The illogic of universal background checks.


PDA






Leanwolf
January 19, 2013, 02:06 AM
The premise of the reason for mandatory Universal Background Checks (UBGC) for all private purchases, sales, transfers, or gifts of firearms by private citizens in the United States, commonly known as "face-to-face" sales, is to stop criminals or undesirables from obtaining firearms.

Without, however, the mandatory registration by the Government of each and every firearm already owned by each and every citizen in the United States, there would be absolutely no way for the Government to know if private citizens were circumventing the law by selling/transferring firearms face-to-face they owned previous to the new Universal Background Check Law.

For example: I own a firearm that I bought 20 years ago, from my now dead friend. I haven't the faintest idea where he bought it originally, nor do I care. But, today, a friend of mine, Joe, wants to buy it and I no longer want it. Or perhaps I just need the money.

Neither of us lives even remotely close to a gun store to make the transfer if given permission by the Gun Background Check Bureau bureaucrats in D.C. Besides, neither of us believes in obeying such a ridiculous and un-Constitutional law anyway. So, Joe hands me cash, I hand him the gun and a back dated Bill of Sale, showing that Joe bought it long before the UBGC law was signed by the President. No one is wiser of how Joe and I broke the Federal law.

Given that there are somewhere between 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 firearms already in the hands of upward of 80,000,000 citizens, none of the pro-UBGC people here, or anywhere else, have been able to state any kind of logical -- I say again -- logical method of stopping millions of people from breaking the law, exactly as I laid out in my example... unless....

Unless there is Mandatory Universal Registration of each and every firearm in the hands of all citizens in the United States. That would be the only way to track every gun known to exist in the U.S. This would also require the physical viewing of these 250,000,000 ++ guns by the Federal Enforcers to record make, model, caliber, and serial number of each gun for the Government's Gun Data Base.

Perhaps each six months or so, to make absolutely certain the original owner still possessed the gun and had not bootlegged it in the flourishing firearms black market trade, each of the 80,000,000 gun owners would have to show his firearm to the Federal Enforcers to prove he had not sold it illegally. This could be done by having the owner go to the Federal UBGC office, where ever that might be, no matter how distant it might be from the owner's residence. The Federal Enforcers could certify the owner for another six months or so, if all were in proper order, and he could leave with his firearm(s).

Aside from the necessary hundreds of thousands of Federal Registration Enforcers and Federal Universal Background Check Enforcers, there would necessarily have to be extremely harsh punishment for any and all violators of the Laws. Only if the Government made the citizens so frightened, so terror filled, so afraid to not register their guns, or disobey the UBGC, would they reluctantly comply with the Government's dictates. Thousands upon thousands of "examples" of lawbreakers would have to be made by the Government in order to put paralyzing fear into the gun owning citizens.

Of course, to thwart the boot legging of guns in the black market trade, thousands of Federal Snitches would have to be hired by the President. They could travel throughout the country, north, south, east, and west, blanketing the U.S., doing their best to set up gun owners to break the Law, and then rat them out to the Enforcers. This would also help the President with his very large unemployment problem. Also it would magnify and intensify the fear of the citizens of breaking the Registration Law and UBGC Law.

A gun owner would never know if that nice guy he met at the local hardware store last month and came to his church each Sunday, just wanted to buy a gun "under the table," of if he were a Federal Snitch who'd rat him out. Fear is very powerful persuader.

Therefore, without the Mandatory Registration Law of previous and current guns already owned, the Universal Background Check Law would be virtually ineffective, even though new sales and transfers would be monitored.

And of course, it would all work perfectly just as the anti-guns, anti-Constitution crowd has planned. Wouldn't it??

Or would there be unintended consequences ??

If you enjoyed reading about "The illogic of universal background checks." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
medalguy
January 19, 2013, 03:08 AM
Maybe Obama just figured out a way to reduce unemployment. :eek:

armedandsafe
January 19, 2013, 03:31 AM
Biden says the Govt doesn't have time to prosecute form law violations now, so they are going to make more form laws.

Pops

BigN
January 19, 2013, 04:36 AM
Very little they do in DC is connected to logic or rationality so I wouldn't search for those things in any decisions they make.

Onmilo
January 19, 2013, 05:39 AM
TRhese are trhe same people who preach "Common Sense"...

Solo
January 19, 2013, 05:41 AM
They couldn't do anything to stop drugs or illegal immigration. What makes you think the government's going to be able to do it with guns?

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 05:45 AM
If there's one thing the Democrats are good at doing in power, it's taking harmful steps towards statism. They'd just hire more manpower to help assist in keeping track of our guns.

But yeah, very illogical to those with common sense. Quite logical to those who like big government.

beatledog7
January 19, 2013, 09:39 AM
More laws, regulations, and restrictions imposed on citizens → need for more more enforcers → more people on government payroll → more people in some way dependent on government → more coercive power in hands of government → less power in the hands of citizens → fewer people who will vote to rein in government overreach → more reelection security for government overreachers → more laws, regulations, and restrictions imposed on citizens...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

FROGO207
January 19, 2013, 10:28 AM
As has been stated many many times before on this forum----------WHY TRY TO TIE LOGICAL THINKING TO EMOTION. It NEVER HAS and will never work.:banghead: I hope this crap will cause those that were apathetic to see the need to join the good fight. And do it TODAY.:)

Off the soap box.:scrutiny:

Waywatcher
January 19, 2013, 10:42 AM
Background checks wouldn't stop a determined criminal, anymore than a deadbolted door. It is, however, placing barriers between a would-be criminal and what they want. This is a good thing, just like locking your doors is a good thing.

The majority of Americans support these checks; opposing them makes us look unreasonable, and unreasonable people are not taken seriously.

gwsut
January 19, 2013, 11:08 AM
Another thing about private sales having to go through NICS checks; Since all new and used firearms sold by FFL dealers are already recorded and that record is maintained by the FFL holder, now when the private sales are recorded by the FFL holder, the government have access to a database of every firearm sold/owned except for the ones sold through and by the crimial element.
Got any ideas what this batabase could be used for? Can you say confiscation?

FROGO207
January 19, 2013, 11:18 AM
Our state government will be all for the universal background check as this will be a foot in the door for charging state sales tax on the "suggested" retail value of the sold firearm whether new or used each time.:banghead:

danez71
January 19, 2013, 12:13 PM
From the OP


Unless there is Mandatory Universal Registration of each and every firearm in the hands of all citizens in the United States. That would be the only way to track every gun known to exist in the U.S. This would also require the physical viewing of these 250,000,000 ++ guns by the Federal Enforcers to record make, model, caliber, and serial number of each gun for the Government's Gun Data Base.
.....
...
.

So, Joe hands me cash, I hand him the gun and a back dated Bill of Sale, showing that Joe bought it long before the UBGC law was signed by the President. No one is wiser of how Joe and I broke the Federal law.



There have been several threads in regards to this 'not being possible'...'it cant work'.. etc .

Given the valid scenario outlined above, let me ask a question.

Are YOU willing to buy a gun from a stranger at a gun show or from 'craigs list', with-out knowing any history of the seller/gun, and back date a receipt and inherit the the liability of that gun being used in a murder?


Imagine this scenario:

Day 1: All is good.. no 100% univeral back ground checks.

Day 2: Back ground checks for all starts

Day 3: Person A murders someone.

Day 4: Person B buys murder gun from Person A and back date the receipt to Day 1 and just assumed the 1st person of interest of a murder.


Is that what you want to do? Probably not.

To avoid the assumed liability, Person B says, "sure I'll buy the gun... my record is clean so I dont have anything to worry about.. ,lets go to the gun store so I can do the back ground check (and record an accurate date of sale) and I'll buy the gun".

Tracking/defacto registration has begun.


People are mistakenly thinking that registration has to have happened for this to work. Wrong.

This is how registration is beginning.

1911 guy
January 19, 2013, 01:41 PM
Quote:
The majority of Americans support these checks; opposing them makes us look unreasonable, and unreasonable people are not taken seriously.

The majority of Americans polled for these "studies" couldn't find their bunghole with both hands and a map. Claiming support by a group completely ignorant of the topic at hand is disingenuous at best, very misleading and could reasonably be construed as deliberate deception.

Opposing this nonsense only makes us look unreasonable to those who have their heads so far emoved from reality that they remain willingly blind to the facts laid bare by both history and the very owrds coming from the mouths of the anti-gun lobby.

The people most dismissive of us "unreasonable" people are fellow gun owners who are too busy finding ways to be a quisling and fail to realize how seriously the left does take gun owners as a whole.

Kramer Krazy
January 19, 2013, 02:03 PM
I suspect that if they can get a law passed that will specifically address FTF transactions and close the "gunshow loophole", it will not have a registry provision associated with it in order to get it passed, but......once it is passed, Obama will sign an Executive Order for a registry stating that is it necessary to aid in the execution of the FTF/gunshop loophole law that was passed. Therefore, no vote, no arguing, and we are stuck with an EO for a registration where none of us have a representive say in the matter.

No idea if this can actually happen, but I sure woudn't put it past them to try to find a way to have a registry without letting Congress have a say in it.

Romeo 33 Delta
January 19, 2013, 02:37 PM
While I'm NOT suggesting this, I'll offer this for discussion ... there is something gun show prompters could do just to make the libs and media go crazy. I think there may even be some that do this already.

Require that any vendor selling firearms at "X" gun show be required to have a FFL. Afterall, it's THEIR venue and they can set their own rules.

By doing this, the "gun show loophole" goes away. Yes, you still have to deal with FTF sales, but I think that can be another fight for another day.

With that fight, could it be set up so that FTF transfer between people who know eachother are exempt? This would solve the problem with passing down firearms or a neighbor, co-worker, etc.?

AlexanderA
January 19, 2013, 03:38 PM
The assumption of the OP is that a universal background check has to result in an airtight system, hence the idea that universal gun registration has to go along with it. This is not necessarily true. Background checks are a matter of percentages. What is being attempted is the prevention of obviously disqualified people getting guns easily. You don't need registration to have, say, an 80% effective system. As with everything, you have to weigh the benefits against the costs.

bayesian
January 19, 2013, 03:56 PM
I've discovered a flaw in the tax system. If I have people pay me for work that I do in cash, then I can stuff that cash into a mattress and not report it as income. See, the whole system of income tax is entirely and fatally flawed.

The majority of Americans support these checks; opposing them makes us look unreasonable, and unreasonable people are not taken seriously.

to which a reply was :
The majority of Americans polled for these "studies" couldn't find their bunghole with both hands and a map. Claiming support by a group completely ignorant of the topic at hand is disingenuous at best, very misleading and could reasonably be construed as deliberate deception.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this as ignorance. Here's the description of the CBS News/New York Times poll

Just about everyone agrees with the idea about 9 in 10 gun owners favor background checks as do people with no firearms in their home. Independents (95 percent), Democrats (93 percent) and Republicans (89 percent) all support a background check for those trying to buy firearms. No matter where people live: in the South, the Northeast, in big cities, in small towns. Even members of the National Rifle Association favor background checks. Only 7 percent of all adults in the survey, conducted Friday though Tuesday, oppose background checks for prospective gun customers.

If you are one of the 7% opposing this, that's cool, totally your right, and absolutely your right to make a vigorous argument against this, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss 93% of your fellow citizens.

larryh1108
January 19, 2013, 03:59 PM
I am not saying we need a national NICS check but I do wish to point out a few flaws in your thinking. They wish to keep guns out of the hands of as many bad people as possible.

Your original scenario is 100% correct and they'd never find out. However, what if your buddy Joe had a buddy named John who needed the gun and you did not know John. Joe says he is a stand up guy but your instincts tell you he may be a stand up guy but he is no angel. So, you sell your gun and predate the BOS. 6 months from now John uses this gun in a home invasion and is caught with it. To make matters worse, it was discharged and caused injury. John, in a plea bargain, tells them where he got it. You produce your BOS saying it was sold on XX/XX/XX day (lie) and it turns out John was locked up on that day and couldn't have bought it. You just had a very bad day. Was it worth it?

The gun show loophole isn't for barter among friends and family where you know the buyer is clean. It is for a sale to a total stranger who may or may not be lying when you ask if there is any reason he can't own the gun. Gun shows have guys walking the lot with signs sticking out of their rifles. For Sale. An ex-con can easily get the gun with a simple lie. That is what they are attacking but, of course, they are using over kill to do it.

Clean97GTI
January 19, 2013, 04:09 PM
Simple answer is to have the dmv in each state issue ids that say NO FIREARMS on them if the person is disqualified from ownership.
Many states already have requirements that felons carry additional cards/paperwork.

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 04:10 PM
You guys are forgetting: we already have background checks. You can go to any FFL and do a transfer for a FTF sale between yourself and a stranger, and vice versa. It's your choice to either do it or not. Why does this need to change? Two criminals buying/selling guns don't care about an executive order, so why is it I HAVE to be told how I deal as a law abiding citizen when the bad guy doesn't? That makes absolutely no sense, other than FFL holders will see some extra coin.

Now, we are being told that we may not have a choice at all. More guns and their owners under the scope of the Fed. I don't like it, won't like it, and have little to no respect for those that willingly give up their privacy to "make them happy". That's not compromise, that's cowardice.

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 04:11 PM
Simple answer is to have the dmv in each state issue ids that say NO FIREARMS on them if the person is disqualified from ownership.
Many states already have requirements that felons carry additional cards/paperwork.
Other than your ridiculous signature, I agree with your post.

Clean97GTI
January 19, 2013, 04:13 PM
Other than your ridiculous signature, I agree with your post.

Read a bit more about it before you call it ridiculous. You might just find you like it.

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 04:15 PM
Read a bit more about it before you call it ridiculous. You might just find you like it.
Is there sarcasm in it? I hope so, because then its a knee slapper!

Clean97GTI
January 19, 2013, 04:18 PM
Is there sarcasm in it? I hope so, because then its a knee slapper!

Like i said, read more about it. Don't call my philosophy ridiculous just because i like freedom and liberty more than you do.

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 04:18 PM
Like i said, read more about it. Don't call my philosophy ridiculous just because i like freedom and liberty more than you do.
How do you know that?

Edit to Add: Yea, you lost me at left anarchist.

Clean97GTI
January 19, 2013, 04:20 PM
How do you know that?

We are making unfounded declarative statements in this thread.

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 04:25 PM
We are making unfounded declarative statements in this thread.
As stated, keep the left AND the anarchist stuff. However, I do agree that rather than me having to register or report EVERY arm I purchase, I do not have a problem carrying a card that shows proof positive that I'm not a criminal.

But, then we see a surge in fake IDs?

Solo
January 19, 2013, 04:29 PM
I agree that ID cards would be too easily faked. You really would need a database in order to effectively check people.

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 04:41 PM
I agree that ID cards would be too easily faked. You really would need a database in order to effectively check people.
True, but anything can be faked or bought illegally. The ones that suffer having their business known by all are the ones that follow the law.

Finger print data base might work, but to me that's super-invasive.

1911 guy
January 19, 2013, 04:56 PM
Actually, what's ridiculous is someone who claims to hold a philosophy that is based on limited beaurocracy actually clamoring for another government intrusion. That and the whole socialism thing. When you have to come up with cute little bullet points to differentiate yourself from state socialism, well, maybe you're just an old fashioned red.

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 04:59 PM
Actually, what's ridiculous is someone who claims to hold a philosophy that is based on limited beaurocracy actually clamoring for another government intrusion. That and the whole socialism thing. When you have to come up with cute little bullet points to differentiate yourself from state socialism, well, maybe you're just an old fashioned red.
To whom is this directed?

If its me, explain. I'm a blue blood, but I love my country, not its "leaders".

If its Clean...his political views are his business, I'm just funning him. We needn't attack views or posters.

1911 guy
January 19, 2013, 05:10 PM
It is directed squarely at CleanGT1. His views become relevant when he first flaunts socialism as a thing to be admired and then seeks to marginalize and decry those who disagree with him as "unreasonable".

I've stated that everyone has a bias. My bias is coming from a generation that would find it perfectly acceptable to slap someone in the mouth for admitting to being a communist or socialist. And rather than debating the fine points of difference between the two, I'll state the simple difference. Socialism is communism with a smiley face.

Solo
January 19, 2013, 05:12 PM
So you'd slap Orwell or Kalashnikov in the face? :evil:

meanmrmustard
January 19, 2013, 05:15 PM
So you'd slap Orwell or Kalashnikov in the face? :evil:
Orwell, yes.

Kalishnakov? Are you freaking nuts?

1911 guy
January 19, 2013, 05:20 PM
There's a difference there. Comrade Mikhail comes from the same stock. He'd expect you to punch him in the mouth, then he'd punch you (or me) right back for being a capitalist pig. Remember what I said about every has a bias? Orwell, though, would be shocked that you'd take such extreme action to one of such an intellect. In other words, we'd act like a weenie. And often did.

ETA: Misread (actually just a brain fart) and commented on George Orwell completely incorrectly. Eyeball read "Orwell", brain went somewhere else. Leaving mistake here so posts 40 and 41 make sense.

AlexanderA
January 19, 2013, 06:35 PM
In all likelihood, the way this will go down is that all transfers (except within the immediate family) will have to go through an FFL. The reason it will happen this way, rather than a less onerous alternative, is because of the absolute intransigence of the organized gun lobby, which precludes the exploration of other ideas. For example, you could open NICS to private sellers, using a toll-free number or a Web page. The only information that needed to be input would positive ID of the buyer. No information about the gun would be needed. An incentive for sellers to use this system would immunity from civil/criminal responsibility if the gun is later misused. And so on ...

Hoppes Love Potion
January 19, 2013, 06:48 PM
If 93% of people want this, let them amend the 2nd Amendment to say, "shall not be infringed except during every transaction."

Otherwise, no.

1911 guy
January 19, 2013, 06:48 PM
Why would a law prohibiting private sales allow transfer within a family?

I disagree with all restriction except what a seller imposes on himself, but thinking a government mandated background check will exclude transfers from father to son, etc. is naive, in my opinion.

Solo
January 19, 2013, 06:50 PM
Orwell, though, would be shocked that you'd take such extreme action to one of such an intellect. In other words, we'd act like a weenie. And often did.
Huh? (http://www.amazon.com/Homage-Catalonia-George-Orwell/dp/0156421178)

1911 guy
January 19, 2013, 07:08 PM
I had a brain fart. Was doing some other reading and my eyeball took a hard left at George Orwell. As a result, my previous post was a complete mischaracterization of Mr. Orwell. Unintentional, but wrong. Good catch, Solo. The other guy (actually a woman) I was thinking of was a "soft core" socialist. George Orwell was not at all.

Solo
January 19, 2013, 07:30 PM
I had a brain fart. Was doing some other reading and my eyeball took a hard left at George Orwell. As a result, my previous post was a complete mischaracterization of Mr. Orwell. Unintentional, but wrong. Good catch, Solo. The other guy (actually a woman) I was thinking of was a "soft core" socialist. George Orwell was not at all.
Don't worry, it happens to all of us.

k_dawg
January 19, 2013, 09:36 PM
Only if it is a compromise, not a conceed.

Mandate the requirements on the 4473 [ current revision ] be the maximum requirement to own any federally lawful firearm in any State, County or City.
Make it "Shall Issue" with a limit of 3 business days.
Make it "Without fee/charge/tax/etc" to prevent it being a Poll Tax.

That would really help out alot of lawful citizens in DC, Chicago, NYC etc.

leadcounsel
January 19, 2013, 09:41 PM
The mistake is thinking it's based on logic. It's not. It's a tactical slippery slope encroachment on gun rights.

The "loophole" of FTF only exists because of background checks. You could get rid of the "loophole" by eliminating background checks altogether!

Background checks, tightening the noose, making more people "prohibited persons" etc.

The goal is less ownership, less households with guns, etc.

barnbwt
January 19, 2013, 10:11 PM
Our state government will be all for the universal background check as this will be a foot in the door for charging state sales tax on the "suggested" retail value of the sold firearm whether new or used each time.

Now there's an angle I hadn't thought of. Just like a vehicle transfer in many places, you gotta pay tax on the transfered item. Good catch. This ought to turn at least a few cheapskates off the fence :)

TCB

Clean97GTI
January 20, 2013, 02:05 AM
It is directed squarely at CleanGT1. His views become relevant when he first flaunts socialism as a thing to be admired and then seeks to marginalize and decry those who disagree with him as "unreasonable".

I've stated that everyone has a bias. My bias is coming from a generation that would find it perfectly acceptable to slap someone in the mouth for admitting to being a communist or socialist. And rather than debating the fine points of difference between the two, I'll state the simple difference. Socialism is communism with a smiley face.

Would it not have been easier to simply say you don't know the differences between socialism and communism?

Solo
January 20, 2013, 02:35 AM
I wouldn't expect most people to know about libertarian socialism. About the only prominent one I can think of is Noam Chomsky.

gunnutery
January 20, 2013, 02:38 AM
I think as far as the OP's idea of registration and validation by physically witnessing and recording each gun and owner, is only misguided when sometime in between checks, you could have "a terrible boating accident." I'm not saying some sort of registration (or an attempt to register) of guns by all law abiding gun owners isn't in the works, but that's assuming that House Republicans will allow FTF, UBGC to be recorded with serial numbers, make, model, etc.

My wife is very supportive of gun rights, in fact we agree on every issue except this one. I oppose UBGC, for the simple fact that it adds extra travel to FFL, extra cost to pay FFL (whose transfer fees differ GREATLY), and all around inconvenience.

Currently in Iowa, pistol FTF sales require that the buyer have a "permit to buy pistols" witch requires that a background check be done to get the permit. Some private sellers ask that people show a permit to buy pistols when buying rifles and shotguns too, just so they feel better about the buyer.

While I don't completely agree with the permit to buy system, I think it's a nice hands off governmental approach in that they don't care what you go buy after you have the permit, no records other than a privately held bill of sale are kept, but even that isn't a requirement. I guess where I don't really like the thought of the permit system, is that you shouldn't have to get permission to acquire something that you have a right to own. Perhaps I'm getting stuck on the word "permit" but I don't know what else you'd call it.

1911 guy
January 20, 2013, 03:13 AM
Background checks are great, if you choose, as a seller or buyer, to use them. You can make use of a FFL even in a private transaction if you wish to. Claiming that it's inconvenient and a hassle and not worth your extra dollars exposes the hypocrasy that you are willing to cram it down others throats but not front a few bucks to do it on your own (not directed at anyone in particular, but mandatory BGC proponents in general).

When you have mamdatory BGC, how do you go about enforcing it? It will require registration to ensure that no sales or transfers have taken place in violation of the law. Which means further intrusion into your life to inspect your private property for violations.

I use guns as a form of recreation. I was out rabbit hunting this morning. I use guns as a defense of and for my family. I use guns as defense for my self when out and about. I have used guns as a profession, carrying them both in the employ of the U.S. government and a private company. They are nothing more than a tool. A very effective tool and there is a skill that goes into making fine examples that fascinates me. But they are a tool, none the less. It's time we stopped trying to throw one another under the bus and treat the subject rationally. If you wanted to reduce deaths by restricting ownership of an item, guns is way down on the list. So it's time to look at the motivation of the anti-gun crowd and formulate a strategy from there.

As an aside, I do know the difference between socialism and communism. I also know that they end the same way due to human nature. If you removed human nature from the equation, socialism might well be the perfect form of government. But since you cannot do that, it is a failed proposition. Better to deal with the facts as they are before you than what you wish they were. Sort of like the debate on more gun control. In a perfect world it might make a difference. But it isn't, it won't, so I refuse to don the rose colored glasses and sell out.

Solo
January 20, 2013, 03:21 AM
According to Karl Marx, socialism is the step society goes through before reaching communism. The Marxist theory of history states that human society started out from "primitive communism", where we lived in small tribes and all property was communal, and from then advanced onto to a slave society, where classes first started (along with slavery), feudalism, and capitalism. He theorized that society would progress towards socialism, and then finally communism.

The difference between the two is that in socialism, the means of production are publicly owned, and wealth is distributed according to one's amount of work. In communism, the means of production are publicly owned, and wealth is distributed according to one's needs. In addition, socialism is an economic system while communism is an economic and political system. Thus, communist societies use socialist economics, but a socialist country is not necessarily politically communist.

gunnutery
January 20, 2013, 03:24 AM
Background checks are great, if you choose, as a seller or buyer, to use them. You can make use of a FFL even in a private transaction if you wish to. Claiming that it's inconvenient and a hassle and not worth your extra dollars exposes the hypocrasy that you are willing to cram it down others throats but not front a few bucks to do it on your own (not directed at anyone in particular, but mandatory BGC proponents in general).

I know you said this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but I had just stated that I thought UBGC cost more and were an extra inconvenience, and I was not in support of them. I'm not taking it personal, I just don't understand the quoted text.

1911 guy
January 20, 2013, 03:26 AM
Since we're pretty deep in the weeds already, I'll answer. Karl Marx agrees with me. Socialism is just a step toward communism. So I said the same thing as the poster child of the movement. They end the same. Agreed? Or are we going to continue to debate semantics and minutia?

Gunnuttery, you and I are in agreement. I was responding to several who had stated a desire to make BGC mandatory in all cases, not just from an FFL. It wasn't a matter of choosing to use or not, it was a matter of some complaining the extra inconvenience would prevent voluntary use (which it sometimes does) yet mandating that for others.

Solo
January 20, 2013, 03:30 AM
Since we're pretty deep in the weeds already, I'll answer. Karl Marx agrees with me. Socialism is just a step toward communism. So I said the same thing as the poster child of the movement. They end the same. Agreed? Or are we going to continue to debate semantics and minutia?
I wouldn't subscribe to Karl Marx's theory on anything. Not only was he notorious for being wrong, but he also said capitalism was a step towards socialism. :evil:

gunnutery
January 20, 2013, 03:30 AM
I see, thanks for clarifying.

1911 guy
January 20, 2013, 03:32 AM
I'm sitting here and a name popped into my head. Joe McCarthy. I may have to add him to my sig line...

ETA: I'm fine with someone thinking communism or socialism is the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is America where we are supposed to be free to make up our own minds and opinions. Just be aware that freedom of speech cuts both ways. Just as you are free to express your views, I am free to tell you why you're wrong. I'm free to tell you you're misinformed and living in a utopian fantasy land that exists only between your ears. In short, because this is America, every knucklehead with a dumb idea is free to express it. But others are also free to tell him he's a knucklehead.

9MMare
January 20, 2013, 03:34 AM
Is there sarcasm in it? I hope so, because then its a knee slapper!

I dont know what it is, but I do have strong libertarian leanings.

Socialism by anyone but the govt is fine...it's can be a great way to run a small business, medical/dental practice, store, whatever....and anyone can do so now...and many do. Many are called 'co-ops.' That's one type. It's just another business model and can work well, depending on the circumstances. But it is *privately run*.

The issue for most Americans is govt sponsored or run socialized 'services.'

goon
January 20, 2013, 05:12 AM
Y'all can think what you want. I have supported allowing private people to run backgroud checks and checks on all sales for years. If it comes to a point where you need to use your guns for the defense of your country, don't you think your participation on this board and the letters you have written to your legislators will have already drawn attention? This isn't caving in - I think it's a good idea anyhow. I have that right. Write twice as many letters to congress if you think I am wrong.

Lost Sheep
January 20, 2013, 05:24 AM
The premise of the reason for mandatory Universal Background Checks (UBGC) for all private purchases, sales, transfers, or gifts of firearms by private citizens in the United States, commonly known as "face-to-face" sales, is to stop criminals or undesirables from obtaining firearms.

Without, however, the mandatory registration by the Government of each and every firearm already owned by each and every citizen in the United States, there would be absolutely no way for the Government to know if private citizens were circumventing the law by selling/transferring firearms face-to-face they owned previous to the new Universal Background Check Law.


There would not be any need to register any firearms for the intended consequences. Law abiding citizens would not sell guns to unqualified individuals. Those guns already in the hands of criminals will eventually be used in crimes and through the attrition of solving those crimes be removed from the street.

At least that is what I think. I made another thread a few days ago http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=696726 that has me re-thinking some. But right now this is my best thought. You don't have to give ANY INFORMATION to the government. They have to give information to you.

Lost Sheep

texasgun
January 20, 2013, 05:25 AM
I have ZERO issues with background checks for all gun sales/transfers. I'm not talking registration... just running the potential buyers name in the system to see if he / she is prohibited from buying a gun. that's all.

In fact - you can already do it at a dealer of your choice. I have NO interest that my guns will end up at a crime scene and personally do not like "private party" sellers at gun shows who sell multiple guns to anyone with a DL.

Kiln
January 20, 2013, 05:31 AM
Allow me copy a post exactly as I've posted in another thread because I believe that this is the best argument against the new legislation that has been directly influenced by two recent shootings.

Here's what I wrote and you can try to argue against it but you'll be tossing your time into the garbage because these two points are facts:

Lets see how background checks would have stopped either of the last two mass shootings:

1. The man involved in the Aurora theater shooting was not a criminal (prior to the shooting) and therefore background checks wouldn't have stopped him from getting a weapon. Even if the gun he wanted was illegal, he would have simply accomplished his goal through other means. He booby trapped his house with 30+ explosive devices so something tells me that if he hadn't gotten a rifle, he would've just used a backpack full of explosives instead.

2. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. This was done by a man who killed his own mother by shooting her four times in the head and then taking her firearms. There's no way a background check would have changed the outcome of this because the guns were never actually passed to his hands by anyone.

I'm sorry but background checks won't be obeyed by people who are passing guns around under the radar anyways. Magically saying that everyone must now do a background check isn't going to make it actually happen, especially with people who want to do things like the two horrible events that I listed previously.

gunnutery
January 20, 2013, 05:37 AM
Well said Kiln.

larryh1108
January 20, 2013, 07:56 AM
It may be true that background checks on all F2F sales would not have stopped any of these mass murders but the facts remain that guns are used in thousands of crimes every day. I believe the government is trying to take guns from these individuals as much as anything. Ex-cons who cannot legally buy guns do go to gun shows and search the net for the F2F sales that bypass background checks that would prevent them from getting their guns. I seriously doubt any ex-con would try to buy one thru an FFL. It would be ridiculous to even try. I have no idea how many guns used in violent crimes, in general, are from F2F sales but that is one way to get guns and should be closed. I'd bet it is easier to buy one off the streets (F2F) than to find stolen guns from their cronies. Why make it easy to get one if they have proven they use them in crimes of violence?

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 08:05 AM
Well said Kiln.
+1. Kilns a smart guy.

The Government should be more concerned with blunt objects and malpractice.

thump_rrr
January 20, 2013, 08:16 AM
I live in Canada and I find it odd that you must be background checked every time you purchase a firearm.

Yes in Canada we have much more restrictive laws on handguns and "restricted class" firearms such as AR's but we have no system of background checks for long guns or "non restricted" firearms.

What we have is a licensing system which is a basic safety course then a background check with 2 people vouching for you.
You then receive your PAL Posession Acquisition License which is renewable every 5 years.
If I see a firearm I want to purchase I call the person up who is under no obligation to do any kind of background check on me other than to see a copy or take down the info.
If the seller is suspicious he can call the national firearms center and confirm that my license is valid.
The seller can then box up the firearm and ship it by mail directly to the seller.
No going through an FFL or any middleman.

The same can be done for restricted class firearms with the exception of registration and a permit to transport.
So I can sell an AR to someone else who has an RPAL Restricted Posession Acquisition License but must call the firearms center to complete the transfer and wait for their ok to ship the new owner the firearm.

So for non restricted firearms it's basically firearm owners policing themselves.
Is it effective? Who knows but at least there is none of this FFL garbage.
If I see a rifle I want I fax or email the copy of my pal along with the money and wait for my gun to arrive in the mail.

I've received both AR's and handguns in the mail both from private individuals and from dealers.
I'm currently waiting on an AR lower and a complete AR to arrive by mail.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 08:24 AM
Y'all can think what you want. I have supported allowing private people to run backgroud checks and checks on all sales for years. If it comes to a point where you need to use your guns for the defense of your country, don't you think your participation on this board and the letters you have written to your legislators will have already drawn attention? This isn't caving in - I think it's a good idea anyhow. I have that right. Write twice as many letters to congress if you think I am wrong.
Looks Ill have to type twice as fast now.

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 09:28 AM
f2f background check will do nothing but ease the apprehension of a seller. I would prefer it if I were selling to someone I didn't know,but that's for my own intent in knowing I wasn't putting it in the hands of a felon.
The quote unquote bad guy, doesn't give two craps about what the law is.
We already have a failed idea in the ATF forms we all have to fill out when buying from an FFL. That doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. There is no reason to believe that doubling down on what already doesn't work will carry any different result. There would be no way to enforce a F2F background check requirement. How many guns are in existence that predated any sort of ATF requirement? All one has to do is take a good look at Chicago, Illinois, and then try to explain that somehow any of this would work any better than it does there. There is lots of easy,feel good,but do nothing answers. But a real result will have to come from local community. We are the ones closest to those around us. We are the first responders, and the first ones to be capable of spotting something like this and stopping it in it's tracks. No one sitting behind security in D.C. is going to be able to do anything but campaign on it after the fact.
Boliver,MO; A man was stopped from a mass shooting long before he acted, not by laws, but by common sense that came from his mother. All due respect to those who serve, If this would have only been left to the law, then the law would be picking up the pieces afterwards.

RandyC
January 20, 2013, 11:29 AM
The lion's share of homicides are committed with guns that are illegal. The lion's share of homicide victims have criminal records.

Adding more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through will have no effect on this continuing dynamic. It will only serve as a data base that will cause law abiding gun owners greater problems in the future.

Clean97GTI
January 20, 2013, 11:29 AM
I really can't fathom why people here keep bringing up these public shootings as a reason why universal background checks won't work to stop fringe lunatics from committing these crimes.
Yes we all realize they won't stop the one guy out of 300 million who loses it and goes and shoots up a school. These are relatively rare events. Statistical outliers.

What universal background checks will do is place a uniform requirement across the board for all gun sales and acquisitions. The same scrutiny that is applied to an FFL purchase would be applied to a private sale. Others have put forward plausible ways of accomplishing this without requiring a 4473 form for each transaction. The one I like the most is a note on the state-issued ID that says NO FIREARMS.
The purpose ladies and gents is to attempt to slow the rate at which violent criminals get guns. You know, the guys who do this type of thing over and over again? The real problem and a real driving force in gun violence stats.

Both sides of the argument want effective laws and the best argument the pro-gun side can come up with is "but it wouldn't have stopped the Aurora shooter or Sandy Hook, therefore don't do it." Don't you see the non-sequitur in that argument?

The argument that criminals will still obtain guns is more plausible but then this applies to all laws. The purpose of a law is to define an unacceptable act and provide legal foundation for punishment. Of course laws will be broken, thats what the punishment portion is for. Laws and law enforcement are reactionary by definition. We rely on the good nature of people to follow the laws and people by and large, do follow the laws. Because a minority of people don't follow them is not a reason to toss them all aside.

larryh1108
January 20, 2013, 11:49 AM
There are millions of illegal uses of firearms in crimes committed. I'd like to see statistics of where the people convicted of these crimes got their weapons. I'm sure the info is out there somewhere. If it turns out that 40% come from private sales and 25% come from straw purchases and 25% come from stolen guns on the streets and 10% come from buying legally before turning to a life of crime (all stats made up to make a point) then it would be wise to close any source that could be closed to make it more difficult to get them. If this means all sales go thru an FFL, without registration, then so-be-it. If they use the guise of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys as a way to get back door registration then they need to find another way to get it done. Being inconvenienced when selling a firearm to do the right thing is one thing but to be railroaded into doing something "right" for the purpose of another agenda is wrong and should not be allowed.

we are not amused
January 20, 2013, 12:29 PM
Would it not have been easier to simply say you don't know the differences between socialism and communism?
What difference?

danez71
January 20, 2013, 12:40 PM
Allow me copy a post exactly as I've posted in another thread because I believe that this is the best argument against the new legislation that has been directly influenced by two recent shootings.

Here's what I wrote and you can try to argue against it but you'll be tossing your time into the garbage because these two points are facts:

Lets see how background checks would have stopped either of the last two mass shootings:

1. The man involved in the Aurora theater shooting was not a criminal (prior to the shooting) and therefore background checks wouldn't have stopped him from getting a weapon. Even if the gun he wanted was illegal, he would have simply accomplished his goal through other means. He booby trapped his house with 30+ explosive devices so something tells me that if he hadn't gotten a rifle, he would've just used a backpack full of explosives instead.

2. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. This was done by a man who killed his own mother by shooting her four times in the head and then taking her firearms. There's no way a background check would have changed the outcome of this because the guns were never actually passed to his hands by anyone.

I'm sorry but background checks won't be obeyed by people who are passing guns around under the radar anyways. Magically saying that everyone must now do a background check isn't going to make it actually happen, especially with people who want to do things like the two horrible events that I listed previously.


While what you wrote is true.... you're essentially rebutting something that was never said.

Even Obama never said it would have prevented those shootings.

we are not amused
January 20, 2013, 12:50 PM
I oppose the extension of background checks as an additional restriction on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The whole purpose is to make it harder for people to buy, keep and possess firearms, which the proponents openly admit.

The true goal is not to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, but to keep the guns out of the hands of people period.

The proponents admit that criminals will not obey the law,and that it will be marginal at best, so what is the point of it?

If I disobey the law and sell to my friend or give it to a family member, do I then become a felon?

What about the guns my family has possessed for generations and have been handed down, and will continue to be regardless.

we are not amused
January 20, 2013, 12:53 PM
While what you wrote is true.... you're essentially rebutting something that was never said.

Even Obama never said it would have prevented those shootings.
Then why pass useless and restrictive nonsense regulation, that won't work, using those two incidents as justification?

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 12:55 PM
While what you wrote is true.... you're essentially rebutting something that was never said.

Even Obama never said it would have prevented those shootings.
Then why waste time, money, and resources to have frivolous laws passed?

danez71
January 20, 2013, 01:06 PM
Then why pass useless and restrictive nonsense regulation, that won't work, using those two incidents as justification?


You know... the mantra of that party's mentality..."Never let a crisis go to waste"

I wont sell F2F because I dont want someone just lying to me that they arent a prohibited person. Personally, I would like the option.


In general, its a law that keeps a moderate felon, felony DUI for example, from buying a gun from a legitimate source (wrong wording but try to get what I mean.)

The moderate felon probably doesnt know where to get a get 'off the streets'.

The law would NOT prevent a seriously bad guy/hardened criminal type that probably knows where to get a stolen gun.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 01:26 PM
You've always ALREADY had the option.

How does a "moderate" felon not know where to get a firearm illegally?

I'm not a felon, nor under indictment of any, and even I know how to get things I want or need unlawfully if necessary.

I think some of you are downplaying the motivation of today's criminals.

larryh1108
January 20, 2013, 01:34 PM
I'm not a felon, nor under indictment of any, and even I know how to get things I want or need unlawfully if necessary.

I think you overrate the abilities of quite a few Americans.
I have never committed a felony nor do I have a record of any kind. I am around guns, I own guns and I have friends who legally have guns. I would have no idea where to obtain a gun illegally. Where would I go? To the gang banger on the street corner? Walk in to an FFL and ask him if he knows someone who would sell me a gun illegally? Hang at the courthouse and ask somebody who looks shady as he exits the courthouse? Where?

I guess we hang with different crowds?

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 01:36 PM
I think you overrate the abilities of quite a few Americans.
I have never committed a felony nor do I have a record of any kind. I am around guns, I own guns and I have friends who legally have guns. I would have no idea where to obtain a gun illegally. Where would I go? To the gang banger on the street corner? Walk in to an FFL and ask him if he knows someone who would sell me a gun illegally? Hang at the courthouse and ask somebody who looks shady as he exits the courthouse? Where?

I guess we hang with different crowds?
Well you don't think like a criminal. You just stated where you could steal one in your post.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 01:42 PM
I think you overrate the abilities of quite a few Americans.
I have never committed a felony nor do I have a record of any kind. I am around guns, I own guns and I have friends who legally have guns. I would have no idea where to obtain a gun illegally. Where would I go? To the gang banger on the street corner? Walk in to an FFL and ask him if he knows someone who would sell me a gun illegally? Hang at the courthouse and ask somebody who looks shady as he exits the courthouse? Where?

I guess we hang with different crowds?
Different demographics? Probably not.

I don't overrate anyone: If its wanted bad enough, I can think of no more resourceful human beings than Americans.

As for where YOU can get things illegally; not something we need to discuss here. I don't know Litchfield, I admit I assume you've criminals like most cities and towns where things are bought illegally, not just firearms. But, you've always had the choice to not sell a firearm to anyone FTF without a transfer. Even in CT.

MachIVshooter
January 20, 2013, 01:42 PM
For example, you could open NICS to private sellers, using a toll-free number or a Web page.

This is about the only way they'll be able to make it happen without serious opposition. I don't like the idea of BG checks on private sales, but if we could conduct them as the private seller, free of charge, in any location, it really wouldn't bother me that much.

danez71
January 20, 2013, 01:57 PM
You've always ALREADY had the option.

How does a "moderate" felon not know where to get a firearm illegally?




I never said I didnt have the option. I said I want the option; ie not mandatory.

A moderate felon, again, like a DUI offender, doesnt know Slim Shady that sells stolen guns in the dark allies of ghetto-ville.

Sure, everyone knows that most cities have Slim Shadys in ghetto-ville.

However....

A DUI type moderate felon that has a 8-5 job with 2.3 kids, dog and picket fence, doesnt want to know Slim Shady and doesnt want to go to ghetto-ville especially when its dark and in a ally.


Having said that, a moderate felon, like DUI, also probably isnt who we should worry about and make a prohibitive person.


But none the less, thats the type of scenario that background checks work.

9MMare
January 20, 2013, 02:09 PM
What universal background checks will do is place a uniform requirement across the board for all gun sales and acquisitions.

*snip*

The purpose ladies and gents is to attempt to slow the rate at which violent criminals get guns. You know, the guys who do this type of thing over and over again? The real problem and a real driving force in gun violence stats.

.

Just more hoops for honest citizens IMO and as you even state...criminals still get the guns.

Slows them down? The CT shooter got turned down after a background check (or for some other reason?) when he went to the gun store to buy one.

It didnt slow him down much.

IMO, more restrictions is not worth so few gains. Esp. not such restrictions that the govt can just keep building on.

9MMare
January 20, 2013, 02:11 PM
I oppose the extension of background checks as an additional restriction on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The whole purpose is to make it harder for people to buy, keep and possess firearms, which the proponents openly admit.

The true goal is not to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, but to keep the guns out of the hands of people period.

The proponents admit that criminals will not obey the law,and that it will be marginal at best, so what is the point of it?

If I disobey the law and sell to my friend or give it to a family member, do I then become a felon?

What about the guns my family has possessed for generations and have been handed down, and will continue to be regardless.

I agree.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 02:16 PM
I never said I didnt have the option. I said I want the option; ie not mandatory.

A moderate felon, again, like a DUI offender, doesnt know Slim Shady that sells stolen guns in the dark allies of ghetto-ville.

Sure, everyone knows that most cities have Slim Shadys in ghetto-ville.

However....

A DUI type moderate felon that has a 8-5 job with 2.3 kids, dog and picket fence, doesnt want to know Slim Shady and doesnt want to go to ghetto-ville especially when its dark and in a ally.


Having said that, a moderate felon, like DUI, also probably isnt who we should worry about and make a prohibitive person.


But none the less, thats the type of scenario that background checks work.
I think you're painting a Sin City portrait that conveys an illegal arms dealer as a trench coat wearing, cigar smoking man selling a gun to a shadowy figure with yellow eyes and bad teeth.

Neither you nor I know who an actual, illegal, gun salesperson is or the types they sell to until we are standing in front of them, or we've seen their carnage on the liberal news casts.

Am I saying the sweet old lady next door is a bad person? Could very well be. She could be buying cancer Meds selling her late hubbies guns off to criminals. Will background checks stop this madness? No.

I don't want mandatory checks, either. Do I want a DUI offender to have a gun? No, mild or not. So, I agree, these are the only "baddy-but-goodies" that UBCs will hinder.

9MMare
January 20, 2013, 02:17 PM
The moderate felon probably doesnt know where to get a get 'off the streets'.



I hope that this is not a prevalent belief.

I'm not any kind of felon and I know a few places to get a gun if I want one.

Borrow one, go thru a friend or relatives nitestand or other drawers, steal one, find another 'private party' sale, lie to convince someone to loan you one...if you have friends, it's not hard to play on their sympathy, they tend to think the better of you. Or just steal one.

If someone *decides* to commit a crime....they'll do so. And would a background check prevent a crime of passion? 50-50 I guess.

Clean97GTI
January 20, 2013, 02:41 PM
I wouldn't expect most people to know about libertarian socialism. About the only prominent one I can think of is Noam Chomsky.

Libertarian Socialism is a more modern development of older left anarchist and collectivist anarchist schools of thought. Noam Chomsky is the most prominent example and is a prolific writer on the subject.

The real reason I bring it up is mainly because Americans only know libertarian to mean the libertarian party and a reference to pro-capitalist, pro-business ideology built on Austrian economics and paying homage to the bill of rights in order to attract a decently-sized base of voters.
To hear libertarian combined with socialism immediately makes many think the phrase is a contradiction in terms without realizing they are more complementary than one might initially think. We Americans do ourselves a great disservice when we ignore the writings that came out of Europe on the matter during the rise of communism and the later beginnings of fascism. Even if you differ politically, it is worthwhile to read what those men had to say if only to understand what the rest of the world means when it talks about socialism and anarchy.

Americans regard anarchism as lawlessness and communism as a catch-all term for the mess that was the Soviet Union. They don't realize that when Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power, they almost immediately had to deviate from the communist origins described by Marx; effectively dooming the movement from Socialism to Communism Marx intended.

Indeed, Lenin wrote about a vanguard party who would work and advocate for the worker. To push forward the concerns of the workers while attempting to enlighten the working classes to the great power of production they held in their hands.
Not all that dissimilar from the notions voiced by Madison concerning the "benevolent philosopher" and "enlightened statesmen" whom he hoped would direct the affairs of the state to best suit the common man who they thought was apparently unable to do it for themselves. It required a "more capable set of men" as Madison so eloquently put it.

Of course, Madison lived in a place and time that was decidedly pre-capitalist. His words hold a different meaning than we would ascribe to them today.

Clean97GTI
January 20, 2013, 02:43 PM
Just more hoops for honest citizens IMO and as you even state...criminals still get the guns.

Slows them down? The CT shooter got turned down after a background check (or for some other reason?) when he went to the gun store to buy one.

It didnt slow him down much.

IMO, more restrictions is not worth so few gains. Esp. not such restrictions that the govt can just keep building on.
What restrictions are you referring to? You already bear this "restriction" as you call it as enshrined in the constitution. The ability of the government to remove your rights with due process is well established.
Background checks simply provide a proactive possibility of finding the disqualified rather than reactive.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 02:49 PM
What restrictions are you referring to? You already bear this "restriction" as you call it as enshrined in the constitution. The ability of the government to remove your rights with due process is well established.
Background checks simply provide a proactive possibility of finding the disqualified rather than reactive.
...and giving the government, that which the 2A is written to protect us from, more information from the law abiding citizens and their firearm purchasing than some of us would like...all under the guise of "saving a few more lives" when it truly can't.

This is also well established.

larryh1108
January 20, 2013, 02:51 PM
Well you don't think like a criminal. You just stated where you could steal one in your post.

At first I didn't know what you meant but then it hit me. I could steal one from a buddy. You are right, that never occured to me. I doubt I could steal even a $2 screwdriver from a buddy. I know I couldn't steal from a store and before anyone throws in the "would you go back and pay for an item you found out you didn't pay for?" Yes, I have, many times. We're all humans and makes mistakes. I don't want what I didn't pay for but I expect to be paid for my work on time and correctly. Life isn't always black and white but I try to do my part to be a good citizen. I believe most Americans feel the same way. The criminal element is a small portion of our population but all the laws we have and all the regulations we all put up with is to keep the 2% accountable.

texasgun
January 20, 2013, 03:20 PM
Regarding the DUI felon... in most states a DUI is a felony if:
1) Your DUI caused injury or death to another,
or 2) You have 3 or more prior DUI or "wet reckless" convictions within a ten-year period, or
3) You have at least one prior felony DUI conviction.

so in other words: you injured or killed someone or you have the tendency to drive wasted regardless of prior convictions. I honestly have ZERO issues with these guys not being allowed to have guns as they already injured/killed someone or are close to doing it....

yes, universal background checks won't stop EVERY criminal from getting guns. but so do speed limits not stop every speeder. opposing background checks makes us look very irrational and there are not many arguments that hold up in discussions.

larryh1108
January 20, 2013, 03:24 PM
I don't think the public knows what those of us who have permits to carry have to go thru to get it. I have a LTC in CT and I had to take an 8 hour class which included firing a handgun, I submitted my fingerprints, I had to undergo a thorough local background check including my previous address as well as an FBI complete background check. My entire life was examined before I got my permit. I believe most permits to carry have a similar requirement. If the public understood the process I don't think most of them would think we're a bunch of lawless criminals who carry guns. Also, to those who keep pounding the "shall not be infringed" statement, what would you classify the process to get a permit to carry? There are millions of people who have a LTC and they are in every state except IL. I would be more comfortable in a room of them, armed to the teeth, than a room of people who never applied or got approved for a LTC. I believe we are responsible and safe and have proven over our lifetimes to be the upper echelon of citizens in the USA. I hope the President sees this but for some reason all the decision makers in our government turn their eyes away from this fact. We are the best of the best Americans out there and we are looked down upon as fanatics and goons. I seriously doubt the general public even has a clue to what we have to do to get a LTC. They fear us out of ignorance.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 04:07 PM
Regarding the DUI felon... in most states a DUI is a felony if:
1) Your DUI caused injury or death to another,
or 2) You have 3 or more prior DUI or "wet reckless" convictions within a ten-year period, or
3) You have at least one prior felony DUI conviction.

so in other words: you injured or killed someone or you have the tendency to drive wasted regardless of prior convictions. I honestly have ZERO issues with these guys not being allowed to have guns as they already injured/killed someone or are close to doing it....

yes, universal background checks won't stop EVERY criminal from getting guns. but so do speed limits not stop every speeder. opposing background checks makes us look very irrational and there are not many arguments that hold up in discussions.
Supporting universal background checks that don't stop offenders from getting guns and only magnify the amount information that the liberal run government has on lawful gun owners is even more irrational.

I, also, don't think repeat offenders of so called "mild" crimes should have weapons. So, I'm with you there.

Clean97GTI
January 20, 2013, 04:54 PM
...and giving the government, that which the 2A is written to protect us from, more information from the law abiding citizens and their firearm purchasing than some of us would like...all under the guise of "saving a few more lives" when it truly can't.

This is also well established.

The government already knows what crimes you've committed. It's all public record.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 05:13 PM
The government already knows what crimes you've committed. It's all public record.
But they don't know about my weapons cache. I plan to keep it that way.

Give them all the info you'd like, play the good son. Call me an extremist, a rebel, or what I have you; I am against it, I'll fight it and all other nonsense the Libs/Left come up with.

Clean97GTI
January 20, 2013, 07:18 PM
But they don't know about my weapons cache. I plan to keep it that way.

Give them all the info you'd like, play the good son. Call me an extremist, a rebel, or what I have you; I am against it, I'll fight it and all other nonsense the Libs/Left come up with.

Why would they know any more than they already do? Criminal records are public record.
If they actually do follow the law though, all that info is deleted shortly after the check is complete. The only record should be the 4473 the FFL keeps.

or we can push for a more intelligent system similar to what has been mentioned earlier with a notification on the drivers license/ID.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 07:53 PM
Why would they know any more than they already do? Criminal records are public record.
If they actually do follow the law though, all that info is deleted shortly after the check is complete. The only record should be the 4473 the FFL keeps.

or we can push for a more intelligent system similar to what has been mentioned earlier with a notification on the drivers license/ID.
So you say. Do you have proof that there isn't any record keeping done by the NICS or FBI that's currently in place, and that there is no "tally" kept on transfers done by, say, social security number? That's something you are required to use every time a transfer is done in your name, proof positive that you've bought another gun.

Such the same when a bad guy commits a crime and is processed, the ever-present social security number pops up. Crimes as you stated and most intelligent folk already are aware of, are public record.

I don't think convicted felons should be blanketed under any amendment, so I think a bimonthly updated license renewal (which is driver inclusive) that labels lawful or unlawful people as "Non Saleable" or "Saleable" is not an infringement on felons' rights, as they really have very little to begin with. If a person who is allowed to buy commits a crime of any nature above misdemeanor, revocation and renewal under "Non Saleable"
When doing a FTF, check the license of the buyer they can check yours, if its GTG, sell the gun. If the buyer is not a desirable, no sale and report the person trying to buy illegally.

This makes sellers happy and legal.
Keeps some guns out of some bad guys' hands.
The Fed gets to do a bimonthly background check by way of Department of Revenue.
We get to do things ourselves, and we keep some semblance of privacy.

texasgun
January 20, 2013, 08:19 PM
^^^

" the NICS or FBI that's currently in place, and that there is no "tally" kept on transfers done by, say, social security number? That's something you are required to use every time a transfer is done in your name, proof positive that you've bought another gun. "

no, your SSN is not required on the ATF form. it's optional. I have bought many guns with leaving that field blank. doesn't make a difference.... only if you have a very common first/last name it might help to prevent confusion with a felon...

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 08:36 PM
^^^

" the NICS or FBI that's currently in place, and that there is no "tally" kept on transfers done by, say, social security number? That's something you are required to use every time a transfer is done in your name, proof positive that you've bought another gun. "

no, your SSN is not required on the ATF form. it's optional. I have bought many guns with leaving that field blank. doesn't make a difference.... only if you have a very common first/last name it might help to prevent confusion with a felon...
Does your address make it on the form? Does you phone number? How about using your drivers license to concur with name and place of residence?

You can't get that license without a social, so vis a vis, you're still giving your social.

Kiln
January 20, 2013, 09:23 PM
Then why pass useless and restrictive nonsense regulation, that won't work, using those two incidents as justification?
Exactly my argument. These new laws will do nothing but spur the black market sales of firearms and give law abiding gun owners another hoop to jump through to legally obtain a firearm.

bayesian
January 20, 2013, 10:30 PM
So, this, and countless threads before it have basically not been intellectual arguments where people come together to convey information and come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. This discussion is a perfect example of why we typically don't allow the discussion of politics at the dinner table.

Postion A: This law will not stop gun related crimes as criminals will still be able to get guns.

Position B: This law will reduce gun related crimes as criminals will find guns less accessible.

No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other. So, lets just get to dessert and give up on these endless threads. If you are the 7% that thinks background checks are terrible, then hey, go nuts. If you, like 93% of the population, thinks that this is worthwhile, then just call the freaking vote and be done with it.

And if you are wondering where these numbers come from and you are going to post a response asking, then read the freaking thread before you post as you are part of the pointless rehashing of the same arguments that is making this board tiresome.

Solo
January 20, 2013, 10:33 PM
No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other.

IIRC, there is no definite evidence either way.

bayesian
January 20, 2013, 10:34 PM
IIRC, there is no definite evidence either way.

Almost pulled me back in there for a second :-)

texasgun
January 20, 2013, 10:41 PM
great - ok. let's sell guns to anyone with something which somewhat ressembles an I.D. no questions asked, no background checks...

jeeze... and then we wonder why we loose public support :rolleyes:

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 10:44 PM
So, this, and countless threads before it have basically not been intellectual arguments where people come together to convey information and come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. This discussion is a perfect example of why we typically don't allow the discussion of politics at the dinner table.

Postion A: This law will not stop gun related crimes as criminals will still be able to get guns.

Position B: This law will reduce gun related crimes as criminals will find guns less accessible.

No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other. So, lets just get to dessert and give up on these endless threads. If you are the 7% that thinks background checks are terrible, then hey, go nuts. If you, like 93% of the population, thinks that this is worthwhile, then just call the freaking vote and be done with it.

And if you are wondering where these numbers come from and you are going to post a response asking, then read the freaking thread before you post as you are part of the pointless rehashing of the same arguments that is making this board tiresome.
Sure it is.

You fellas give stats and opinions that make UBCS seem dandy.

Then someone drops logic back into the equation that shoots the whole plan to crap. What's to disagree about?

Also, where's this 93/7 split? Polls? Surveys? Votes? We don't get a vote...well we did. Unfortunately, reason and some semblance of sanity sadly failed to enter the Capitol last November.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 10:45 PM
great - ok. let's sell guns to anyone with something which somewhat ressembles an I.D. no questions asked, no background checks...

jeeze... and then we wonder why we loose public support :rolleyes:
I remember when I couldn't read either. I was very young.

Reading comprehension fails some folks.

9MMare
January 20, 2013, 10:48 PM
What restrictions are you referring to? You already bear this "restriction" as you call it as enshrined in the constitution. The ability of the government to remove your rights with due process is well established.
Background checks simply provide a proactive possibility of finding the disqualified rather than reactive.

I'd rather see it removed. So no, I wouldnt be in favor of increasing its reach.


And I dont get it as a 'proactive' deterrent, since as we've just seen that it wasnt (my example of the CT shooter and any released felon that just goes and finds a gun some other way).

bayesian
January 20, 2013, 10:48 PM
I remember when I couldn't read either. I was very young.

Reading comprehension fails some folks.

Ok, that's it. No dessert for you.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 10:50 PM
Ok, that's it. No dessert for you.
That's not nice.:(

9MMare
January 20, 2013, 10:54 PM
I don't think the public knows what those of us who have permits to carry have to go thru to get it. I have a LTC in CT and I had to take an 8 hour class which included firing a handgun, I submitted my fingerprints, I had to undergo a thorough local background check including my previous address as well as an FBI complete background check. My entire life was examined before I got my permit. I believe most permits to carry have a similar requirement. If the public understood the process I don't think most of them would think we're a bunch of lawless criminals who carry guns. Also, to those who keep pounding the "shall not be infringed" statement, what would you classify the process to get a permit to carry? There are millions of people who have a LTC and they are in every state except IL. I would be more comfortable in a room of them, armed to the teeth, than a room of people who never applied or got approved for a LTC. I believe we are responsible and safe and have proven over our lifetimes to be the upper echelon of citizens in the USA. I hope the President sees this but for some reason all the decision makers in our government turn their eyes away from this fact. We are the best of the best Americans out there and we are looked down upon as fanatics and goons. I seriously doubt the general public even has a clue to what we have to do to get a LTC. They fear us out of ignorance.

Well not really. Several states have no requirements except the basic background check and fingerprinting and some dont require cc permits at all, like AK, VT, AZ, WY.

So I dont think you can make that claim. OTOH, I like being able to make the claim that apparently NO real oversight is needed since there isnt any evidence that training for permit holders makes a difference.

And I do like pointing out that they are indeed surrounded by thousands of law-abiding permit holders every day :)

Clean97GTI
January 20, 2013, 11:07 PM
I'd rather see it removed. So no, I wouldnt be in favor of increasing its reach.


And I dont get it as a 'proactive' deterrent, since as we've just seen that it wasnt (my example of the CT shooter and any released felon that just goes and finds a gun some other way).

Right now, any released felon can look in their local newspaper, find a classified ad and go buy a gun from a private party with no questions asked.
A mandatory check or at least something on a state issued ID would throw a red flag.

and Cho Seung-Hui had a history of mental illness.A more thorough background check or reporting process might have stopped him

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 11:22 PM
Or he could find said seller in the paper, meet, kill him and steal the gun.

No background check required.;)

larryh1108
January 20, 2013, 11:24 PM
except the basic background check and fingerprinting

Well, that is the major part of the process. If you passed a background check and were fingerprinted and got your permit then you have proven to be an upstanding citizen during the course of your life. I don't know if the entire population of all the states that require nothing or a small fee to get a permit add up to a CA or NY. The point is the general public thinks anybody who wants to carry a gun can just go buy one and then they become a threat to society when, in fact, the opposite is true. We do everything in our power to not lose this right that we deserve due to our spotless background and history of doing the right thing.

Solo
January 20, 2013, 11:25 PM
and Cho Seung-Hui had a history of mental illness.A more thorough background check or reporting process might have stopped him
Cho Seung-Hui didn't need a more thorough background check, he needed treatment.

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 11:34 PM
In all seriousness, I believe we would be much better served with the Idea of a stated status on pictured identification. It is something that we have to provide for purchase of a firearm anyway. It would reduce the cost of processing sales and do the same thing that the ATF form does now. First response I know will be that someone could commit a felony and purchase a firearm before the license is changed. That's no different from what we have now as you can lie on the ATF form after committing a felony. In my area the call goes to the county. If you are under indictment anywhere else they have no knowledge of it. This change would not be perfect but argueably nothing would. This would be just as effective and be less intrusive. As far as having a gun registry, why would the FBI waist there resources when there is already a trail to every gun sold on file? Every FFL is required to keep all ATF forms, with serial number on form, on file for quite a number of years. I cannot remember the exact number but I think it is ten years it may be more.
This has the same information that a registry would have without the FBI or ATF using there resources to keep it. If you have ever filled out one of these forms for a firearm, then there is a definitive paper trail from manufacturer to your door.
In an additional note I am starting to think that perhaps a mandatory safety training may be needed. I've never met someone who wouldn't recommend it,and as much as I disgust myself by bringing it up, I am starting to see a serious lack of education among first time owners. I grew up with guns and I have to acknowledge that many things that I see as common sense, first timers are not savvy to. A big failing it that was more than evident recently in a failure to have firearms safely and securely stored. That is something that a little education and safe practice may have solved.

9MMare
January 21, 2013, 12:37 AM
Or he could find said seller in the paper, meet, kill him and steal the gun.

No background check required.;)

Exactly.

A released felon knows the law. They wont go looking for a gun casually. The penalty is high. And if they want want to commit crimes again...they will acquire one however is necessary.

As for checking for mental history...well, maybe 'deeper' checks into that would prevent some deaths but is it worth all of us losing more of our privacy? I'm not so sure about that (in response to previous poster).

9MMare
January 21, 2013, 12:43 AM
Well, that is the major part of the process. If you passed a background check and were fingerprinted and got your permit then you have proven to be an upstanding citizen during the course of your life. I don't know if the entire population of all the states that require nothing or a small fee to get a permit add up to a CA or NY. The point is the general public thinks anybody who wants to carry a gun can just go buy one and then they become a threat to society when, in fact, the opposite is true. We do everything in our power to not lose this right that we deserve due to our spotless background and history of doing the right thing.

???? anyone who wants to carry a gun can...if they choose to break the law...and many do. And many otherwise law-abiding citizens just ignore that law (ack!).

And this 'holier than thou' attitude is a bit much. Just because you've never been convicted of a felony does not mean you are some pillar of society. You could still be cheating on your wife, beating your kids, kicking your dog, stealing from work, or just be a jerk overall, etc.

bushmaster1313
January 21, 2013, 12:53 AM
A gun owner would never know if that nice guy he met at the local hardware store last month and came to his church each Sunday, just wanted to buy a gun "under the table," of if he were a Federal Snitch who'd rat him out. Fear is very powerful persuader.

Therefore, without the Mandatory Registration Law of previous and current guns already owned, the Universal Background Check Law would be virtually ineffective, even though new sales and transfers would be monitored.

The part about the Mandatory Registration Law being needed is a non-sequitor.

The proper analysis is that with or without registration many law abiding would be deterred from face to face sales.

I am not advocating for registration, however, mandatory registration would increase the likelihood of getting caught breaking a "no face to face" law.

justice06rr
January 21, 2013, 03:10 AM
Maybe Obama just figured out a way to reduce unemployment

Obama didn't figure out *****.


There is no way to financially fund a UBC or Mandatory registration of ~300million firearms. That is the biggest hurdle they will face. We are already in a downward spiral with his 2nd term that its not even remotely possible to enforce; not saying they wont try.

Which is why they go after "scary" features and mag capacity instead. Its also why these stupid gun laws are limited to certain states. The government can never pull off a UBGC ( I shorten it to UBC ) because of states like Alaska, Texas, Arizona, and Florida etc.

goon
January 21, 2013, 03:43 AM
Is there anyone on this board who honestly thinks that your real name couldn't be figured out by an evil power bent on the domination of American citizens? Have you ever wrote a letter to a representative? Ever served in uniform? Have a CCW permit? Ever bought a gun at a store with a 4473 on file for it?

I have done all the things above. I am sure that if there were a hypothetical "they" who was out to track down and eradicate people like me, they wouldn't need to use an instant check system to find me. Hell, they could probably just look on Facebook.

As much as I thoroughly oppose an AW ban or magazine capacity restrictions, I do believe that legal guns become illegal guns through sales without background checks.
I support a system being created for private sellers to be able to run a check and record a number.
With the rights we have also comes responsibility. If your conscience is truly clean with the idea of not having background checks, then write your congressmen. As for me, I support it - not because I want to give the anti-gun people something as a concession, but because I think it is the right thing to do.

Kiln
January 21, 2013, 04:55 AM
Only an oblivious moron would want an end to private sales. The reasons should be pretty obvious to anybody with even moderate reasoning skills.

Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Believe that. Every other country that has ended up completely disarming the (law abiding) populace has started with baby steps. That is what is happening here under the guise of "common sense gun control" laws.

goon
January 21, 2013, 05:48 AM
As I understand it, even the Swiss with their universal issue of assault rifles to each male citizen, have background checks and require a license to buy a handgun. My home state of PA requires all handguns to be transferred by a dealer and a second form specifically for the state must be completed unless the transfer is between immediate family members.

Anyone who has been through PA can tell you that no one there is giving up their guns.
Apparently the Swiss also are not too worried about it.

I am not even advocating that permanent records ever be kept - just allow average guys to run a check for private sales.

If your concern is that an out of control government could use background check records to trace and eventually target gun owners, what do you think will happen when they trace your THR account? Or when they see the monthly purchases on your credit card from Midway and Cabelas?

Al Thompson
January 21, 2013, 05:48 AM
I think every argument has been stated, re-stated and flogged. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "The illogic of universal background checks." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!