I have purchased a half dozen handguns and have had to go through a background check every single time. I have my carry permit which allows me to take the weapon home with me the same day if I pass my background check, otherwise, I would have to wait three days before I would be allowed to take the weapon home.

I think the background check is enough right now, anymore would be getting pretty intrusive. I think they need to close the loopholes so everyone that purchases a weapon needs to go through a background check. Even with private sales, although I don't know how that would be possible to enforce.

One thing I do know is that taking everyone's weapons away would only insure that the bad guys are the only ones that have weapons. There will always be weapons on the black market. I have been asked twice in the last ten or so years by a couple people that I know were bad dudes if I wanted to buy a handgun, I declined, because of the type of people that asked me and knew the guns were more than likely stolen. There is no way to control background checks in those type situations, further adding proof to the adage that only bad people are going to have guns if the government does a mayor buyback.

One of the few times I agree with Mikey...
What I would like to see is:
1) Cities and towns have the right to enforce gun laws within their jurisdictions (city/town limits - urban growth boundary).
2) Citizens within those borders may be restricted in the carrying of firearms such as:
Any firearms outside the home and in transit to a dealer or shooting range must be carried in
a locked case, with ammunition stored separately, both being inaccessible to any people inside
the vehicle.
3) Open carry may be prohibited within their borders, and concealed carry only with registration, background check and training.
4) Violation should be a mandatory 1 year sentence for first offenders, 5 years for a second offense. No parole or time off for good behavior.
5) Outside the boundaries, no restrictions. Out here in the boonies, guns are tools for not only self-protection, but for dealing with predators, and vermin. If we get restricted in these tools, we open ourselves to being prey for criminal trespass and home invasion due to the isolation of homesteads, but we also open ourselves to livestock losses, and an increase in crop losses due to various critters.

In populated areas, firearms outside the home are not good, because of the density of homes and houses. Out here in the countryside, they are a necessity.

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red flag behavior
...felonies

Red flag laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a traitor.

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red flag behavior
...felonies

Red flag laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a traitor.

Sorry woodie, what you're saying about gun rights in Cali is just plain wrong.
I purchased a brand new legal AR-15 to replace the AR-15 I previously owned after finding out that it had been declared illegal by a subsequent law. Thinking I was now legal, I was recently stunned to learn that my newly purchased Colt AR-15 is now also illegal. It seems that I'd missed the deadline for a new law requiring it to be registered online. And even though I'd tried to register it online, the site kept crashing. And I never even knew I'd become a felon if I failed to complete the registration. There's even a lawsuit against Cali, complaining that NOBODY could register their ARs online cuz the site kept crashing. And Cali provided no other way for citizens to register them than online.
Doncha just luv it? Only in Cali, where they make it incredibly difficult for citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Attempt what? Another worthless law that infringes on law abiding citizens so you liberals will feel better about yourself? Did you not read what I said about the study? It's not a gun problem, It's a moral problem. Government cannot legislate morality. More killed every week in Chicago alone with handguns than the Texas mass shooting yet no outrage from the left. Either minorities don't matter to them or they can't score enough political points off of single shootings. Exactly why us 2nd Amendment "nuts" believe there is a slippery slope. We know an "assault weapons" ban won't work. So what's the next logical step by the gun grabbers? Think about it.