Universal Background Checks Suck

Deanimator said:

"Common sense" GUN BANS are the ONLY thing that's "on the table".

So-called "universal background checks" are a NULLITY without REGISTRATION.

Registration has NO function apart from facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

The anti-gun cult isn't even PRETENDING otherwise anymore.

Click to expand...

Hello, hello anyone home? Who said anything about Registration but a Background check to try and stop the nuts and mass killings. Or maybe you would rather have a outright ban on AR-15's??? Responsible gun owners do not want mass murders and children killed in our schools. YOU ran your mouth... Whats YOUR answer? Same ole BS.

FYI: Nullity definition is - the quality or state of being null; especially : legal invalidity. How to use nullity in a sentence. Did You Know?

The only solution is for the people that know them to try and prevent it.

I'd be fine with UBC if it worked in an anonymous fashion. There is a list of bad guys, am I on it or not? You don't need to know what firearm I'm purchasing and you don't need to keep a list of good guys -- no paperwork. I provide ID, I'm not on the list, I get my ID back and we are good and I walk with my new toy. List should be available to all so it is easy to check as well.

Otherwise it is just registration.

Insignificant bill said:

The only solution is for the people that know them to try and prevent it.

Click to expand...

Correct, I love my guns but not enough to want my 10 year old grandson murdered in his classroom. There is not a whole lot of thinking going on here. IF we as responsible gun owners do not do something, they will ban and take away the AR15's, Mini 14s and the rest. I have owned many AR's in the past even took one prairie dog hunting and that was a waste. They are fun to shoot and own, but if things keep on they will all be history. Australia did it and will happen here if we let it. We need to stop the mentally ill, unstable people from murdering more people.

I personally don't have a problem with background checks but I've lived in IL my entire life and have had to deal with FOID's. I can see both sides of the argument, but I have more of a problem with the slippery slope argument. I agree with wmgeorge that something needs to change. Having said that, the Henry Pratt shooter in Aurora a few years ago had his FOID revoked, (actually I think he should never have had one) but no follow-up was done by Illinois State Police to make sure he didn't have any guns, so the FOID did absolutely nothing to prevent that shooting, so what was the point?

I would rather see universal background checks than another "assault weapon ban" written by people in congress that don't know an AR-15 from a hole in the ground. UBC's may help stop some mass shootings, but it's not going to prevent the weekly murders that are occurring in Chicago and the expressways around Chicago. One problem at a time I guess.

WrongHanded said:

Actually, it can be largely enforced. Most law abiding gun owners will not break the law to sell a gun without a background check where one is required if:

• They believe the sale may be a sting operation
• They know the buyer may given them up if they are caught commiting a criminal act

If there are serious legal ramifications to selling a firearm without a background check, most people won't want to take that risk. Particularly if others have been caught and convicted for doing the same, lost their gun rights, and possibly been sentenced to time in prison. It just wouldn't be worth it to me. Would it be worth it to you?

Click to expand...

There's literally NO way to know if it's being obey... apart from an NKVD level of informant usage... probably considered a feature rather than a bug.

It CAN'T be enforced in any meaningful way without REGISTRATION, and in all likelihood will be widely ignored.

It's nothing but a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, which is a green light for CONFISCATION.

wmgeorge said:

Correct, I love my guns but not enough to want my 10 year old grandson murdered in his classroom. There is not a whole lot of thinking going on here. IF we as responsible gun owners do not do something, they will ban and take away the AR15's, Mini 14s and the rest. I have owned many AR's in the past even took one prairie dog hunting and that was a waste. They are fun to shoot and own, but if things keep on they will all be history. Australia did it and will happen here if we let it. We need to stop the mentally ill, unstable people from murdering more people.

Click to expand...

There's NOTHING you can do that will satisfy the anti-gun cult apart from TOTAL DISARMAMENT.

Deny it all you want, but it's the truth and always will be. Even THEY don't pretend otherwise anymore.

wmgeorge said:

Hello, hello anyone home? Who said anything about Registration but a Background check to try and stop the nuts and mass killings. Or maybe you would rather have a outright ban on AR-15's??? Responsible gun owners do not want mass murders and children killed in our schools. YOU ran your mouth... Whats YOUR answer? Same ole BS.

FYI: Nullity definition is - the quality or state of being null; especially : legal invalidity. How to use nullity in a sentence. Did You Know?

Click to expand...

Without REGISTRATION, it is UNENFORCEABLE, a NULLITY.

It's intended to fail, paving the way for REGISTRATION, followed by CONFISCATION.

Even the totalitarians proposing it don't pretend otherwise anymore.

Dewey 68 said:

I personally don't have a problem with background checks but I've lived in IL my entire life and have had to deal with FOID's. I can see both sides of the argument, but I have more of a problem with the slippery slope argument. I agree with wmgeorge that something needs to change. Having said that, the Henry Pratt shooter in Aurora a few years ago had his FOID revoked, (actually I think he should never have had one) but no follow-up was done by Illinois State Police to make sure he didn't have any guns, so the FOID did absolutely nothing to prevent that shooting, so what was the point?

I would rather see universal background checks than another "assault weapon ban" written by people in congress that don't know an AR-15 from a hole in the ground. UBC's may help stop some mass shootings, but it's not going to prevent the weekly murders that are occurring in Chicago and the expressways around Chicago. One problem at a time I guess.

Click to expand...

The purpose of so-called "universal background checks" is to grease the skids for REGISTRATION, followed by CONFISCATION.

That's the ONLY purpose.

Dewey 68 said:

UBC's may help stop some mass shootings, but it's not going to prevent the weekly murders that are occurring in Chicago and the expressways around Chicago. One problem at a time I guess.

Click to expand...

I see it as the other way around, to some degree at least. UBCs could significantly reduce the number of guns that make their way into the hands of prohibited criminals. Thereby reducing the use of guns in violent crime in places like Chicago. All those guns criminals get come from somewhere, and they can't all be stolen. I'm betting a significant number of them are aquired through private transfers.

On the other hand, UBCs won't do much to stop mass shooting if most of the mass shooters aren't prohibited prior to the event.

WrongHanded said:

I see it as the other way around, to some degree at least. UBCs could significantly reduce the number of guns that make their way into the hands of prohibited criminals. Thereby reducing the use of guns in violent crime in places like Chicago. All those guns criminals get come from somewhere, and they can't all be stolen. I'm betting a significant number of them are aquired through private transfers.

On the other hand, UBCs won't do much to stop mass shooting if most of the mass shooters aren't prohibited prior to the event.

Click to expand...

So-called "universal background checks" are mere harassment for NON-criminals.

For DECADES, anti-gun cultists and totalitarians have been proclaiming that they intend to DESTROY "gun culture". This is just one more step in that direction. People just aren't falling for this nonsense anymore. They know it's motivated by pure malice.

WrongHanded said:

I see it as the other way around, to some degree at least. UBCs could significantly reduce the number of guns that make their way into the hands of prohibited criminals. Thereby reducing the use of guns in violent crime in places like Chicago. All those guns criminals get come from somewhere, and they can't all be stolen. I'm betting a significant number of them are aquired through private transfers.

On the other hand, UBCs won't do much to stop mass shooting if most of the mass shooters aren't prohibited prior to the event.

Click to expand...

It might, but if the majority of guns were straw purchases anyway, it wouldn't.

Deanimator said:

The purpose of so-called "universal background checks" is to grease the skids for REGISTRATION, followed by CONFISCATION.

That's the ONLY purpose.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know your viewpoint.

Deanimator said:

There's literally NO way to know if it's being obey... apart from an NKVD level of informant usage... probably considered a feature rather than a bug.

It CAN'T be enforced in any meaningful way without REGISTRATION, and in all likelihood will be widely ignored.

It's nothing but a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, which is a green light for CONFISCATION.

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. So here's an analogy:

Stop signs don't actually physically stop cars at intersections. Fear of negative consequences in the mind of the driver is what causes that driver to stop at the sign.

Do you understand my point now?

Dewey 68 said:

It might, but if the majority of guns were straw purchases anyway, it wouldn't.

Click to expand...

That's another area in which the law needs to be enforced with serious penalties.

Dewey 68 said:

Yes, we know your viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Then you know the truth.

So-called "universal background checks" are merely a step on the way to universal CONFISCATION.

WrongHanded said:

I think you missed my point. So here's an analogy:

Stop signs don't actually physically stop cars at intersections. Fear of negative consequences in the mind of the driver is what causes that driver to stop at the sign.

Do you understand my point now?

Click to expand...

Without REGISTRATION, there's virtually NO "fear of negative consequences".

That's why anti-gun cultists and totalitarians are ALREADY calling for REGISTRATION.

And let's not overlook the fact that a stop sign isn't intended to deter people from LAWFULLY DRIVING.

So-called "universal background checks" are merely intermediate forms of harassment meant to deter LAWFUL firearms ownership on the way to CONFISCATION.

Deanimator said:

Then you know the truth.

So-called "universal background checks" are merely a step on the way to universal CONFISCATION.

Click to expand...

Could be. Also might not be. But those ALL-CAPS really make me BELIEVE it!

I understand the concern. So what's your solution to reducing the use of guns in violent crime in America?

Deanimator said:

Without REGISTRATION, there's virtually NO "fear of negative consequences".

Click to expand...

Really? So if you knew you could loose your gun rights permanently and serve 5 years in prison for selling a gun to someone you didn't know, without a background check, you'd just go ahead and sell it? How often would you risk doing that? Would you still do it if you knew law enforcement were running sting operations? Would you do it if you knew the DA was willing to reduce criminal charges for certain violent crimes in exchange for information about sellers who didn't use background checks?

I wonder if most gun owners would be so bold.

WrongHanded said:

Could be. Also might not be. But those ALL-CAPS really make me BELIEVE it!

I understand the concern. So what's your solution to reducing the use of guns in violent crime in America?

Click to expand...

There isn't the slightest doubt. Even the proponents no longer pretend otherwise.

You seem more interested in DISMISSING the concern.

Here's an idea, prosecute violent crime and stop pretending that when you commit a violent crime it's somebody ELSE's fault. But that's premised on actually caring about CRIME. The proponents couldn't care less about crime, and Howard Metzenbaum literally said as much DECADES ago.

Crime isn't what anti-gun cultists and totalitarians want to eliminate. It's freedom and human autonomy.

WrongHanded said:

Really? So if you knew you could loose your gun rights permanently and serve 5 years in prison for selling a gun to someone you didn't know, without a background check, you'd just go ahead and sell it? How often would you risk doing that? Would you still do it if you knew law enforcement were running sting operations? Would you do it if you knew the DA was willing to reduce criminal charges for certain violent crimes in exchange for information about sellers who didn't use background checks?

I wonder if most gun owners would be so bold.

Click to expand...

Without REGISTRATION, how would you KNOW?

That's right, you WOULDN'T.

Everything else you mention is just steps toward a police state... something the proponents don't mind... so long as they're in charge of it.

Dewey 68 said:

I would rather see universal background checks than another "assault weapon ban" written by people in congress that don't know an AR-15 from a hole in the ground. UBC's may help stop some mass shootings, but it's not going to prevent the weekly murders that are occurring in Chicago and the expressways around Chicago. One problem at a time I guess.

Click to expand...

So you would rather add more laws to the books that don’t actually do anything except harass LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, than an outright ban.

wmgeorge said:

IF we as responsible gun owners do not do something

Click to expand...

wmgeorge said:

We need to stop the mentally ill, unstable people from murdering more people.

Click to expand...

So we must do something....Why? Nothing else has worked. Evil will always be. Murder has been happening since Cain and Abel. Criminals aren’t going to go into a gun store or pawnshop to buy a firearm. That’s what law abiding citizens do. That’s why they are criminals. It is also an impossibility to prevent someone who wants a gun from buying a gun. It’s also an impossibility to prevent all mass shootings. But we have to do something. Well “something” isn’t going to work. Then what? More “something”? You cannot legislate away crime. You can only define it and set forth penalties when/if that action occurs.

So you don’t want the mentally ill to have a firearm. Well thanks for proposing we take away my girlfriend’s ability to defend herself and her 3 kids because she has occasional depression. Even though she’s not suicidal. She just occasionally has bad days. Nevermind she’s dedicated her life to saving other people as one of the best nurses I’ve ever known. Or that she gets up every day, whether it’s a good day or not, and is a fantastic mother. Nevermind she has some creep that has been calling up to her facility this week and telling her all the things he wants to do to her and the police and sheriff are involved now. And they think it’s someone local because one of the other nurses reported there was a guy taking pictures of the facility last week. I really appreciate your offer to help keep HER safe and ensure her 3 kids continue to have a mom.

Deanimator said:

Without REGISTRATION, how would you KNOW?

That's right, you WOULDN'T.

Everything else you mention is just steps toward a police state... something the proponents don't mind... so long as they're in charge of it.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.

WrongHanded said:

You didn't answer my question.

Click to expand...

Without REGISTRATION, how would you KNOW?

You WOULDN'T.

That's why REGISTRATION is the NEXT stop. And EVERYBODY knows what comes after THAT.

BigBore44 said:

So you would rather add more laws to the books that don’t actually do anything except harass LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, than an outright ban.


So we must do something....Why?

Click to expand...

And why something that will have literally NO effect?

Why not animal sacrifice or dancing around a bonfire? Those won't have any LESS efficacy.

This whole thing is a con, intended to bamboozle the gullible into giving up their most fundamental RIGHTS.