WOW! You guys are easy. I didn't vote in the poll because the questions are leading. Just because I disapprove of background checks doesn't mean I want every single personb to have guns. Clearly, it is possible to deny a firearms purchase from a legal source to someone who shouldn't have a gun, but some of you have been convinced otherwise.
Let's examine some of the reasons that you have given to favor background checks:
1. Background checks prevent unauthorized persons from getting guns. This isn't true! Criminals and others will simply get them illegally. You will have your privacy dragged through the mud every time you buy a gun. At some point in time, there will also be a prohibition on private sales without federal approval, and as we have seen, an already expanded list of items that will result in a lifetime ban of gun rights. Dr. Emerson lost his and NEVER committed a single crime. On top of that, there has been a successful effort by the federal govenrment to drastically reduce the number of FFL holders. In some localities, you won't be able to find an FFL to transfer and call you background check in to the government. There could be a system where relevant data about legal status for ownership could be shown, like on a drivers kicense, where it could be seen by the seller without federal government knowledge or consent.
2. Background checks protect the seller. This isn't true either. The purpose of the background check is to find a reason to prevent you or impede you from getting a gun, and it is intentional. There was a Saturday where the NICS was suppposedly "down". And guess what? Nobody got a gun that day except CCW holders. And then there is the campaign against "gun traffickers", a term of slander for those gun dealers who are unfortunate enough to happen to sell to people who then transfer or misuse the guns illegally. The fact that everyone of those have approved background checks hasn't prevented them from possible prosecution from gun haters like Mayor Bloomberg.
The background checks have already been abused by Clinton and some of the states that have their own checks. And what about poor Dr. Emerson? He was getting a divorce and received a restraining order as a part of an administrative step even though he had neither committed a crime nor had been shown in court to be a threat to his soon to be ex-wife. He was arrested and charged with a federal gun crime because of his posession of two previously legal handguns. The government refuses to make neaningful background checks for illegal aliens, yet we insist that a background check to execise a legal right is okay?
Let's examine some of the reasons that you have given to favor background checks:
1. Background checks prevent unauthorized persons from getting guns. This isn't true! Criminals and others will simply get them illegally. You will have your privacy dragged through the mud every time you buy a gun. At some point in time, there will also be a prohibition on private sales without federal approval, and as we have seen, an already expanded list of items that will result in a lifetime ban of gun rights. Dr. Emerson lost his and NEVER committed a single crime. On top of that, there has been a successful effort by the federal govenrment to drastically reduce the number of FFL holders. In some localities, you won't be able to find an FFL to transfer and call you background check in to the government. There could be a system where relevant data about legal status for ownership could be shown, like on a drivers kicense, where it could be seen by the seller without federal government knowledge or consent.
2. Background checks protect the seller. This isn't true either. The purpose of the background check is to find a reason to prevent you or impede you from getting a gun, and it is intentional. There was a Saturday where the NICS was suppposedly "down". And guess what? Nobody got a gun that day except CCW holders. And then there is the campaign against "gun traffickers", a term of slander for those gun dealers who are unfortunate enough to happen to sell to people who then transfer or misuse the guns illegally. The fact that everyone of those have approved background checks hasn't prevented them from possible prosecution from gun haters like Mayor Bloomberg.
The background checks have already been abused by Clinton and some of the states that have their own checks. And what about poor Dr. Emerson? He was getting a divorce and received a restraining order as a part of an administrative step even though he had neither committed a crime nor had been shown in court to be a threat to his soon to be ex-wife. He was arrested and charged with a federal gun crime because of his posession of two previously legal handguns. The government refuses to make neaningful background checks for illegal aliens, yet we insist that a background check to execise a legal right is okay?