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

What are the cons of universal background checks?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by montgomery381, Jan 31, 2013.

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

    gunsandreligion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    West Michigan
    We dont have the time to punish those who lie on background checks.- Joe Biden
     
  2. awgrizzly

    awgrizzly Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    392
    The intent is not to save lives and cut down on violence, it's a vendetta against free will and individual liberty. These are the antithesis of Progressivism. Their gun control laws don't make sense. But the continue again and again, passing whatever they can, to nibble at and erode away that which they can. We must oppose every single attempt of the left to enslave us.
     
  3. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    criminals won't participate. Tom is a genius! why does no one else get this?
     
  4. mrvco

    mrvco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Colorado
    Obviously we need a poll of "currently active" and "may be active soon" criminals and whether they are "Highly Likely, Likely, Indifferent, Unlikely or Highly Unlikely" to participate in UBC's.
     
  5. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,607
    Location:
    Arizona
    -Record keeping (data base for confiscation) Fed and lesser law enforcement agencies have already shown a blazing disregard for standards with other records.

    -Squigly standards as to who "passes". Just wait till it's integrated with the "Obama Care" open access health records where medications and past treatments (mental, stress and others) are cross referenced.

    -Talk to anyone with a standard hold or denial wrongly attributed to their name or SSN (see "no fly list"!
     
  6. splattergun

    splattergun Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Location:
    Utah
    no, it will not make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. They do not get background checks, they buy black market or steal guns. It ONLY makes it more cumbersome (infringes) for the law abiding citizen to participate in an inalienable (check your dictionary) human right.
     
  7. rtz

    rtz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    OK
    Exactly.
     
  8. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    A major problem is that it is all a front to erode rights. Notice, they want us to conceed this, and not negotiate.

    For example: *IF* they pass universal background checks, it should be mandated to apply to ALL citizens who live ANYWHERE. And it should apply to ANY firearm legal by Federal law, including NFA. It needs to be mandated to be FREE to any citizen; and be completed under all cases in 48 hours.

    Such as New York City, Washington DC and Chicago.

    At least that will be restoring rights to tens of millions of Americans in exchange.
     
  9. UhKlem

    UhKlem Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    Messages:
    117
    Background checks are a prior restraint on a couple of unalienable rights: the right to engage in contracts, the right to self defense, and are intrinsically anti-property rights (if you have to get permission to dispose of your property, it isn't really yours). Keeping criminals from getting guns is just a bogeyman. Background checks have way more false positives than any track record of keeping criminals from guns. Full scale prohibition doesn't work, and neither will this slippery slope. When it fails, more concessions to liberty will be demanded. Once one agrees to this prior restraint, more 'reasonable' terms of encroachment will be offered. We know how this story ends, England already went down this road. If background checks worked, how come every police department of any size has an internal affairs department? You can't predict free will, and laws don't constrain criminals. There is nothing reasonable about a model based on guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The gun haters behind this non-sense just can't wait to be in a position to move the standard for the burden of proof. Every con hinges on the gullibility of the mark.
     
  10. bldsmith

    bldsmith Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    296
    Location:
    Salem Or
    Did not read all the posts but here is why I feel it wont work. It does not work now and they do not want it to work. Here is what I found doing a very fast search,

    "Nevertheless, NICS performs millions of checks every year, and usually in under two minutes. In 2010, the agency reviewed more than 6 million 4473 forms. Just 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun.

    Among those denials, 47 percent were rejected because of a felony indictment or conviction. Yet, just 44 were prosecuted, and 13 convicted of lying on their 4473 form, according to a report prepared for the DOJ by the Regional Justice Information Service in 2012. That represents just .0002 percent of all denials, and an even smaller percentage of the total number of background checks."

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oubled-background-check-system/#ixzz2Jj10rfau


    Until they enforce the laws they have on the books why institute new ones? Not to mention it flies in the face of the constitution.
     
  11. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,501
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    If UBC are such a good idea, and are no infringement upon The People, then

    No one will mind a UBC before posting online; or buying a newspaper, or writing an OpEd, or making a political contribution.

    No one will mind a UBC for joining a church (or changing one)

    No one will object to a UBC before being secure in the person or property or before being asked to self-incriminate.

    No one will mind a UBC before voting . . .

    And so on.

    The power to approve is the power to deny.

    Pretty sure the founding fathers were pretty clear in their intent that such powers were to be invested in individual citizens, not unaccountable voices on the ned of e phone line.
     
  12. 12131

    12131 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,541
    Location:
    God's Country (TEXAS)
    I agree with this.
     
  13. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    No. Just no.

    There have been numerous closed threads on this.

    For the most part, we are in unison: checks don't do jack if criminals don't adhere to them. They won't, we will, and the only people it hinders is the law abiding citizen who does stuff legally.

    Just no.
     
  14. Adam the Gnome

    Adam the Gnome Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    KY
    Why do we need prisons? Oh yeah, criminals don't follow laws.
    How many pounds of illegal narcotics come to America everyday? Those guys probably dabble in arms as well. All any of this does is hurt HONEST Americans and it seems no one can grasp that concept.
     
  15. GBExpat

    GBExpat Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Rural, far beyond the beltway, Northern Virginia,
    Blackbeard pretty much nailed it, I think, when he said:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page