What are the cons of universal background checks?

[gunsandreligion]

We dont have the time to punish those who lie on background checks.- Joe Biden

 

[awgrizzly]

The intent is not to save lives and cut down on violence, it's a vendetta against free will and individual liberty. These are the antithesis of Progressivism. Their gun control laws don't make sense. But the continue again and again, passing whatever they can, to nibble at and erode away that which they can. We must oppose every single attempt of the left to enslave us.

 

[BHP FAN]

What are the cons of universal background checks?

Criminals won't participate.

criminals won't participate. Tom is a genius! why does no one else get this?

 

[mrvco]

criminals won't participate. Tom is a genius! why does no one else get this?

Obviously we need a poll of "currently active" and "may be active soon" criminals and whether they are "Highly Likely, Likely, Indifferent, Unlikely or Highly Unlikely" to participate in UBC's.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

-Record keeping (data base for confiscation) Fed and lesser law enforcement agencies have already shown a blazing disregard for standards with other records.

-Squigly standards as to who "passes". Just wait till it's integrated with the "Obama Care" open access health records where medications and past treatments (mental, stress and others) are cross referenced.

-Talk to anyone with a standard hold or denial wrongly attributed to their name or SSN (see "no fly list"!

 

[splattergun]

no, it will not make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. They do not get background checks, they buy black market or steal guns. It ONLY makes it more cumbersome (infringes) for the law abiding citizen to participate in an inalienable (check your dictionary) human right.

 

[rtz]

Exactly.

 

[k_dawg]

A major problem is that it is all a front to erode rights. Notice, they want us to conceed this, and not negotiate.

For example: *IF* they pass universal background checks, it should be mandated to apply to ALL citizens who live ANYWHERE. And it should apply to ANY firearm legal by Federal law, including NFA. It needs to be mandated to be FREE to any citizen; and be completed under all cases in 48 hours.

Such as New York City, Washington DC and Chicago.

At least that will be restoring rights to tens of millions of Americans in exchange.

 

[UhKlem]

Background checks are a prior restraint on a couple of unalienable rights: the right to engage in contracts, the right to self defense, and are intrinsically anti-property rights (if you have to get permission to dispose of your property, it isn't really yours). Keeping criminals from getting guns is just a bogeyman. Background checks have way more false positives than any track record of keeping criminals from guns. Full scale prohibition doesn't work, and neither will this slippery slope. When it fails, more concessions to liberty will be demanded. Once one agrees to this prior restraint, more 'reasonable' terms of encroachment will be offered. We know how this story ends, England already went down this road. If background checks worked, how come every police department of any size has an internal affairs department? You can't predict free will, and laws don't constrain criminals. There is nothing reasonable about a model based on guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The gun haters behind this non-sense just can't wait to be in a position to move the standard for the burden of proof. Every con hinges on the gullibility of the mark.

 

[bldsmith]

Did not read all the posts but here is why I feel it wont work. It does not work now and they do not want it to work. Here is what I found doing a very fast search,

"Nevertheless, NICS performs millions of checks every year, and usually in under two minutes. In 2010, the agency reviewed more than 6 million 4473 forms. Just 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun.

Among those denials, 47 percent were rejected because of a felony indictment or conviction. Yet, just 44 were prosecuted, and 13 convicted of lying on their 4473 form, according to a report prepared for the DOJ by the Regional Justice Information Service in 2012. That represents just .0002 percent of all denials, and an even smaller percentage of the total number of background checks."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oubled-background-check-system/#ixzz2Jj10rfau


Until they enforce the laws they have on the books why institute new ones? Not to mention it flies in the face of the constitution.

 

[CapnMac]

If UBC are such a good idea, and are no infringement upon The People, then

No one will mind a UBC before posting online; or buying a newspaper, or writing an OpEd, or making a political contribution.

No one will mind a UBC for joining a church (or changing one)

No one will object to a UBC before being secure in the person or property or before being asked to self-incriminate.

No one will mind a UBC before voting . . .

And so on.

The power to approve is the power to deny.

Pretty sure the founding fathers were pretty clear in their intent that such powers were to be invested in individual citizens, not unaccountable voices on the ned of e phone line.

 

[12131]

It has constitutional problems since by definition private sales are not interstate commerce.

Now, if they made private access to the NICS system voluntary, that'd be fine and I suspect 99% of legitimate private sellers would use it. But that's not what they want -- they want de facto registration and an end to private sales.

I agree with this.

 

[meanmrmustard]

I totally agree with the fact that criminals will still be able to get guns but can it be argued that checks would not atleast make it more difficult?

This is what we are going to here.

No. Just no.

There have been numerous closed threads on this.

For the most part, we are in unison: checks don't do jack if criminals don't adhere to them. They won't, we will, and the only people it hinders is the law abiding citizen who does stuff legally.

Just no.

 

[Adam the Gnome]

Why do we need prisons? Oh yeah, criminals don't follow laws.
How many pounds of illegal narcotics come to America everyday? Those guys probably dabble in arms as well. All any of this does is hurt HONEST Americans and it seems no one can grasp that concept.

 

[GBExpat]

Blackbeard pretty much nailed it, I think, when he said:

Now, if they made private access to the NICS system voluntary, that'd be fine and I suspect 99% of legitimate private sellers would use it. But that's not what they want -- they want de facto registration and an end to private sales.