Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The illogic of universal background checks.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Leanwolf, Jan 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Leanwolf

    Leanwolf Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,108
    Location:
    Idaho
    The premise of the reason for mandatory Universal Background Checks (UBGC) for all private purchases, sales, transfers, or gifts of firearms by private citizens in the United States, commonly known as "face-to-face" sales, is to stop criminals or undesirables from obtaining firearms.

    Without, however, the mandatory registration by the Government of each and every firearm already owned by each and every citizen in the United States, there would be absolutely no way for the Government to know if private citizens were circumventing the law by selling/transferring firearms face-to-face they owned previous to the new Universal Background Check Law.

    For example: I own a firearm that I bought 20 years ago, from my now dead friend. I haven't the faintest idea where he bought it originally, nor do I care. But, today, a friend of mine, Joe, wants to buy it and I no longer want it. Or perhaps I just need the money.

    Neither of us lives even remotely close to a gun store to make the transfer if given permission by the Gun Background Check Bureau bureaucrats in D.C. Besides, neither of us believes in obeying such a ridiculous and un-Constitutional law anyway. So, Joe hands me cash, I hand him the gun and a back dated Bill of Sale, showing that Joe bought it long before the UBGC law was signed by the President. No one is wiser of how Joe and I broke the Federal law.

    Given that there are somewhere between 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 firearms already in the hands of upward of 80,000,000 citizens, none of the pro-UBGC people here, or anywhere else, have been able to state any kind of logical -- I say again -- logical method of stopping millions of people from breaking the law, exactly as I laid out in my example... unless....

    Unless there is Mandatory Universal Registration of each and every firearm in the hands of all citizens in the United States. That would be the only way to track every gun known to exist in the U.S. This would also require the physical viewing of these 250,000,000 ++ guns by the Federal Enforcers to record make, model, caliber, and serial number of each gun for the Government's Gun Data Base.

    Perhaps each six months or so, to make absolutely certain the original owner still possessed the gun and had not bootlegged it in the flourishing firearms black market trade, each of the 80,000,000 gun owners would have to show his firearm to the Federal Enforcers to prove he had not sold it illegally. This could be done by having the owner go to the Federal UBGC office, where ever that might be, no matter how distant it might be from the owner's residence. The Federal Enforcers could certify the owner for another six months or so, if all were in proper order, and he could leave with his firearm(s).

    Aside from the necessary hundreds of thousands of Federal Registration Enforcers and Federal Universal Background Check Enforcers, there would necessarily have to be extremely harsh punishment for any and all violators of the Laws. Only if the Government made the citizens so frightened, so terror filled, so afraid to not register their guns, or disobey the UBGC, would they reluctantly comply with the Government's dictates. Thousands upon thousands of "examples" of lawbreakers would have to be made by the Government in order to put paralyzing fear into the gun owning citizens.

    Of course, to thwart the boot legging of guns in the black market trade, thousands of Federal Snitches would have to be hired by the President. They could travel throughout the country, north, south, east, and west, blanketing the U.S., doing their best to set up gun owners to break the Law, and then rat them out to the Enforcers. This would also help the President with his very large unemployment problem. Also it would magnify and intensify the fear of the citizens of breaking the Registration Law and UBGC Law.

    A gun owner would never know if that nice guy he met at the local hardware store last month and came to his church each Sunday, just wanted to buy a gun "under the table," of if he were a Federal Snitch who'd rat him out. Fear is very powerful persuader.

    Therefore, without the Mandatory Registration Law of previous and current guns already owned, the Universal Background Check Law would be virtually ineffective, even though new sales and transfers would be monitored.

    And of course, it would all work perfectly just as the anti-guns, anti-Constitution crowd has planned. Wouldn't it??

    Or would there be unintended consequences ??
     
  2. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Maybe Obama just figured out a way to reduce unemployment. :eek:
     
  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    Moses Lake WA
    Biden says the Govt doesn't have time to prosecute form law violations now, so they are going to make more form laws.

    Pops
     
  4. BigN

    BigN Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    Adirondack Mountains, Waaay Upstate New York
    Very little they do in DC is connected to logic or rationality so I wouldn't search for those things in any decisions they make.
     
  5. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,773
    Location:
    Illinois`
    TRhese are trhe same people who preach "Common Sense"...
     
  6. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    They couldn't do anything to stop drugs or illegal immigration. What makes you think the government's going to be able to do it with guns?
     
  7. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    West Chicago, IL
    If there's one thing the Democrats are good at doing in power, it's taking harmful steps towards statism. They'd just hire more manpower to help assist in keeping track of our guns.

    But yeah, very illogical to those with common sense. Quite logical to those who like big government.
     
  8. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    More laws, regulations, and restrictions imposed on citizens → need for more more enforcers → more people on government payroll → more people in some way dependent on government → more coercive power in hands of government → less power in the hands of citizens → fewer people who will vote to rein in government overreach → more reelection security for government overreachers → more laws, regulations, and restrictions imposed on citizens...

    Lather, rinse, repeat.
     
  9. FROGO207

    FROGO207 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,407
    Location:
    Mount Desert Island Maine
    As has been stated many many times before on this forum----------WHY TRY TO TIE LOGICAL THINKING TO EMOTION. It NEVER HAS and will never work.:banghead: I hope this crap will cause those that were apathetic to see the need to join the good fight. And do it TODAY.:)

    Off the soap box.:scrutiny:
     
  10. Waywatcher

    Waywatcher Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,563
    Location:
    WI
    Background checks wouldn't stop a determined criminal, anymore than a deadbolted door. It is, however, placing barriers between a would-be criminal and what they want. This is a good thing, just like locking your doors is a good thing.

    The majority of Americans support these checks; opposing them makes us look unreasonable, and unreasonable people are not taken seriously.
     
  11. gwsut

    gwsut Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Southern Md
    Another thing about private sales having to go through NICS checks; Since all new and used firearms sold by FFL dealers are already recorded and that record is maintained by the FFL holder, now when the private sales are recorded by the FFL holder, the government have access to a database of every firearm sold/owned except for the ones sold through and by the crimial element.
    Got any ideas what this batabase could be used for? Can you say confiscation?
     
  12. FROGO207

    FROGO207 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,407
    Location:
    Mount Desert Island Maine
    Our state government will be all for the universal background check as this will be a foot in the door for charging state sales tax on the "suggested" retail value of the sold firearm whether new or used each time.:banghead:
     
  13. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,737
    Location:
    CAAZ
    From the OP

    There have been several threads in regards to this 'not being possible'...'it cant work'.. etc .

    Given the valid scenario outlined above, let me ask a question.

    Are YOU willing to buy a gun from a stranger at a gun show or from 'craigs list', with-out knowing any history of the seller/gun, and back date a receipt and inherit the the liability of that gun being used in a murder?


    Imagine this scenario:

    Day 1: All is good.. no 100% univeral back ground checks.

    Day 2: Back ground checks for all starts

    Day 3: Person A murders someone.

    Day 4: Person B buys murder gun from Person A and back date the receipt to Day 1 and just assumed the 1st person of interest of a murder.


    Is that what you want to do? Probably not.

    To avoid the assumed liability, Person B says, "sure I'll buy the gun... my record is clean so I dont have anything to worry about.. ,lets go to the gun store so I can do the back ground check (and record an accurate date of sale) and I'll buy the gun".

    Tracking/defacto registration has begun.


    People are mistakenly thinking that registration has to have happened for this to work. Wrong.

    This is how registration is beginning.
     
  14. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,425
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Quote:
    The majority of Americans support these checks; opposing them makes us look unreasonable, and unreasonable people are not taken seriously.

    The majority of Americans polled for these "studies" couldn't find their bunghole with both hands and a map. Claiming support by a group completely ignorant of the topic at hand is disingenuous at best, very misleading and could reasonably be construed as deliberate deception.

    Opposing this nonsense only makes us look unreasonable to those who have their heads so far emoved from reality that they remain willingly blind to the facts laid bare by both history and the very owrds coming from the mouths of the anti-gun lobby.

    The people most dismissive of us "unreasonable" people are fellow gun owners who are too busy finding ways to be a quisling and fail to realize how seriously the left does take gun owners as a whole.
     
  15. Kramer Krazy

    Kramer Krazy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    925
    Location:
    Easley, SC
    I suspect that if they can get a law passed that will specifically address FTF transactions and close the "gunshow loophole", it will not have a registry provision associated with it in order to get it passed, but......once it is passed, Obama will sign an Executive Order for a registry stating that is it necessary to aid in the execution of the FTF/gunshop loophole law that was passed. Therefore, no vote, no arguing, and we are stuck with an EO for a registration where none of us have a representive say in the matter.

    No idea if this can actually happen, but I sure woudn't put it past them to try to find a way to have a registry without letting Congress have a say in it.
     
  16. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    402
    While I'm NOT suggesting this, I'll offer this for discussion ... there is something gun show prompters could do just to make the libs and media go crazy. I think there may even be some that do this already.

    Require that any vendor selling firearms at "X" gun show be required to have a FFL. Afterall, it's THEIR venue and they can set their own rules.

    By doing this, the "gun show loophole" goes away. Yes, you still have to deal with FTF sales, but I think that can be another fight for another day.

    With that fight, could it be set up so that FTF transfer between people who know eachother are exempt? This would solve the problem with passing down firearms or a neighbor, co-worker, etc.?
     
  17. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    The assumption of the OP is that a universal background check has to result in an airtight system, hence the idea that universal gun registration has to go along with it. This is not necessarily true. Background checks are a matter of percentages. What is being attempted is the prevention of obviously disqualified people getting guns easily. You don't need registration to have, say, an 80% effective system. As with everything, you have to weigh the benefits against the costs.
     
  18. bayesian

    bayesian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    Atlanta GA
    I've discovered a flaw in the tax system. If I have people pay me for work that I do in cash, then I can stuff that cash into a mattress and not report it as income. See, the whole system of income tax is entirely and fatally flawed.

    to which a reply was :
    I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this as ignorance. Here's the description of the CBS News/New York Times poll

    If you are one of the 7% opposing this, that's cool, totally your right, and absolutely your right to make a vigorous argument against this, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss 93% of your fellow citizens.
     
  19. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    NC
    I am not saying we need a national NICS check but I do wish to point out a few flaws in your thinking. They wish to keep guns out of the hands of as many bad people as possible.

    Your original scenario is 100% correct and they'd never find out. However, what if your buddy Joe had a buddy named John who needed the gun and you did not know John. Joe says he is a stand up guy but your instincts tell you he may be a stand up guy but he is no angel. So, you sell your gun and predate the BOS. 6 months from now John uses this gun in a home invasion and is caught with it. To make matters worse, it was discharged and caused injury. John, in a plea bargain, tells them where he got it. You produce your BOS saying it was sold on XX/XX/XX day (lie) and it turns out John was locked up on that day and couldn't have bought it. You just had a very bad day. Was it worth it?

    The gun show loophole isn't for barter among friends and family where you know the buyer is clean. It is for a sale to a total stranger who may or may not be lying when you ask if there is any reason he can't own the gun. Gun shows have guys walking the lot with signs sticking out of their rifles. For Sale. An ex-con can easily get the gun with a simple lie. That is what they are attacking but, of course, they are using over kill to do it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
  20. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Simple answer is to have the dmv in each state issue ids that say NO FIREARMS on them if the person is disqualified from ownership.
    Many states already have requirements that felons carry additional cards/paperwork.
     
  21. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    You guys are forgetting: we already have background checks. You can go to any FFL and do a transfer for a FTF sale between yourself and a stranger, and vice versa. It's your choice to either do it or not. Why does this need to change? Two criminals buying/selling guns don't care about an executive order, so why is it I HAVE to be told how I deal as a law abiding citizen when the bad guy doesn't? That makes absolutely no sense, other than FFL holders will see some extra coin.

    Now, we are being told that we may not have a choice at all. More guns and their owners under the scope of the Fed. I don't like it, won't like it, and have little to no respect for those that willingly give up their privacy to "make them happy". That's not compromise, that's cowardice.
     
  22. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    Other than your ridiculous signature, I agree with your post.
     
  23. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Read a bit more about it before you call it ridiculous. You might just find you like it.
     
  24. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    Is there sarcasm in it? I hope so, because then its a knee slapper!
     
  25. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Like i said, read more about it. Don't call my philosophy ridiculous just because i like freedom and liberty more than you do.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page