Why Universal Background Checks Are Bad for Gun Owners

[Partizanai]

I would guess that make me extreme then?

It is my/our constitutional right to own firearms. They were for much
more than hunting. They were/are also to protect us from any unjust and
or oppressive government.
I plan on leaving my firearms to my son and hopefully that can happen. To
believe that just because this is America; that all is well and we have nothing
to fear is simply foolish.
We are living under the most Liberal and gun-hating administration that has
ever ruled our GREAT NATION. If America continues on this path, I see us as
losing all private firearms rights.
All of these new laws are simply a version of "death by a thousand cuts". They
fear coming directly to their point (complete weapons confiscation) as they
know that many of us would find courage and rise up.
I won't make that Nazi comparison as have others but, weapons confiscation
was a most helpful component to fulfilling their plans. An armed population
is much more difficult to control.
To fully administer plans like -"complete wealth redistribution" would require
an unarmed population. Many people are afraid to speak their minds and
their hearts lack the courage required as well.
Pray for America-
P

 

[CoalTrain49]

The problem with a back ground check scheme is it always carries with it some sort of gun registration. Anytime we debate BC's we ultimately get around to gun registration. I never saw a problem with BC's until I finally realized it wasn't just BC's we were talking about, but always gun registration along with it. If you debate anyone with any knowledge of new BC legislation, and you break it down into two easily understood concepts, a persons back ground and gun registration, they always say a BC doesn't work without gun registration.

Well, that's where the train jumps the track right there for me. It's a thinly veiled argument that exposes ulterior motives and a hidden agenda.

A BC has appeal because it works to be preemptive. Weather it does that is debatable given it's record and the dismal performance of NICS and NCIC. Recent mass shootings bear this out. If you have a military back ground or gov't agency experience (I have both) you would quickly realize how these programs get derailed.

A registration can be used for only two purposes. To investigate a crime after the fact or confiscation. In the case of a crime investigation the weapon has to be traced if found. Even then it is only circumstantial evidence and generally is useless because criminals don't get BC's and don't use weapons that are registered to them. Now there's a shocker.

Now we get to the real problem, confiscation of registered firearms, which is really the only value of a BC/R scheme. The real agenda always shows itself when the question is asked, would you support a BC without registration? The answer is always no, because the real agenda is registration. You don't need registration to do a back ground check and most BC/R supporters won't debate registration. What are they trying to hide?

 

[Deanimator]

Why Won't Anyone Answer the Question?

I've asked the "Universal Background Check/Registration" people the following question MULTIPLE times:

"How did Chicago enforce its handgun BAN?"

Why will none of you UBC/registration supporters answer?

Is it because you KNOW that the means and the ends would be IDENTICAL?

Why will none of you answer?

Is it that as in the Monty Python "crunchy frog" sketch, your "sales would plummet" if the secret ingredient was revealed?

 

[JSH1]

No they aren't. The extremists on the anti-gun side are driving the debate, and are doing it with lies and disinformation. There's NO equivalence with the pro-gun side. It's like trying to equate the Institute for Historical Review with the Wiesenthal Center. Not only won't that dog hunt, it's a DEAD dog.

Yes, there is. If you can't see it that just tells you where you stand in the spectrum

 

[JSH1]

I've asked the "Universal Background Check/Registration" people the following question MULTIPLE times:

"How did Chicago enforce its handgun BAN?"

Why will none of you UBC/registration supporters answer?

Is it because you KNOW that the means and the ends would be IDENTICAL?

Why will none of you answer?

Is it that as in the Monty Python "crunchy frog" sketch, your "sales would plummet" if the secret ingredient was revealed?

Registration is not needed for a ban. A ban can happen tomorrow. The key is keeping a ban from happening not planning to hide guns after a ban takes place.

A gun that I can't use is worthless.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes, there is. If you can't see it that just tells you where you stand in the spectrum

Where I "stand" is NOT with the gun banners and their fellow travelers.

It's a LOT harder to deceive somebody who doesn't WANT to be deceived.

 

[Deanimator]

Registration is not needed for a ban.

A paddle isn't needed for canoeing... but it SURE does make it a LOT easier.

And I note that you AGAIN refused to answer the question.

How was Chicago's handgun BAN implemented?

Why are you afraid to say?

 

[CoalTrain49]

Registration is not needed for a ban. A ban can happen tomorrow. The key is keeping a ban from happening not planning to hide guns after a ban takes place.

No, but if a ban happened tomorrow, and they have happened even with resistance to the legislation, a registration of the existing banned weapons is necessary to be effective. It doesn't do a lot of good to ban something if you have no idea where the now banned (illegal) weapons are. At some point these weapons will be confiscated under law just like every other weapon that has be banned.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/13/l...lony-charges-for-failing-to-register-weapons/

So by your same logic the key to keeping your weapons is not to have them (confiscated) registered.

A gun that I can't use is worthless.

A gun that I don't have is also worthless.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I've asked the "Universal Background Check/Registration" people the following question MULTIPLE times:

"How did Chicago enforce its handgun BAN?"

Why will none of you UBC/registration supporters answer?

Is it because you KNOW that the means and the ends would be IDENTICAL?

Why will none of you answer?

Is it that as in the Monty Python "crunchy frog" sketch, your "sales would plummet" if the secret ingredient was revealed?

Why don’t you just go ahead in tell use so we do not have to waste time answering your question? What every answer we post you will most certainly find insufficient. Your question and whatever answer are pointless. Very few places in the United States are anything like Chicago. The circumstances that occurred to cause what happened in Chicago are not predestined to occur elsewhere.

 

[Nom de Forum]

This thread’s topic is about why BCs are bad for gun owners. Most posters are defending that statement. Some posters are doing that by making insults referencing Nazism to anyone wishing to discuss how pro-gunners can possibly influence how a BC law is written. Rather than derail this thread with a side discussion on the wisdom of planning to influence the language of a UBC law, I’ve started a new thread and posted comments from several THR members.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=786960

 

[Deanimator]

Why don’t you just go ahead in tell use so we do not have to waste time answering your question?

I want YOU to admit what was done so that everyone can see that what you offer is a distinction without a difference.

Very few places in the United States are anything like Chicago. The circumstances that occurred to cause what happened in Chicago are not predestined to occur elsewhere.

The Obama lawlessness on immigration is proof enough that EVERYWHERE in the U.S. is Chicago NOW. Tell everybody how Obama can't do with registration what was done in Chicago. But then you'd have to tell everybody what WAS done, WOULDN'T you?

So, what WAS done? Why are you SO afraid to say?

 

[Deanimator]

This thread’s topic is about why BCs are bad for gun owners.

Funny isn't it that you ignore the most cogent and pertinent arguments against the BC scam? I'm sure that's not unintentional.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I want YOU to admit what was done so that everyone can see that what you offer is a distinction without a different.


The Obama lawlessness on immigration is proof enough that EVERYWHERE in the U.S. is Chicago NOW. Tell everybody how Obama can't do with registration what was done in Chicago. But then you'd have to tell everybody what WAS done, WOULDN'T you?

So, what WAS done? Why are you SO afraid to say?

The correct phrase is "distinction without difference", not "distinction without a different".

Considering the tone and language you have used in this thread I am not inclined to do anything you want. Accept and live with the disappointment without further making yourself appear to be an intolerant extremist.

Nobody is afraid of you, only disgusted with you. You really need to tone it down. I will not reply to anymore of your comments, don't waste your time attempting to bait me. Wow, are any of the moderators watching this thread?!

 

[Deanimator]

The correct phrase is "distinction without difference", not "distinction without a different".

I suppose that whining about typos is much easier than being forthright about ones actual goals and motivations.

Considering the tone and language you have used in this thread I am not inclined to do anything you want.

Considering that it's manifestly obvious that you have a hidden agenda, you're even LESS inclined to disclose it.

Nobody is afraid of you, only disgusted with you. You really need to tone it down.

You seem FAR more afraid of the truth than you could EVER be of me.

As for self-censorship to further your anti-gun agenda, as always my answer is:

"NO, I REFUSE."

 

[HammsBeer]

Gun dealers already have a record of what guns they sold to who.
Step1) So lets say we have a law passed requiring a nationwide purchase permit ID required for any transaction.

Step2) When that doesn't make any difference, it's not a far stretch for the anti's to later pass law declaring that every transaction needs to be documented by both buyer and seller.

Step3) When that doesn't make a difference, then they will declare that every transaction must pass through an FFL and the FFL keeps record of who sold/who bought what.

Step4) When it still doesn't make a difference, then a national registration requirement like NY and CT will be passed, including FFL's turning over their transaction records, either scaring owners into compliance or running them underground, making millions of owners into felons. All firearms must have a registration card with it at all times. Remember that seller/buyer record keeping earlier? They will demand any such info to be turned in, turning gun owners into a bunch of snitches out of fear.

Now the FBI calls "Hello Mr. Jones, Mr. Shnuffy says he sold you a gun last year, and you don't have anything registered with us. Care to explain?"

Police randomly spot check for registration cards at shooting ranges, shooting events, gun shows, etc.

Step5) When ALL that still doesn't make a difference, guuuuuess what? Selective confiscation. CHECK-MATE. If you think somehow caving to UBC's is going to halt any other 2A attacks, well you've got some serious horse blinders on.

 

[JSH1]

A paddle isn't needed for canoeing... but it SURE does make it a LOT easier.

And I note that you AGAIN refused to answer the question.

How was Chicago's handgun BAN implemented?

Why are you afraid to say?

Did you think more a minute that I haven't answered that question because I don't follow gun politics in Chicago? Let me guess - Chicago used a handgun registry to seize illegal handguns. Am I right?

If they did it doesn't matter. Once the ban went into effect handguns were useless to law abiding people anyways. Like I said before, a gun I can't use is useless to me. Once a ban has passed we have lost.

 

[Deanimator]

Did you think more a minute that I haven't answered that question because I don't follow gun politics in Chicago? Let me guess - Chicago used a handgun registry to seize illegal handguns. Am I right?

No, you're 100% wrong.

But I suspect you knew that before you posted it.

Now tell the class what they REALLY did.

 

[Deanimator]

If you think somehow caving to UBC's is going to halt any other 2A attacks, well you've got some serious horse blinders on.

Actually they think exactly the opposite.

They're hoping they'll grease the skids.

You get people to put on the yellow stars before you try to get them into the boxcars...

 

[JSH1]

No, you're 100% wrong.

But I suspect you knew that before you posted it.

Now tell the class what they REALLY did.

Well I took my guess. If you think it is so important to this discussion you will have to just tell me.

 

[Deanimator]

Well I took my guess. If you think it is so important to this discussion you will have to just tell me.

Perhaps another AHSA rep would care to answer the question.

 

[danez71]

Deanimator,

I really hope that you are never called upon to debate this topic for the Pro 2A side in a political setting.


You will drive most of the fence sitters to the anti side with your belittling posture.


When you attempt to belittle people, they will naturally turn against you whether or not you're right.

 

[Deanimator]

I really hope that you are never called upon to debate this topic for the Pro 2A side in a political setting.

Actually, I have great success in winning over the uninformed.

Most normal people REALLY hate being lied to, so I just point out the multitude of lies told by the other side. They draw the appropriate conclusions therefrom.

The AHSA schtick comes and goes here and elsewhere, and always falls flat. People have heard all of the lies before. They're just not buying the snake oil anymore.

 

[Robert]

Enough. Far too much bickering for this to be of any use.