Background Check Fails in Senate

[Medius]

[Professor]

[Professor]

I think that background checks are good as they stand.

However, they are an impingement on liberty. It is the government performing a virtual "search" without any suspicion that a crime has been, or will be, committed.

[Indy]

Pfffft. A "search." Cmon.

[Professor]

OK, then explain how a background check is different than a search.

[Indy]

You're the one making the claim--you tell us how a background check is a "search."

Even better: the background check from licensed dealers that you have to do now, that's not a problem.

But including unlicensed sellers, online sales, etc... now that's trampling your liberties.

Oooookay.

[spacemonkey]

Whats the criteria for disqualifacation in a bg check? You had a bad day at the office 5 years ago and took a valium, thought you might have a drinking problem so you sought help? Could be any trivial thing once that door is opend. Harsh manditory penalties for misuse of a gun in commiting crime is probably the way to go, exempt from plea deals. Use a gun in a crime = 10 years, no deals. Use of gun in a crime resulting in injury =25 yrs, no deals. Use of a gun in a crime resulting in fatalities = death sentance, no deals.

[Medius]

[exploited]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire point of the Senate to be a check against popular will, as expressed by the House?

Background checks seem sensible enough, but really, there isn't any point in expanding them at this time. I actually don't see a point in trying to expand gun control at all in the US. Ever since the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment was an individual right, there is no legal context in which gun control makes any sort of sense.

[dontworrybehappy]