I don't think a SSN is currently mandatory to perform a background check. It's optional but recommended because names aren't necessarily 100% unique.
My Buddy in the Marines Posted this - Guns
- Thread starter sirdingydang
- Start date
You are correct, but if you have a common name and you don't include it on the form 4473 you will more than likely encounter a problem.
I don't have a common name and included my SSN and have still had problems in the past. When that crap happens, you typically have to try again in a couple weeks to see if the problem has been resolved. The current background check system is not even close to being perfect.
Yea- that’s totally foolproof. No major company has ever been hacked that requires SSN!
Lol!
Oh by the way- you want to pass out your SSN to a stranger private seller for this? REALLY?
85, i dont think ninja was suggesting that any info would be stored. i dont think he was suggesting that the program would output any kind of personal info, but more of a pass/fail. i dont think they necessarily need a ssn, but im sure they could figure something out.
would a system like that be ok? i would certainly like to see something like that if i wanted to sell my guns.
would a system like that be ok? i would certainly like to see something like that if i wanted to sell my guns.
Where did I say it would be totally foolproof? It's definitely not, nor is it perfect, but it is a way to mitigate the problem of felons obtaining weapons. The current system isn't perfect either, as evidenced by fab's and many others experiences.
And of course you would not give your SSN to a stranger, you would input it into the online ATF form 4473 or whatever they come up with.
And nothing on that political or rant about having the Sheriff Dept to do their basic job (i.e. f/u on the 39 calls to the shooters home or the 2 VERY soecific leads the FBI got with the shooters name and even his intent).
Let alone Parkland's own reluctance to press charges for violent acts caused by their students in past years.
IF ANY of the above were done,Parkland shooting never would have happened.
PS. I like the FL Gov idea of a one phone number/app to report concerns like this since all of the various LEO's dropped the ball so badly in this case.
So you don't think ANYTHING needs to change with our current gun laws? Can there not be an issue with how the police handled it and with our gun laws?
Walk and chew gum. Why can't Libs chew gum and easily fix the broken process by Broward County Sheriff and FBI? Heck, Libs would r even DISCUSS it because it embarrassed one of their own I'll.
Nothing wrong with also improving data base background check to ensure unstable person's don't get their hand on weapons and or if they want to raise legal age for rifles to 21.
dicks basically stopped selling them after sandy hook. they are overpriced and didnt sell well. this is them just pulling them from their field and stream stores.
In English, please.
Why is it the "libs" fault the FBI screwed up?
The Broward's Sheriff messed up but it wasn't because it's he's a liberal. How do you not get that? It has nothing to do with his political affiliation and has to do with HIM as a person.
When did KL say he screwed up because he was liberal? Or that liberals caused the FBI to screw up?
These are definitely the kind of common sense reforms I could get behind, and I think most Americans would, as well. Sure, they don't go far enough for some and go way too far for others, but that makes them perfect for meaningful compromise.
I would modify your suggestion to not prohibit private sales; it seems wrong to not be able to do with your own possessions what you would like to do. I'd simply just apply the same universal background check to private transfers.
I would modify your suggestion to not prohibit private sales; it seems wrong to not be able to do with your own possessions what you would like to do. I'd simply just apply the same universal background check to private transfers.
We have current gun laws- tons and tons of them. They mean absolutely nothing if we don’t have law enforcement or government officials competent enough to actually enforce them, or use the data that is given to them.
Such as, everyone who ever met this asshole telling them that he’s a ticking time bomb and having them do nothing.
A cretin and his son were just arrested in Tampa for armed carjacking. The asshole has 22 fuking felonies to his name- yet he’s on the streets! Not behind bars. It’s illegal for him to buy a firearm yet he was armed to the teeth with illegal weapons.
The overlwhelnjng majority of gun homicides in this country are at the hands of idiots like this, not mass shooters. It’s time for our judicial system to stop being a joke and get these losers off the streets for good.
What would happen if they said they were no longer selling to women or Muslims?
I don't disagree with you but just because there are issues with our justice system doesn't mean there can't be issues with or gun laws too. There's tons and tons of laws on everything - doesn't mean they don't need to keep changing with the times.
Law enforcement messed up in this case - big time. There's tons of other cases where they didn't though - you're latching on to one incident that fits your narrative (sounds familiar to something you keep whining about?).
Someone with 22 felonies should absolutely not be on the street, just like someone who was just selling pot shouldn't be in jail.
It's Law Enforcement this time. It's been family the other times. There has ALWAYS been a network of warning signs coming out about these terrorists and madmen that goes utterly unrecognized and unaddressed before they're in the news. The only one that seems to be totally out of the blue is the Vegas terrorist.
The difference is that it's quite literally the JOB of Law Enforcement to stop things like this when they have a mountain of evidence that it's just a matter of time. If the law needs to change to make it easier for LE to intervene when there is **documented** proof that someone is headed for a mass shooting, then fine- do it.
As to your last comment- meh. Comparing a lifetime violent felon to drug laws is not really relevant. Plus, unless you're pushing huge amounts of weed, I would challenge you to find me these people sitting in jail purely from selling weed. Or using it. This idea that tons of people are locked up merely for weed is a total documented myth and lie. There's people in jail for 10 serious reasons, 1 of which was possession of weed. But it's not THE reason.
By the way, if you ever wonder why conservatives and anyone who recognizes the 2nd Amendment doesn't trust liberals on guns, see the below new YouGov survey numbers.
"Nobody is coming for you guns!". Nonsense. This is a line they use to push gun control, but for half of them at least, deep down want full on confiscation and a total firearm ban.
Mind you this question has nothing to do with AR15's or even semi-automatic guns. The questions is should we ban ALL guns.
And 50% of Democrats agree!
"Nobody is coming for you guns!". Nonsense. This is a line they use to push gun control, but for half of them at least, deep down want full on confiscation and a total firearm ban.
Mind you this question has nothing to do with AR15's or even semi-automatic guns. The questions is should we ban ALL guns.
And 50% of Democrats agree!
Democrats: 44% of Democrats favor banning all guns and 46% oppose it. Neither side gets to 50% but the closest is Oppose bunch with 46%.By the way, if you ever wonder why conservatives and anyone who recognizes the 2nd Amendment doesn't trust liberals on guns, see the below new YouGov survey numbers.
"Nobody is coming for you guns!". Nonsense. This is a line they use to push gun control, but for half of them at least, deep down want full on confiscation and a total firearm ban.
Mind you this question has nothing to do with AR15's or even semi-automatic guns. The questions is should we ban ALL guns.
And 50% of Democrats agree!
Independent: 65% oppose banning all guns.
Your poll and your statement don't make sense.
What about gun ownership trusts?
One of the alleged "loophole" arguments is "trusts," even though guns from trusts are virtually never used in crimes.
I don't like the idea of governments being able to track the whereabouts of every single gun in every single home. I think trusts, including for registered militias, should always be allowed. I like the idea of organized militias who are jointly responsible, among many people, for the security of firearms, operating under a trust.
The US media has failed to recognize that private ownership and private militias are a serious deterrent against both organized crime and when society breaks down in a disaster area. The worst thing I've seen in my life ... is a woman (who I later found out was raped earlier) walk up to a private militia, not able to find any police.
I never want to see that again in my life. I puked when I found out.
This already exists, despite the US media's insistence it does not.
The problem is that the NCIC has faulty information, which is why the NICS has many false negatives (not even looking at the false positives).
If the Democrats would stop trying to change the law every time NCIC/NICS funding comes up, we could improve it.
But just like with "Bump Stocks," the Democrats wrote the bill so it outlawed all semi-automatic weapons every invented.
I'm for this, but I don't see the pro-"gun safety" states allowing it, even though it makes sense. And even if it passes, I see the pro-"gun safety" states ignoring it.
This is the same problem with the federal transport law.
Many active military have had theirs confiscated in DC, New York, New England and other states and areas. And the police in these confiscation-heavy states are notorious for either losing or selling off the firearms before due process can be completed, and the legally transported firearms are returned.
Define "spousal abusers?"
That's the problem. Everyone who has had an argument is going to get flagged. They've done it in California and elsewhere, even though it's later been ruled Unconstitutional.
Just like with the definitions for "mental illness."
Yep. Many of the mass shooters were NICS false negatives. The NCIC system is really bad right now.
Because the NICS is broken, badly. It relies on NCIC and other information that is not well maintained. Every time funding comes up for the NCIC/NICS systems at the FBI, the "Progressives" sack it with pro-"gun safety" crap, including all sorts of "adding information."
No, fix the existing system.
Almost everyone in law enforcement is tired of the Brady Foundation pushing them to track even more information, information the Brady Foundation agreed it would never ask to be added and tracked, when the Brady Bill was passed.
Especially when the existing system has incorrect information!
It's bad enough that "false positives" cause people to not be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. But it's the "false negatives" that are causing the alleged "loopholes" like the Church shooter, among others.
He sure sounds like a US Mainstream Media rhetoric spewing Progressive.
BTW, I respect true Liberals, even anti-gun ones. But they are pretty much extinct these days, because it's political suicide. Harry Reid was the last of the pro-2nd Amendment Democrats, and had to conform to the Progressive agenda.
Liberals are no longer invited to the gun debate, or much of anything else ... including calling people 'racist' when it's just a matter of free speech over position (not remotely any classification of people).
Last edited:
That's pretty scary. Not just 'gun control' but the total elimination of the 2nd Amendment altogether.
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: ESPN opts out of MLB Contract option for 2026-2028- Latest: OmniKnight
