Universal Background Checks

[BobbyT]

I would like to understand what anyone's objection is to universal background checks for gun purchases.

Full disclosure: I don't own a gun and never have. However, I know several gun owners and I have no reservations about their owning them. Most (not all) of the gun owners I know well are current or former members of the military, and they all use their guns for target shooting and, in some cases, hunting. I imagine they keep guns for self-protection as well, but have never asked. One I know is active in the NRA and participates in ''first hunt' activities designed to help kids learn about gun safety and to experience a hunt, and once a year participates in a hunt specifically designed for disabled kids (in both cases, the 'kids' are at least teenaged and are accompanied by a parent/guardian). I say this only to point out I'm not a rabid anti-gun person. I would not hunt unless I needed to, but I respect that some people do enjoy it.

 

[Bo-4]

I would like to understand what anyone's objection is to universal background checks for gun purchases.

That's a real head scratcher Bobby. Best as i can figure, they DO want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kooks but the NRA has convinced them that the black guy in the white house wants to take them away.

So they play on irrational fears about how Uncle Sam wants to establish a national database with the info gathered on law abiding citizens so's they can GRAB 'EM!!

Most of them have yet to realize that Wayne and his pals don't represent legitimate sportsman or those interested in self defense. They represent gun manufacturers... period.

 

[resident_evil]

I would like to understand what anyone's objection is to universal background checks for gun purchases.

Full disclosure: I don't own a gun and never have. However, I know several gun owners and I have no reservations about their owning them. Most (not all) of the gun owners I know well are current or former members of the military, and they all use their guns for target shooting and, in some cases, hunting. I imagine they keep guns for self-protection as well, but have never asked. One I know is active in the NRA and participates in ''first hunt' activities designed to help kids learn about gun safety and to experience a hunt, and once a year participates in a hunt specifically designed for disabled kids (in both cases, the 'kids' are at least teenaged and are accompanied by a parent/guardian). I say this only to point out I'm not a rabid anti-gun person. I would not hunt unless I needed to, but I respect that some people do enjoy it.

A universal background check to be effective creates a national registry for guns. That registry would facilitate their confiscation from law abiding citizens as was done in England, Canada and Australia. Those who break laws would never do a background check.

Background checks should apply to commercial sales of guns while leaving out private sales or gifts. It is an unwanted expense and a liability against the 2nd Amendment. When I go to a gun show I can buy from a dealer or from a participant/attendee. I'd prefer to buy from a dealer who does a check on me. I have no idea where John Doe got his gun or whats been done with it. If I have a gun that was originally mine I know who I give it to or sell it to. I take that responsibility as most law abiding gun owners do because if something is done with it. Being the one to whom the gun is registered to I'll be the first one asked about it by law enforcement.

You wanna put more kooks on the do not buy list fine. Just make it so that list cannot be abused by the government and keep people from their rights.

Was this explanatory enough?

 

[resident_evil]

That's a real head scratcher Bobby. Best as i can figure, they DO want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kooks but the NRA has convinced them that the black guy in the white house wants to take them away.

So they play on irrational fears about how Uncle Sam wants to establish a national database with the info gathered on law abiding citizens so's they can GRAB 'EM!!

Most of them have yet to realize that Wayne and his pals don't represent legitimate sportsman or those interested in self defense. They represent gun manufacturers... period.

Hey little bo peep stop being such a scaredy cat. And you know what gun advocates believe. You've heard it enough. Why lie by omission?

 

[BobbyT]

A universal background check to be effective creates a national registry for guns. That registry would facilitate their confiscation from law abiding citizens as was done in England, Canada and Australia. Those who break laws would never do a background check.

Background checks should apply to commercial sales of guns while leaving out private sales or gifts. It is an unwanted expense and a liability against the 2nd Amendment. When I go to a gun show I can buy from a dealer or from a participant/attendee. I'd prefer to buy from a dealer who does a check on me. I have no idea where John Doe got his gun or whats been done with it. If I have a gun that was originally mine I know who I give it to or sell it to. I take that responsibility as most law abiding gun owners do because if something is done with it. Being the one to whom the gun is registered to I'll be the first one asked about it by law enforcement.

You wanna put more kooks on the do not buy list fine. Just make it so that list cannot be abused by the government and keep people from their rights.

Was this explanatory enough?

Thanks for the reply. To take the discussion to the next step, then:

You note that universal background checks would in effect create national registry of guns that could down-the-line facilitate gun confiscation should the government go that route. Then you note that you prefer to purchase guns from a gun show where they do a check on you. Doesn't that mean you already reside in said database? Does that mean that the "database" isn't really a legitimate concern?

Second, if the government wanted to confiscate all guns, they wouldn't go door-to-door according to a list of registered gun owners (holy crap, can you imagine the cost of that?!?). They would simply require everyone to surrender their guns, make gun shows illegal, and close gun/ammo shops and gun ranges. Then it would be a simple matter of arresting anyone found in possession of a gun, much like they currently arrest those found in possession of illegal drugs. Thus, as long as you're not using your gun, no one knows you have it -- as soon as it rears it's little head, they nab you. NOT that I'm advocating for any of this, I'm just saying how it would be done and why a gun registry is not necessary to that process.

Are there other reasons not to have universal background checks?

 

[Bo-4]

Hey little bo peep stop being such a scaredy cat. And you know what gun advocates believe. You've heard it enough. Why lie by omission?

Yes, i've been listening to you guys for a few years now and stand behind each and every word in my post.

National Registry... AWWWWWKKKK!!!

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/27309/6-biggest-problems-with-mandatory-gun-background-checks

During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for NICS. Despite Congress passing the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007, many states have made little or no progress reporting felony and mental illness data to NICS. This is largely because Congress has not fully funded NICS or provided correct incentives for states to do so. Congress actually appropriated just 5.3% of the total authorized amount in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Many states do not report, or grossly under-report, felony and mental health information to NICS. In fact, 19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds since the implementation of NICS in the early 1990s. For instance, Maryland has only submitted 58 mental health records to the NICS database since 1999. Failing to report this data has allowed several mentally ill people to commit mass shooting murders, such as the shooters at both Arizona and Aurora, Colorado.

The Obama administration's Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009, but the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%

Advocating universal background checks may leave the uninformed with the impression that this measure would solve the issue of criminals obtaining guns; it doesn't. According to a 2001 Department of Justice study, 78.8% of criminals get their guns from sources outside of retail store purchases. 39.6% get guns from friends or family while another 39.2% get guns from the street or other illegal means. Universal background checks don't address illegal trafficking.

Criminals could circumvent universal checks by having another person with a "clean" record purchase the gun for them. This is already illegal, but that doesn't stop it. Criminals could also borrow, buy, or otherwise take illegal possession of a gun, even if the gun wasn't originally purchased with straw man intent. There is no logical, credible reason why universal checks would be any more effective in stopping either already illegal activity. Combine this with the fact the Justice Department doesn't prosecute referred fraud cases, and it's a loser solution to stopping guns from getting into the the wrong hands.

The Sandy Hook Elementary shooter killed his mom and stole her guns. Police have been targeted for gun theft - both from their homes and from their vehicles. The FBI also reports that organized gangs have stolen weapons from the military. Even safes can be cracked or if not bolted down, removed and later cracked. Home invaders can steal weapons right out of houses, even when the occupant is inside. No system can prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns in this manner.

Fix the system we have now. A new is useless unless it is enforced. The current one is not, so what is the point of a new law?

 

[BobbyT]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/27309/6-biggest-problems-with-mandatory-gun-background-checks


Fix the system we have now. A new is useless unless it is enforced. The current one is not, so what is the point of a new law?

You don't object to universal background checks per se, you're just concerned they won't be fully implemented? We can't solve the problem of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people so why try? I'm not disagreeing that the laws we have on the books should be enforced, but the current laws allow for people to buy guns legally without a background check. Do you have a problem with universal background checks?

 

[UnleashedInTheEast]

I would like to understand what anyone's objection is to universal background checks for gun purchases.

Full disclosure: I don't own a gun and never have. However, I know several gun owners and I have no reservations about their owning them. Most (not all) of the gun owners I know well are current or former members of the military, and they all use their guns for target shooting and, in some cases, hunting. I imagine they keep guns for self-protection as well, but have never asked. One I know is active in the NRA and participates in ''first hunt' activities designed to help kids learn about gun safety and to experience a hunt, and once a year participates in a hunt specifically designed for disabled kids (in both cases, the 'kids' are at least teenaged and are accompanied by a parent/guardian). I say this only to point out I'm not a rabid anti-gun person. I would not hunt unless I needed to, but I respect that some people do enjoy it.

Yeah, the Navy's background check is a fine example of how universal background checks will work. But just trust government with more power, this time they'll really really really really get it right, yes?

Liberals are INSANE.

 

[freyasman]

Thanks for the reply. To take the discussion to the next step, then:

You note that universal background checks would in effect create national registry of guns that could down-the-line facilitate gun confiscation should the government go that route. Then you note that you prefer to purchase guns from a gun show where they do a check on you. Doesn't that mean you already reside in said database? Does that mean that the "database" isn't really a legitimate concern?

Second, if the government wanted to confiscate all guns, they wouldn't go door-to-door according to a list of registered gun owners (holy crap, can you imagine the cost of that?!?). They would simply require everyone to surrender their guns, make gun shows illegal, and close gun/ammo shops and gun ranges. Then it would be a simple matter of arresting anyone found in possession of a gun, much like they currently arrest those found in possession of illegal drugs. Thus, as long as you're not using your gun, no one knows you have it -- as soon as it rears it's little head, they nab you. NOT that I'm advocating for any of this, I'm just saying how it would be done and why a gun registry is not necessary to that process.

Are there other reasons not to have universal background checks?

One of my biggest objections is that the people who demand it the loudest, don't actually want it. What they want is to eliminate all private ownership of firearms and they are using an incremental approach to try to do so. If UBCs were made the law of the land, they wouldn't have any effect on crime for the reasons already posted in this thread earlier, and when they failed to perform as advertised, the same folks who screamed for UBCs, will now want further restrictions. They will also try to add as many new criteria as possible to insure that as few people as possible will pass the UBC. The people who want this the most are dishonest and not to be trusted, so I give their wishes the respect they deserve, that is to say.....none.

 

[resident_evil]

Thanks for the reply. To take the discussion to the next step, then:

You note that universal background checks would in effect create national registry of guns that could down-the-line facilitate gun confiscation should the government go that route. Then you note that you prefer to purchase guns from a gun show where they do a check on you. Doesn't that mean you already reside in said database? Does that mean that the "database" isn't really a legitimate concern?

Second, if the government wanted to confiscate all guns, they wouldn't go door-to-door according to a list of registered gun owners (holy crap, can you imagine the cost of that?!?). They would simply require everyone to surrender their guns, make gun shows illegal, and close gun/ammo shops and gun ranges. Then it would be a simple matter of arresting anyone found in possession of a gun, much like they currently arrest those found in possession of illegal drugs. Thus, as long as you're not using your gun, no one knows you have it -- as soon as it rears it's little head, they nab you. NOT that I'm advocating for any of this, I'm just saying how it would be done and why a gun registry is not necessary to that process.

Are there other reasons not to have universal background checks?

The way it works is they write you a letter.

Dear BobbyT,

In our records we have that guns j,k,l,m,o,p with the following serial numbers x,y,z,a, b, and c are in your possession. Turn them all in or face the following sanctions. No, IRS refund. A $50K fine. 2 years prison per non-returned gun. Kicked out of single payer obamacare,....

Sincerely,
NSA agent 23230

You see Bobby its not my being in the database being the problem, rather its the cataloging of what I possess being in that database that is the problem. Really Bobby that hasn't occurred to you?

 

[resident_evil]

Yes, i've been listening to you guys for a few years now and stand behind each and every word in my post.

National Registry... AWWWWWKKKK!!!

Yeah, you can stand behind them but bullets still fly through them.

Good luck when....

Because you're such a bad boy. lol.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

You don't object to universal background checks per se, you're just concerned they won't be fully implemented? No, I'm concerned with writing a new law and paying for implementation, when we don't fully implement existing law. Fix what we have... see if that works. If not, we can revisit a new law.

We can't solve the problem of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people so why try? I don't believe I said that, or implied it. If you read that into my reply, that's on you.

I'm not disagreeing that the laws we have on the books should be enforced, but the current laws allow for people to buy guns legally without a background check. In certain situations, as described in my linked page, it isn't needed. Additionally, it does nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Do you have a problem with universal background checks? Only when they don't really do anything useful.

my comments in RED above.

 

[UnleashedInTheEast]

One of my biggest objections is that the people who demand it the loudest, don't actually want it. What they want is to eliminate all private ownership of firearms and they are using an incremental approach to try to do so. If UBCs were made the law of the land, they wouldn't have any effect on crime for the reasons already posted in this thread earlier, and when they failed to perform as advertised, the same folks who screamed for UBCs, will now want further restrictions. They will also try to add as many new criteria as possible to insure that as few people as possible will pass the UBC. The people who want this the most are dishonest and not to be trusted, so I give their wishes the respect they deserve, that is to say.....none.

This is a common tactic of liberals. On the one hand, one must appreciate their patience and willingness to get any little tidbit towards their goal. On the other hand, they are inherently dishonest.

Oh hell yes many of them want background checks- but as you noted, this is a mere step toward confiscation of guns.

 

[UnleashedInTheEast]

The way it works is they write you a letter.



You see Bobby its not my being in the database being the problem, rather its the cataloging of what I possess being in that database that is the problem. Really Bobby that hasn't occurred to you?

This is especially a sensitive issue, given how Obama's IRS abused taxpayer data to harass political adversaries, Obama's spying, his renewal and expansion of the Patriot Act, etc. But this is how communists like Obama roll.

 

[resident_evil]

This is a common tactic of liberals. On the one hand, one must appreciate their patience and willingness to get any little tidbit towards their goal. On the other hand, they are inherently dishonest.

Oh hell yes many of them want background checks- but as you noted, this is a mere step toward confiscation of guns.

Yeah, they are Chinese communist like that.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone.”
-- NRA Wayne LaPierre, May 1999, shortly after the shooting at Columbine.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/04/background-checks-most-unlikely-supporter-1999-wayne-lapierre/

 

[BobbyT]

One of my biggest objections is that the people who demand it the loudest, don't actually want it. What they want is to eliminate all private ownership of firearms and they are using an incremental approach to try to do so. If UBCs were made the law of the land, they wouldn't have any effect on crime for the reasons already posted in this thread earlier, and when they failed to perform as advertised, the same folks who screamed for UBCs, will now want further restrictions. They will also try to add as many new criteria as possible to insure that as few people as possible will pass the UBC. The people who want this the most are dishonest and not to be trusted, so I give their wishes the respect they deserve, that is to say.....none.

That's a good reply, and I suppose a reasonable concern. It makes sense to me because I believe the same thing WRT the right of a woman to choose when to carry a pregnancy to term: current constitutional protections become 24 weeks become 0 weeks become arresting a woman on suspicion of murder because she had a miscarriage she can't explain. Believe me, I get it. Thanks.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

This is especially a sensitive issue, given how Obama's IRS abused taxpayer data to harass political adversaries, Obama's spying, his renewal and expansion of the Patriot Act, etc. But this is how communists like Obama roll.

to write such a fact-free post, you either like to lie or are ignorant.
which is it?

> the IRS didn't harass anyone; they scrutinized both lib and con groups who applied for special status.
> Obama's spying is approved by all 3 branches of govt.
> the Patriot Act is renewed by congress.
> Pres Obama is not a communist. he's a center right pol.

 

[freyasman]

“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone.”
-- NRA Wayne LaPierre, May 1999, shortly after the shooting at Columbine.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/04/background-checks-most-unlikely-supporter-1999-wayne-lapierre/

I don't agree.....