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.
The illogic of universal background checks.
- Thread starter Leanwolf
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
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.
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.
1911 guy
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
9MMare
Member
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.'
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
Member
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
larryh1108
Member
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
Member
+1. Kilns a smart guy.
The Government should be more concerned with blunt objects and malpractice.
thump_rrr
Member
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.
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
Member
Looks Ill have to type twice as fast now.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Ivy Mike
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
What difference?
danez71
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Then why pass useless and restrictive nonsense regulation, that won't work, using those two incidents as justification?
meanmrmustard
Member
Then why waste time, money, and resources to have frivolous laws passed?
danez71
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
