After reading this http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=444566 I was thinking about how, in some ways, background checks are an infringement upon the second amendment. 

My first thought was that they should be gotten rid of, and any person that was convicted of a crime that should be bad enough to remove their rights is probably a person that shouldn’t ever be released and be among the public ever again. 

Obvious though, the problem is that the idea of keeping dangerous people in prison for the rest of their lives just makes too much sense and as such, will most likely never happen. 

If we stick to that thought process, but still want to keep firearms out of the hands of felons that shouldn’t have rights, yet somehow should still be allowed to be among the population, then we certainly want some way TO prevent them from owning firearms, but still allow citizens to not have to go through the hassle of being denied a firearm.

This led to an idea on my part that developed after reading a few responses that refered to confirming age to do certain things still, and how that’s not considered an infringement. I thought of a rather simple law that could prevent felons that aren’t fully intent on getting a gun no matter what from getting a gun. 

Why not require an ID to be presented to purchase a gun? Simple as that, no background check, nothing but present the ID, have them look at it, hand over the cash, get the gun. Now, the reason this could work, is by simply adding some mark/symbol on the ID of a convicted felon that would indicate that they are one. The majority of the time, it wouldn’t matter, afterall, you don’t exactly flash your ID to every person you meet, and if it’s just to confirm the persons age, they could easily cover the spot the mark is in if they really don’t want anyone to know, however where it matters, the mark is there and the sale can be denied.

Now, this may lead to people saying things like, “Well that won’t work, they’ll get a fake ID!” Well, my response to that is, straw purchasing. Even with background checks in place, criminals still get guns if they really want them through either illegally purchasing them on the street, having someone else buy the gun for them (Which is illegal already also), stealing them, and other such illegal means. The only people the background checks currently stop are those that really don’t care whether they get it legally or not, don’t realize they’re prohibited for some reason and try to buy, and those that get wrongly denied. 

The criminals that already are prohibited from possession of firearms, but want to get one anyways by any means, WILL get one. The mark on an ID will reduce crime rates just as much as the background checks do (That being almost none) will allow a seller in a private transaction to find out if the person is a prohibited person, as they can easily ask to see the persons ID, and will also prevent false denials on people that AREN’T prohibited, but the background checks may, for various reasons, show ARE prohibited.

I’ve actually had this rifle for a few weeks now, but figured I’ll post it now. 

For all intents and purposes its an AR-15 modeled on the M16A4. Only real major difference between mine and the one in the image is due to state laws, mine doesn’t have the bayonet lug. This is from the website of the same company that made mine. The actual name is a Stag-15. Haven’t had it for long, and haven’t shot it yet, but it can’t be worse then the other .223 rifle I had.

“Don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment, while keeping AK-47’s out of the hands of Criminals!” Hm who said that? Ah yes, Senator Barack Obama, 8/28/2008. About 10:48 Eastern in his speech accepting his nomination as the Democrats presidential candidate. Here’s a few facts.

Fact: It’s illegal to use a firearm in a crime.

Fact: Most people already convicted of a crime, can’t legally own a firearm.

Fact: The AK-47 is no more deadly then most other hunting rifles.

Fact: Firearms used by career criminals aren’t legally purchesed by said criminals.

So with that in mind, this is how I interpret that statement. “We can’t allow people to own AK-47’s or other scary looking assault rifle style guns, because if they have them, they must be criminals!” Heres the thing, plenty of people own AK-47 type guns, I say type, because they aren’t capable of fully automatic fire, the vast majority of the people in this country couldn’t afford a fully automatic weapon if they tried. Now, with all of the above in mind, I ask, why can’t we crack down on the black market providing these guns to criminals? Why can’t we prosecute criminals using firearms in a crime to the fullest extent of the law? Why can’t we make the penalties for their use so bad that a criminal is too afraid of using a gun in a crime that short of a psycho serial killer, no ones got the guts to try it? Why do we need to restrict what guns a law abiding citizen can own? Think about it, if you’re a law abiding citizen, you aren’t going to use a gun in a crime, but if you’re a criminal, you’re not going to care if the law says you can or can’t own a certain type of gun, because you’re already a criminal that breaks the law. Yet the key way most (not all, I know not all of any group thinks the same) democrats choose to keep people ’safe’ from gun violence, is by making it illegal for the law abiding citizens to OWN guns. Making it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend themselves with a gun if their life is at risk.

Ah well….I just hope Obama doesn’t get into the White House, or if he does, he somehow doesn’t manage to actually get laws passed limiting the guns I can own, at least anymore then my state foolishly already does.