Should every gun buyer have to undergo a background check?

L.A. Times 2013/01/11 17:57:13
Add Photos & Videos
Requiring all gun buyers to pass a federal background check could be a key part of a White House plan to combat mass shootings, Vice President Joe Biden indicated as he prepared to present recommendations to the president on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters Thursday, Biden said he had found a "surprising recurrence of suggestions" for "universal background checks" in meetings with interest groups. Background checks are not required in private sales by unlicensed dealers, including transactions at gun shows.

Biden is expected to propose measures that President Obama could institute by executive action, as well as proposed laws, such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

joe biden

Read More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • peter 2013/02/07 17:34:10
    the only people who would objec to this is criminals and who wants them to have guns
  • Tina 2013/01/19 01:57:13
    Why the hell would you say no? Don't answer this because I don't want to know or care.
  • Kronan_1 2013/01/18 03:21:08
    All gun control laws violate the condtitution and illegal. Repeal all bun laws enacted since 1913. All are illegal and violate the Bill of Rights.
  • No Name 2013/01/17 23:57:53
  • betz 2013/01/17 11:20:25
    I thought this was already in place. No? Let me ask this:
    If someone is arrested for jay walking will he/she be prevented from purchasing a gun with the prez's new policy?
  • ProudAmerican 2013/01/17 11:13:41
    As a gun owning Republican, I have no issues with a background check however what worries me is the I have yet to see a detailed explanation of what the checks would entail and what would prevent someone from purchasing a gun.
  • Rdtourist 2013/01/15 19:45:07
    Most gun buyers DO have at least a mini background check under current law. The CCW holders undergo a much more stringent set of Q & A to get that permit, of course these are the non-threat types being attacked by the California Girls,

    Sure, having to have a de facto permit to buy is not that bad, after all, it is already in effect on any FFl gun purchase in fact already. To purchase of a gun in a dealer setup, including the vast majority of gun show purchases, the FFL dealers and states have a Q & A to be completed and a delay unless a pre-permit is already in existence. The only gun sales NOT asked these questions are NON-FFL face to face transactions as would be done in you back yard, on the street or in a non-dealer booth at a gun show. FFL dealers almost certainly will NOT sell a non-cleared gun at a show unless the sale is run through the system, their FFL license is at stake in many states and areas. The so called "gun show loophole" simply does not exist as a major source of weapons on the street outside responsible owner's hands.
  • bill.fleming.77 2013/01/15 18:10:30
    this is already in place across the country
  • Robert 2013/01/15 15:26:39 (edited)
    I've had five background checks! This is funny. Remember the discussions about phone taps and the Patriot act. What did right wingers (especially the nut jobs) say "well if you are innocent, what do you have to hide, etc?" Now look.
  • DizziNY 2013/01/15 13:41:39
  • bigfoot DizziNY 2013/01/15 19:38:14 (edited)
    You're the same Patriots,who don't believe your mothers,daughters and sisters are capable of making decisions about their own bodies.And the same Patriots,who believe in hanging and the electric chair.The same Patriots,who are willing to destroy the American/World economies to institute their failed Conservative policies.The same Patriots,who initiate wars and then forget about the vets.The same Patriots,that place ownership of a weapon above the lives of helpless children.The same Patriots that belong to the NRA,that just made available an App for 4 year olds on up to practice target shooting.A real Tyrant would place all of you Patriots against the wall and shoot you.Why? For being Ignorant and Stupid.There is no way in hell,you Patriots have the mental ability to read the Constitution and interprete its meaning.
  • tom.grove 2013/01/15 13:30:59
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    Background checks, drugs tests, prohibitive costs of arms and bullets, & waiting times are all examples of specific federal infringements on the unalienable right to bear arms.

    The 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government; it was not extended to the States unless specified. States CAN make laws that infringe on this right. Just like States used to have "state" religions! (Illegal ruling by the SCOTUS (expanded the scope of the amendments) was used to stop that; but don't dare try to apply it consistently to the rest of the amendments because abortion and waiting times then become unconstitutional)
  • BIGNEVERMO tom.grove 2013/01/15 20:15:08
    Sorry but the SCOTUS doesnt make "illegal" rulings...like it or not they are very much part of the Constitution and they have their place...they have ruled that your right to bears arms is not infringed with restrictions...you can have arms...just not unrestricted arms...You love the Constitution right? Well then you have to "love" the Supreme Court! They get to decide what is an infringement...not you or I...the SCOTUS has already ruled that handguns will not be banned...DC vs Heller 2008...so in conclusion...it is your right to bear arms...just not a right to any arm you want...
  • tom.grove BIGNEVERMO 2013/01/15 20:56:32 (edited)
    1) The SCOTUS cannot legitimately expand or reduce the scope of the powers of the Constitution; nor can they grant or revoke unalienable rights; nor can they prohibit the States from exercising their authorized powers.
    2) If I can't keep & bear any arm that I deem necessary for my security; then my right to bear is infringed.

    For example, as a law-abiding citizen you have the right to enter your home without infringement (you can choose which door to enter and the circumstances surrounding your entry). What if the government dictated that you could only use 1 entrance, blow in a breathalizer, and wait 10 minutes before entering...is that an infringement on your right to enter your home?
  • DavidK 2013/01/15 13:08:35 (edited)
    It still won't stop the killing of innocent people. Millions of guns were given away by Obama with his "Fast & Ferious" program.
  • Rdtourist DavidK 2013/01/15 19:47:52
    Not MILLIONS for sure, but SOME were introduced by that weird attempt as a byback scam on the bandits.
  • Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning 2013/01/15 12:51:11
    Where's the background check on Obama?
  • DavidK Flash,a... 2013/01/16 06:22:41
    Great point!
  • betz Flash,a... 2013/01/17 11:18:16
    Good one Flash.
  • Moodybloo70 2013/01/15 11:55:26
    But it still depends on how to use it.
  • Timetraveler 2013/01/15 11:15:40 (edited)
    This is the only gun control law that would make sense. though I believe less not more government control is always the best solution.
  • DizziNY Timetra... 2013/01/15 13:46:56 (edited)
    Regulate sales of hammers:


    ADD TOBACCO, alcohol, cars, doctors, bats, knives to the list too.

  • Carlo DizziNY 2013/01/15 14:22:31
    I was a carpenter for many years and have a huge assortment of hammers. Do you think in trying to stay above board and honest on my background check, the hammers should be mentioned? lol
  • ruthann.anderson2 2013/01/15 10:50:21
    It should be a requirement, hell they do a backround check on you BEFORE you're hired for a job!
  • DizziNY ruthann... 2013/01/15 13:45:13
    So let me get this straight, treat law abiding citizens as if they are criminals and the criminals who don't follow the law buy their guns off the streets. So, if a law abiding citizen with no criminal history has let's say a DUI from 30 years ago he/she will not be able to get a gun. Also, then the papers can post their address in the newspapers so the criminals will know who has guns. They already posted Cops addresses and you don't think the criminals they jailed will go after them when they get out? Grow up man really.

    No law abiding citizen should be subjected to being treated like a criminal.
  • Revolution 2012 2013/01/15 07:45:45
    Revolution 2012
    This is something I actually agree with....to an extent. I do not agree with gun registration - I see it as a method of gun control that can be used to track and restrict users and their gun ownership. However, anonymous background checks (where the buyer is checked for criminal or mental problems, afterwards having their data erased) would be an excellent way for instances like the Sandy Hook shooting to be better prevented without jeopardizing a person's right to privacy.
  • Carlo Revolut... 2013/01/15 14:43:30 (edited)
    Thing is the whole reason for this discussion is the massacres. Unless everything possible is investigated into these events to know that "the" quite bizarre circumstances surrounding these events, were in no way influenced by any third party interest; which we all know will never occur.
    What I think will happen is exactly what you mentioned to the invasion of privacy.
    Of course this will be a first step and the step they have been wanting for a great many years. It will make the second step much easier, then the third and so on.

    Eventually they will take the guns away and the people will give them up with little protest. Oh I may sound like a nut now, but the gradual implementation of a complete ban, can and will only occur if these methods are continued. Currently it would be impossible and would probably start a revolution. History will prove this right when it comes to these issues of great importance.

    9/11 is a perfect example of this gradual change. Why would these tried and true methods of a great success be abandoned? Only fools would change the methods to all this madness when it comes to dealing with guns, being in politics and considering life long career's on capital hill combined. Mark my words!
  • bill.fl... Carlo 2013/01/15 18:15:18
    You are 1000% correct. Anti gun people are simple fools thinking it is just about preventing evil massacres. Ass wipe is going to ban Assault Rifles with EO's tomorrow at noon EST. The only date that is worse was November 6th 2012 the day that will mark the beginning to the end of our beloved Republic.
  • BIGNEVERMO bill.fl... 2013/01/15 20:20:54
    better move now then! He may get some resistance from other parts of the government if he EO's a hard line order...
    dont you have the date wrong...wasnt Obama supposed to destroy this country already? Oh thats right...GDP up...unemployment down...yeah he sure is destroying us aint he! :)
  • bill.fl... BIGNEVERMO 2013/01/15 20:24:13
    He is but I see that you do not think for yourself. Perhaps you will in time but it will be too late then.

    Anyone that believes that unemployment number is living in a fantasyland.
  • Jerimia 2013/01/15 07:13:59
    Depends on how that statement is meant. If it is a police officer, CCW holder, Military officer, FFL holder, then no. They have already gone through a much more thorough check than what a gun buyer goes through. Since that is the case, their license or identification should be all that is needed. (As it is now.) For that matter, since each has already gone through the FEDERAL background check, they should be able to order firearms online, just as a dealer does. (Military officers already have that right also.)

    Now come the problem of sales between private citizens. The constitution states that a person has to be secure in his own property and can do with it as he wishes. Now, IF he sells it to a know convict or prohibited person, he already is guilty of a federal crime. So IF he sells to a prohibited person, he is liable for that persons actions, both civilly and criminally.

    We do need to make people more aware of this fact and hold people to the laws that are already in effect, instead of creating more laws that will be ignored, plea bargained off, or used to persecute an honest citizen who makes a simple mistake.
  • urwutuis 2013/01/15 06:19:58
    We should just have them at 7-11 or maybe give them as a gift when you open a bank account
  • Carlo 2013/01/15 05:49:20
    Just ammunition over one bullet. That's when it starts to get serious. lol
  • R.L.Dickerson 2013/01/15 03:46:30
    It's not the gun, its the person behind the trigger. Restrict access to guns for people that are deemed unstable. The liberal left cannot move forward with their hidden agenda while Americans are armed.
  • BigFig#9 R.L.Dic... 2013/01/15 05:07:57
    How are you going to restrict access to guns for people that are unstable without a background check.? Not trying to be a troll here but you answered 'no' and then provided rationale for 'yes'?
  • Edie 2013/01/15 02:55:50
    I underwent a background check for my job a number of years ago I had to have a security clearance. It was a breeze since I had tried to do the right thing certainly never had an arrest or even a speeding ticket. This paid off for me in many ways very easy to fall asleep at night. I was taught to shoot a weapon, trained by a professional still go to the range.
  • Nichole 2013/01/15 01:55:09
    I would like to know why 33 % of people don't think a background check should be an obligation before buying a gun........?
  • cheshirewayne 2013/01/15 01:19:45
    Already do.
  • kurtis morin 2013/01/15 00:49:54
    kurtis morin
    All 50 states have a back ground check when buying with a ffd and a handgun privately.
  • harley oldman 2013/01/15 00:23:16
    harley oldman
    YEP......Just like CCP holders.........!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 32 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/13 17:24:47

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals