Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

The issue is that without registration, universal background checks are unenforceable. If you don't know who owns what firearms, how can you determine if an illegal transfer took place.

I think everyone would agree that we would love to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. The issue lies in finding a realistic way to do it.

was he even a prohibited person? This man attempted suicide at one point, sure looks like another failure of our mental health in this country.

I think everyone would agree that we would love to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. The issue lies in finding a realistic way to do it.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest better mental health care, but from what I have read on this forum:
1) It allows doctors to declare people mentally ill for having guns
2) Medication causes shooting sprees
3) It is socialism.

The problem with UNIVERSAL Background checks is that IT can be used to create a NATIONAL database of gun owners.

It can be a backdoor method of tracking who is buying what, and creates a "record" and "file" of gun owners =

= Alternative method to registration.

I do not get the beef with background checks here. Whenever I buy a gun at a dealer - there is a background check but NO registration. yes... the yellow forms are being kept on file for a few years but they are not being handed to the Feds and the Feds are not allowed to create their gun owner database.

So why not just check the buyer at a dealer before transferring a gun?
Like... ok person X is eligible to buy the gun, you can proceed. With a robust NCIS system this shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

Yes ... it would be hard to show if you didn't do the background check without registration... but who cares.... they can set up a few sting operations to catch people who still sell "no questions" asked and that would serve as a deterrent.

a dad giving a gun to his son or me selling a gun to my cousin is one thing.... a "private seller" at a gun show selling 20 x ARs to whoever walks in and hands him cash is not exactly a private party sale and a bit scary.
a felon fresh out of jail can either buy a stolen gun on the black market or go the easy route and get a gun from a private party seller at a gun show or from the classifieds list.... do we really need to make it THAT easy for them?

Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.

Click to expand...

Could it be that we don't know who the "people like this" are and would not be caugyht by the background check?

Once the Brady Law passed, ATF was trumpeting the number of people "caught" in back ground checks -- until people noted that less than one percent of those "dangerous" people were ever charged. When challenged to explain why, ATF cited the case of a Black man who had been caught with a deck of cards with pictures of naked white women and sentenced to prison. When he tried to buy a shotgun, he was denied.

So we have Federal law that reinforces state Jim Crow laws.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, who have undergone background checks, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yup, turns out it IS in there after all!

Just look to California if you think 'mandatory background checks for all' are a good thing.

They have people getting letters from the STATE reminding them that they know they just bought a gun, and what the laws are.

They can't even sell a 50 year old single shot shotgun between friends.

You want to give your grandson a gun? Better run a background check.

It's ludacrous and does not solve any of the problems we face. It only places an undue burden on law abiding citizens AND leads to registration.

Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.

You have to read REALLY deeply between the lines. It's in there...just keep squinting at the 2nd Amendment long enough and it seems you can read into it anything you want.

California also keeps a "list" of gun owners. They keep records of DROS transactions, so that they can check the recently adjudicated felons and mentally ill against this list. This is backdoor registration if I ever saw it. This is why universal background checks will lead to registration and confiscation. You can't just give that shotgun to your son, it has to go through an FFL. Now it's on record, and whenever the state sees fit to confiscate, they know where it is and who has it. This is the issue.

I don't view NICS as a Second Amendment issue, though the potential for background checks turning into registration certainly would be. I wouldn't object to UBC with exceptions PROVIDED it was done as part of a revamp of the current federal system, to focus federal laws on purchase screening and voluntary licensing rather than on what's in our gun closets. The BATFE would have to go away for good, and be replaced with a new licensing agency with a pro-gun mandate. Penalties for screwups would need to be lessened and the criminal laws used to target actual criminals rather than people who misunderstood how to measure a barrel. So having an shotgun below OAL would be akin to not having your car registered. It's only if you're using it to rob stores that they kick it to a felony. There are a lot of other changes that could be made if we took this opportunity to do it. But it's dangerous to go down that road. And politically it looks like the antis are running out of steam again.

Skribs said:

Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^ that ^^^^^^^

Skribs: get out of my head, I know there is lots of room in there , but wow , you got that just about word for word ,

Bainter, I will say UBC "can" lead to registration and confiscation, not necessarily "will". However, the fact that it can is bad enough that it shouldn't happen.

Cosmoline, the Second Amendment is supposedly a pro-gun mandate. I don't see a new agency coming out as "pro-gun" as being a benefit.

I do not see it as a decent option to be required to go through an intermediate party in order to sell or gift my best friend, whom I've known my whole life. Family is usually excluded, but friends are not. That is why I would be okay with a voluntary system. If I so desired, I could sell my friend a gun with no check, but sell to some random stranger on craigs list after calling the number. On the other hand, if I didn't want to deal with that, I could just sell it to the random stranger. The point is the decision is mine whether or not to go through the process.

No, it absolutely will.

Even if it is not the intent right now, (and I'm not at all convinced it isn't,) sooner or later, it will be realized that:

A: It does nothing to help solve crime. When criminals know that purchased guns can be tracked back to them, they use someone else's. It's that simple. NY and Canada are scrapping their systems because they are ineffective.

B: If it doesn't solve or prevent crime.....why else should the information be collected in the first place? Of COURSE they WANT a big list. Don't be naive.

background check = registration - to think otherwise is retarded, sorry it just is

akv3g4n said:

The issue is that without registration, universal background checks are unenforceable. If you don't know who owns what firearms, how can you determine if an illegal transfer took place.

I think everyone would agree that we would love to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. The issue lies in finding a realistic way to do it.

Click to expand...

There is NO realistic way, history has demonstrated conclusively that if a determined individiual is focused upon a violent act, he will accomplish that violent act.

Freedom is dangerous, but not as dangerous as marxist/leninism. In the last century, marxists tallied over 140 million murders, how many did Mark David Chapman rack up?

Cosmoline, the Second Amendment is supposedly a pro-gun mandate. I don't see a new agency coming out as "pro-gun" as being a benefit.

Click to expand...

Ideally, the federal government should be doing things to HELP us be better shots. Training programs, range construction and a friendlier licensing system for those wanting to go that route.

Bainter, I will say UBC "can" lead to registration and confiscation, not necessarily "will". However, the fact that it can is bad enough that it shouldn't happen.

Click to expand...

I can pretty much guarantee that a UBC passed by a Dem-controlled government in two or four years will be backdoor registration. That's a given. The point of acting now would be to do an end-run around that and create a system with safeguards to prevent that from happening. It's not ideal by any means, but there are real dangers in waiting and hoping the Dems don't keep getting stronger. Demographic shifts and the fumbling of the GOP have all worked to their advantage over the long term.

Vern Humphrey said:

Could it be that we don't know who the "people like this" are and would not be caugyht by the background check?

Once the Brady Law passed, ATF was trumpeting the number of people "caught" in back ground checks -- until people noted that less than one percent of those "dangerous" people were ever charged. When challenged to explain why, ATF cited the case of a Black man who had been caught with a deck of cards with pictures of naked white women and sentenced to prison. When he tried to buy a shotgun, he was denied.

So we have Federal law that reinforces state Jim Crow laws.

Click to expand...

wow. got more info on this? links?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

Skribs said:

Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

great post

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

I'd be relatively OK with the 23 states NOT sharing mental health data with NICS to do so as long as the FBI steps up the amount of actual enforcement they do on 4473 lies and straw purchase attempts.

We do not need new laws, we need enforcement of the ones we have.

Skribs said:

Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

^ this!

Universal background checks = No More Private Sales...and THAT'S unacceptable to me...as it should be to all of you.

For those of y'all in favor of "Universal background checks." Haven't you heard Obama's call for a "database" connected to the "universal background checks?"

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/07/obama-plans-national-gun-database

What, exactly do you think a "national database" is, if not a registration list.

Here's a link about Democrat plans to use their statewide registration list in California.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics...rnias-state-senate-Democrats-roll-out-big-gun

Cali Democrats are planning confiscations....that's c-o-n-f-i-s-c-a-t-i-o-n enabled by a registration.