Maybe they are listening. I feel it is up to the individual state to set their standards for background checks, not the federal government. I have purchased firearms and had a background check performed, I have no problem with that.
The federal government can't adequately manage what they have on their plate as it is.

Well I read the study and what exactly do you think people are going to say when asked such an ambiguous question as do you support STRONGER background checks? What does that even mean? Or expanded background checks? Defining what STRONGER and EXPANDED means would be really helpful in determining the validity of the poll of 500 voters in Tennessee. No one is opposed to background checks and there are plenty of background checks in place.

The use of the Sandy Hook tragedy is a little disingenuous in making the case for "stronger" or expanded background checks. The shooter didn't purchase the guns used in the murders. He stole them from his mother (after he murdered her) who purchased them legally and she passed all the background checks in place. It doesn't appear as though the son could've passed the current background checks due to his history. So expanded or stronger background checks wouldn't have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. Creating more laws isn't the answer and to try and use a tragedy to force an agenda is wrong. I'd say as wrong as knowingly allowing guns to be sold illegally to Mexicans but hey that's another issue.

What people are asking for is for our legislators to do what we want the citizens want them to and not the lobbyists. We want it to be difficult for a convicted felon to buy a weapon. For now all he has to do is attend a gun show. We want it to be difficult for a domestic abuser to buy a weapon. We want it difficult for the mentally ill to buy a weapon. The only people who have to go through background checks are those of us who buy our weapons from brick and mortar dealers who pay taxes in our communities.

I'm a gun owner and former sportsman, and I have no problem with the background checks. Of course, I have all the guns I need! Well, maybe one or two more!

I don't mind that they are registered either. If I get wind of a confiscation by the gov'ment, I'll hid them deep!

My stand is that I have never done anything wrong, and don't plan on ever doing anything wrong, so bring on the checks and the DNA database!

Mushy

I like that Mushy! I have my rifles and guns and a couple handed down from my father. I'm pretty good with then too. Taught my children.

Couldn't someone fail the check without ever doing anything wrong?

For example, isn't one of the questions on the background check something like "Have you ever been indicted for a crime punishable by more than one year?"

Indicted, not convicted.

-- OneTahiti

And there's an appeal process:

If a buyer believes that the denial is erroneous based on a match to a record returned by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the buyer may appeal the decision, by either challenging the accuracy of the record used in the evaluation of the denial or claiming that the record used as basis for the denial is invalid or does not pertain to the buyer.[2] The provisions for appeals are outlined in the NICS Regulations at Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.10, and Subsection 103 (f) and (g) and Section 104 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

This is all good but it side steps the argument being made that we shouldn't have background checks because someone might be incorrectly denied a weapon. This is the same thing as saying we should open the prisons and let everyone out because someone in there might be falsely convicted.

I was responding to Mushy and to your agreement with him: "My stand is that I have never done anything wrong, and don't plan on ever doing anything wrong, so bring on the checks and the DNA database!"

My point is that you don't have to do anything wrong to not pass the check.

-- OneTahiti