They pretty much did in the 1950s, didn’t work out to well.

Dave,

I don’t exactly see why that would matter, I don’t think the FBI needs to relay the background information, a simple yes or no would suffice.

And 5 minutes after this instant background check is available on the internet, more people will be using it for running checks on their boyfriend/girlfriend/blind date/creepy friend of a friend/neighbor than will be using it for it’s original purpose.

I oppose some of those, such as licenses to speak. taxing a right seems lame

I’m mostly indifferent on background checks but oppose them to the extent they can be abused (i.e., see California). But such checks will have minimal (if any) impact on crime.

Fair enough, and inciting a riot is one of the restrictions to free speech we already endure. There are limits (some reasonable, some not) to many of our “rights”. There is a limit to speech in the form of obscenity, there is a limit to peaceable assembly in the form of requirements to obtain permits to march, there are limits to the press in the form of FCC restrictions.

Instant background checks, and some other gun control measures, are reasonable to ensure that the wrong guns don’t get into the wrong peoples hands. Does it still happen regardless? Sure, but does that mean we should make it easier for them? The right to keep and bear arms may very well be inalienable, but the right to sell and transfer them is not.

All rights are dangerous which is why they’re under attack.

Well, the next time someone’s brain explodes from the “n-word,” I’ll consider your comment…until then, the two are not comparable.

Before you exercise your First Amendment right to free speech, I believe you should have to go through these procedures:

(1) Fill out and sign a form under threat of perjury and 10 years in prison and $100,000 dollar fine. This form (call it 4473s) will ask a bunch of invasive questions that are none of the States business.

(2) Submit to a criminal background check. In some states having the privilege of paying for it.

(3) Leave two thumb prints.

(4) Have said transaction registered, depending upon state of residence.

(*) Possibly more hoops to jump through depending on the state of residence like: obtain a license to speak first(going through more hoops to obtain), wait 10 days, etc.

It would certainly cut down on hate speech, fomenting revolutionary thoughts against Nanny State, and generally uncomfortable, rude and obnoxious speech. Like calling you a nappy headed asshat.

That’s what one goes through RIGHT NOW when buying thru an FFL to exercise ones so called Second Amendment right. If the Second is treated with so much disrespect, it’s time to start trampling on the other rights. Beginning with the First.

The Second is no longer an “inalienable” right. So why should the first be? Prostrate yourself before Nanny and beg permission to speak Mr. Jackass.

Where, then, would this law-abiding person go to perform a background check?

he or she should have to go through the same check to buy it from some random dude off the street.

How would you enforce that? Like most gun control proposals, it would only impact the law-abiding. And that’s largely useless with respect to stopping crime.