This is a discussion on Who Disagrees with universal background checks? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I do not have a problem with a universal background check. It is not a silver bullet (pardon the pun) but it may help to ...
I do not have a problem with a universal background check. It is not a silver bullet (pardon the pun) but it may help to keep some guns out of the wrong hands. A background check is already conducted for 60% of firearms sales and that has not stopped any of us from buying guns.
By the way, for those of you who are paranoid about the government finding out that you have guns, wake up, they already know. Take it from someone who advises companies on data mining, all the government needs to do is go to a commercial data provider and they can get lists of people who, with a confidence level of >95, have guns. If you are on the subscription list for Cabelas, Midway, CDNN, etc, these lists are available for sale. If you purchased with a credit card from a company who sells guns, they can ID you. If you frequent web sites or forums known to be frequented by gun buyers, your IP address can be scooped up and then cross indexed with the other data above and data from commercially available credit data bases and DMV databases and telephone records to again yield a likely ID with a high Confidence Interval. This technique of cross indexing IP addresses with commercial data is called entity analytics. It was pioneered by casinos that wanted to ID high roller gamblers who used pseudonyms. After 9/11 it began to be used extensively by the government to ID terrorists. e.g., IBM purchased a leading company in this space in 2005 named SRD and the system runs extensively in US Intell, Military, NSA and DHS
Can you say Shall not be infringed!!!!!!!!!!!
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
I am against background checks. The idea is illogical and unconstitutional. If we don't consider someone to be worthy of their rights, then there is probably a legitimate reason to remove them from society, i.e. prison or institution. The liberal mindset of having your cake and eating it too is the cause of all this mess. They want to let people out early and then take away Our freedoms to pretend that we're safe.
Don't let people out of prision unless they actually belong amongst society. Problem(s) solved.
Permission to buy arms, from the same entity that potentially tyrannizes them? If that happened, we wouldn't be getting any new weapons.
You sound like a criminal if you ask me.
I am NOT one that thinks just passing a law will make hardened criminals obey it. That's not at all what I worry about. I worry about the fact that if I want to sell a handgun right now, I have no way in a private sale to make sure the person I am selling it to is fit to own it. I believe that's my moral responsibility. Something like a national database of people that cannot buy weapons will help me discharge my own responsibility much easier.
And for those who will argue that such a database will be abused and everyone's name will be added to it for no reason - what do you think is happening now? How many threads have I read on this site already where people are denied weapons for no reason? All this would do, is provide a centralized list. The local jurisdictions would still be responsible for adding or removing the names, and the reasons why.
This way, the average citizen who has never had problems with the law, will never have their name associated with the list because they will never have been through the courts.
That's not saying I disagree with you. It's saying that it complete misses the reality we live in.
Your odds ain't gettin' any better.
The only way to assure peace is through superior firepower. The only way to assure more crime is superior firepower... I prefer the former to the latter.
It could be worse!
It could never work here... the logistics... oh my it would be impossible...
Well, while Australia is a small country... it has probably the same ratio of LE to citizenry as we do... They didn't seem to have any problem...
It's not the size of the citizenry it's the ratio of military and leo to the citizenry...... just as it was in NOLA... and registration wasn't the means of confiscation in NOLA... Jack Booted thugs illegally searching residences, inhabited or not, was sufficient.
RATIO.. It's all about ratio... add the fact that if you answer the door, they'll be standing there with their AR15s locked and loaded, fingers on triggers... pointing at your little punkin head... And you will lead them or move out of their way or be shot for resisting...
It could be worse!
Be careful what you wish for.
"I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."
As far as personal sales go, I'm all for it...
1. It would give me peace of mind knowing I did what I could to ensure my firearm didn't fall into the hands of someone who shouldn't have one.
2. If it had to be done by an FFL, it puts the transaction in a common zone - making it technically more safe.
I don't understand all the push back about background checks. If I was going to sell one of my guns I wouldn't feel safe entering into a private sale and would probably involve a FFL. IMHO its the best way for me to ensure I’m not selling my gun to someone that is restricted.
Last edited by Harvester; January 16th, 2013 at 02:59 PM. Reason: Because I can!!
Again - If more people were armed and could defend themselves, then we wouldn't have to worry about the "mentally unstable" any more than "criminals".
If we start adding layers of mental health checks to things, who knows when being religious, politically conservative, southern, or a vet will qualify as a condition worthy of denying rights.
Frankly, if you can freely exercise your 1st Amendment rights, you should be able to exercise your 2nd (as well as the rest of them).
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
“The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand