• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Whats wrong with extended background checks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whats wrong with extended background checks?
Click to expand...
What's wrong is, they will do no good, until medical & school confidentially laws are changes to insure the Wacko's and Sick Puppies that are committing mass murders are included in the background check information database.

They aren't now.
And there has been no meaningful legislation introduced to make it so.

rc
 
TS: Why not? BECAUSE I SAID NO, that's why not.
Senator: What do you mean, "No"? Who do you think you are?
TS: Did I stutter? I am a CITIZEN, and a VOTER. I am not your subject, I am your EMPLOYER. Who do you think YOU are?!?
Senator: But, It's my responsibility to answer to the will of the people!
TS: WRONG, SENATOR, WRONG! Your responsibility is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The oath you swore says nothing about the "will of the people". If the "will of the people" violates the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the people, your oath requires you to tell the "people" you lack the authority to do that.

We don't need the government's permission, Senator. It needs ours.

Cruz, Cornyn: "We get it!"

Schumer, Lautenberg: Mental health... children... criminals...

Feinstein: scary black guns... full-auto missile launchers... shoulder thingies! Blurble spit Gerk *twitch* *twitch* squeeeeee....

THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU IN PART BY THE NUMBER 2, AND THE LETTERS N, R, AND A.
 
Last edited:
Guilty until proven innocent is NOT one of the concepts upon which our legal system was based.
 
"You register your car, and are held responsible for what happens with it. Why not each gun? That would keep people from selling them or not reporting thefts."
Click to expand...

Ah. But literally anyone can buy a car without a background check. You register a vehicle to drive it on a public road- similar to the concealed carry laws in the majority of states, that require a concealed carry license to carry outside your home or business. The proposed background check requirements might have made it impossible to sell to anyone who was not a family member without a background check, regardless of your personal knowledge of that individual. As others have pointed out, depending on the verbiage, it might have been ruled a felony just to leave your firearms in your own domicile longer than x time, if you have a roommate.

John
 
riverperson said:
when a ubc doesn't stop mass shootings, they'll want something else. When that doesn't work, something else, and so on.

Look at where our gun rights are now, compared to what they were in the past before the gca and nfa.

The founding fathers settled the rkba issue pretty well, if you ask me. These idiots don't seem to get that.
Click to expand...
Bingo! That is the gun grabbers' game plan. And the ultimate result is total ban of private firearm ownership, if we keep giving an inch here an inch there.
This concept should be tattooed in every gun owner's brain.
 
Ive been thinking that maybe we should pass a law which would require that when a private citizen bought some... ah... well, controlled substance from another similar person they should both go through a background check. :uhoh:

Now some folks will call me pretty dumb, but last week John McCain, our senator from Arizona said that "while he wouldn't vote for an AWB, he would support the UBC bill, because while it hadn't prevented any shootings in the past, and wouldn't likely prevent any in the future, it sounded reasonable and probably wasn't unconstitutional.

That kind of reasoning makes my suggestion sound pretty good. :D
 
I've got thwo reasons of why I disapprove of UBCs (none of which is the registration fear, although it's not that I doubt that would happen). First, is the slippery slope. All these anti-gunners say that they want UBCs to prevent mass shootings, yet most of the recent mass shootings would not have been prevented by UBCs. So when UBCs didn't work, the anti-gunners would want something else (not that they don't want something else already, but UBCs are a starting point).

Next, requiring UBCs would require every gun transaction to go through an FFL. The cheapest I have been able to find for an FFL transfer is $35. I've heard of it being as much as $100 in some places. Can you imagine how much those prices would go up if everybody who sold a gun was going to the local FFL to do a transfer? On top of that, the ATF would certainly know that they could now profit from it as well since it was mandatory, so throw on their fee on top of that. I would bet that when it is all said and done, we would be talking at least $100 in fees just to sell a gun. Now for the people who are spending $1000-1500 for a gun, that $100 isn't going to mean much. But what about the people who are only able to spen $200-300 on a gun? You're increasing the price of the gun (and the ability to exercise a constitutional right) by 25-33%. That could possibly price that person out of the market, and that's wrong if you ask me.

My thoughts are that they should pass a bill that allows any citizen selling a gun to do a NICS check if that citizen chooses to do so. That way the "90%" of people who want that can have their UBCs. The other 10% wouldn't be bothered with it.
 
At some level it would include a 'professional' making a decision, who??
a psychologist who couldn't get a better job, some desk jockey with a BS in psychology who found out his degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on???

my issue is WHO and HOW

BTW, have you read the justice white paper, and bother to google where criminals get their guns (less than 5% are private sale/gunshow, and a number of those were PRIOR to them being a prohibited person)

Justice says UBC is pointless without registration, as Cruz??? pointed out, that can be changed ANYTIME, no matter what wording is in this law, another one can simply take it out
Most criminals get their guns from OTHER criminals, OR from their GF/Wife/Mother/Friend STRAWBUYing for them, a FELONY (10 year/100K) but does Obama and Holder go after them???
 
Last edited:
First, What the 2A says "Shall not be infringed".
Then, WHAT DEREK ZEANAH SAID in post #9.
Then, WHAT TEXAS SCOTT SAID in post #27
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why people equate a background check with registration?

In Canada we have a PAL (Posession and Acquisition License)
I walk into any gun store and show my license and walk out with any Non Restricted gun.
There is no phone call, no taking of information on what I purchased etc.
I can also purchase from any private individual either face to face or over the Internet the same way. We can even send firearms directly to another individual through the federal mail system.

I understand that you would view licensing as an erosion of your 2A rights.
I also understand that tomorrow I could become a prohibited person who would still be in posession of a PAL.

They could call it a speed pass or a pre-check or something where it is not a license but a pre approval of a background check.

What I'm getting at is that the simplicity of our system in this regard sure beats FFL transfers and a background check every time you go to purchase a firearm.

I can tell you that I feel more free walking up to a store, a gun show, or an individual, showing my PAL, exchanging money and walking away with my firearm than filling out a form which actually has on it what you have purchased and claim that I have my "Freedom".
 
Totally different situation. In what we're discussing, a check would be run every single time.
 
You have a license to do something in Canada.
Here, we have constitutional rights that don't require a license to exercise.
We don't need new licenses or checks or schemes.
No compromise! NO.
 
Fremmer said:
You have a license to do something in Canada.
Here, we have constitutional rights that don't require a license to exercise.
We don't need new licenses or checks or schemes.
No compromise! NO.
Click to expand...
Yet I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a brand new firearm without a paper record but you can't.
Chalk one up for your rights.
 
Part of my opposition is based upon the open admission by the most adamant supporters of UBC that what they really wish they could achieve is total confiscation. Why would I want to cooperate with people who clearly are trying to move the starting point of each argument closer and closer to where no discussion will be needed, because we will have lost the right to own firearms. And just because something sounds "reasonable" to some people does not mean it should become the law, and thus restricting all of us. DUI drivers have killed many innocent people, so maybe it is reasonable to require a background check on every attempted purchase of alcohol, to make sure we don't accidentally sell booze to someone we now is already a problem since that have a DUI conviction. Do we really want to give the government more and more authority in how we live our personal lives? When the left will not even stand for verification of voters to make sure they are who they say they are, but want to have more and more invasive background checks for gun owners, you know that there is really a political agenda working here that is not in your or my interests.
 
Oh, you can, for now. Until they revoke the license, and then you'll buy nothing until your government decides otherwise.
The criminal will never worry about a license. Or a background check. Only the law abiding citizen will be affected.
 
It was feel good legislation that would have done nothing to prevent crime. I also didn't like the tactics used. The lied about 90 percent of people supporting it to gain support The Obama administration parroted the 40 percent stat; a stat that was rounded up, outdated and later found to be inaccurate. Notice that they didn’t say that 40 percent of firearms sold at gun shows show up at crime scenes because they can’t. It just isn’t true.

They kept on say things like, "If it could save just one life" when they knew darn well that just enforcing existing laws would save more than one life. They already have a background check system they don't use correctly. They give known straw purchasers probation when they should be brought up on accessory charges and sent to prison.

This was a political litmus test to see if they could jam through even worse legislation later on. Frankly, I am tired of government encroachment on my life and the tactics they use to try and destroy my freedom. This isn’t over yet and I know that, but it is nice to take a breath and regroup.
 
We should all remember what happened in the UK, and in Australia. Terrible crimes led to severe gun restrictions, full registration, and eventual confiscation. I know someone in Australia who dutifully registered his guns, being assured that none of his guns were on the prohibited list. Some time later ALL of his guns were added to the list and he was forced to surrender them. People in the UK said confiscation could never happen in the birthplace of European freedom, but not only are guns banned, essentially the right of self defense has been taken away. While gun crime is lower than it is in the USA, violent crime is much, much higher. What most alarms me is that despite my career in the military, lifetime support of the NRA, a family atmosphere that stressed self reliance and individual freedom, both of my sons have grown up to be anti gun. Both were highly offended when I bought them NRA memberships as gifts. At least my two sons-in-law don't feel that way, nor are my daughters so dogmatically opposed to firearms for home defense. But I doubt that any of my grown children, or their spouses, truly understand what the dynamic of gun control is really about and likely think that the recent Senate proposal was totally reasonable. Hopefully I will get to have some influence on my 10 grandchildren so that they don't grow up disenfranchised and part of the sheeple.
 
Every check with the NIC is saved.
While the ATF does not know directly what the person bought (Handgun, Rifle or Shotgun) they know that s/he did.
Once they get the 4473 they know even what.
Click to expand...

NICS: I thought they were required by law to delete the data after 90 days?
4473: Only stay at the store for 7 years?

Bottom line: I believe the statement "there is gun registration today" is FALSE.
 
Proof that extending the checks has already come out of Joe Biden's mouth:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/j...cute-everybody-who-lies-on-background-checks/

And on top of that, from this study done using 2010 numbers... there were ~76,000 people who were denied on a background check. Only 62 of those cases were referred for prosecution.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf



Again without registration it would never be doable.



German history is a good example of what happened...

(In a nutshell)
-1919 the Weimar Republic passed sweeping gun control laws and everything was turned into the government.
-1928 German parliament passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition which relaxed the laws but there was required registration(not sure if just owners or firearms as well). It's argued that this was passed because of Hitler's attempted/failed coup in Munich to gain power in 1923.
-1938 Nazi Gun Control laws enacted, through the registration process they were able to disarm the Jewish and all those who opposed the Nazi party.

Here is the very good paper on the issue:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf


You can see that while the registration was enacted under the previous governing body... it paved the road for the Nazis to pick and choose who can be armed and allowed them to take control over the Jews.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
What's wrong on background check's for firearms?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
138
Views
4K
rbernie
rbernie
H
  • Locked
background check question
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
R
  • Locked
Have Background Checks Ever Prevented a Crime?
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
One-Time
O
1
  • Locked
Artilce re background checks and records
Replies
10
Views
502
22-rimfire
2
D
  • Locked
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top