active adjudications of severe mental incompetence barred from possessing weapons with no feasible remedy for legally obtaining weapons again.

The general tactic on the left is one of gathering voter compliance with barring various unpopular subgroups, one after another, until a critical mass of disarmed people will vote against the remainder.

Many political class people fail to realize how many Americans have already been barred from possessing firearms under threat of lengthy prison sentences. Many of the enormous number of people who are forbidden to possess any firearm or ammunition feel cheated by those who can legally posses firearms. Many of those who feel offended do wish to have everyone else barred from owning firearms as a kind of revenge. They welcome newcomers to their bandwagon.

[Oatka]

Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?

No knives out here, just a reasoned response. Any new demand would be touted as "a good first step", with the undeclared last step being confiscation.

As outlined by others, the system works IF the authorities keep the proscribed list up to date, which they didn't do in this and other cases.

Please review the gun buying application we here in the States have to fill out when buying from a licensed dealer and tell us what changes you would make to it to preclude further tragedies like this. (Note that this is an obsolete form (2005) and a change regarding race has been made. Also note that a photo ID must be submitted to the dealer.):

and

Note Section D in the second form. This is why "Universal Background Check" (mandatory for all private, non-FFL sales) is pushed by the liberals. With that info they would know who has what and where they are - must needs for Universal Confiscation.

[rarestia]

what is wrong with tougher background checks?

Have you ever purchased a firearm in the US? The media doesn't portray the process accurately.

[Still Thinking]

Ok, at the risk of being eviscerated because of lack of knowledge, what is wrong with tougher background checks?

Well, I have no idea what Trump means by the term, but when the tyrants use it (ref the imaginary "gun show loophole"), what they mean is background checks for any transfer, whether FFL or say to your own child. And there's nothing to stop them from using it as an illegal gun ownership registry. THEN, throw in the fact that they could make the background checks anonymous and don't, then you see that background checks aren't the real objective. Besides, when does a liberal EVER want something for the reason he says he wants it? (Talking Dens here and not necessarily Trump)

Short answer, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Unless it's physically impossible for them to use a new power to enable tyranny, that's what is for, no matter what they say.