1. You assume that a background check leads to widespread confiscation. How did you come by this knowledge? Why have background checks in operation for more than 20 years not lead to confiscation? Explain your logic.
2. No, background checks do not objectively prevent gun violence. They do assist in the enforcement of constitutionally sound law. Specifically the laws that disqualify certain people from owning firearms. Simple math tells us that further scrutiny of these transactions will stop more disqualified people from buying guns. This reduces (not eliminates) the number of guns held by disqualified people.
3. Can't be answered with the present data set however, in the past ten years, NICS checks have resulted in 700k denials for firearm purchases. People who should not be able to purchase a gun from an FFL were prevented from doing so.
4.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_1...9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/
This essentially says that 92% of Americans support background checks for firearm purchases. Given the number of gun owners and number of guns in our nations, it is a safe assumption that most gun owners favor the idea of background checks. Of course a perfect correlation is impossible but this type of polling is never perfect.
If WWII vets were so concerned with unconstitutional power grabs, why did they allow gun legislation in 1968 and again in 1986 and again in 1994. What about the PATRIOT ACT? What about segregation and opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s?
Again you assume the goal is to take your guns from you. You are writing a self fulfilling prophecy should you absolutely refuse to give a little. If an extra background check is so ineffective and does nothing, where does your concern come from? You already must submit to a background check when buying from an FFL. Can you even supply a legal justification for your position?