Above and beyond that, I need to PROVE I'm not a criminal despite our "innocent until proven guilty" legal system.
So you think that checks to see if a criminal is purchasing guns is wrong? Give this person a break! What about the criminal who hits the streets after having committed armed robbery -- guess according to you he should be allowed to go out the prison gate and go buy another gun. What world are you living in?
The need to renew the ban is clear. There is no need for military style, semiautomatic weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Equally clear is the need to strengthen the ban. Almost immediately after the law's passage in 1994, the gun industry began evading it, manufacturing "sporterized" weapons just as deadly as their banned counterparts: UZIs, MAC-10s, AK-47s, AR-15s, and others. The Bushmaster assault rifle used in the Washington, DC-area sniper shootings is just one example of a "sporterized", post-ban assault rifle used to kill and maim.
A new analysis of FBI data has found that from 1998 through 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. At the same time, terrorist training manuals found in Afghanistan and available on web sites around the world urge terrorists to come to the United States, obtain assault weapons, and then learn how to use them against us.
Found the above on a website -- if true about the number of Law Enforcement slain with assault weapons, then I have even a bigger trouble with the gun industry and gun lobby. As a matter of fact, after your attack on me and your saying that criminal background checks at least for you should not be conducted, I am now on the side of the folks who only believe that rifles, shotguns, and handguns should be in the hands of citizens. Your defense of no criminal background checks sent a shiver up my spine as I have a close relative in law enforcement.