Who Disagrees with universal background checks? - Page 5

Who Disagrees with universal background checks?

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 ...

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 179
Like Tree160Likes

Thread: Who Disagrees with universal background checks?

  1. #61
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    587
    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
    Harvester likes this.


  2. #62
    Ex Member Array harrymut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by mg27 View Post
    My point is I believe they want to registrate every firearm so they eventually have an easier time confiscating when they are ready if that day should come..

    About the kids? I was referring to the president today on national news using Children to get his point across and to get public support for his agenda..

    I ve had a backround check with every gun I owned in my life, So Im assuming the pres means a registry? Because we already get backround checks.
    You can get a gun without doing a background check at gun shows

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    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."

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    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.
    blanco64 and GeorgiaDawg like this.

  5. #65
    Ex Member Array harrymut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    There are many problems with background checks. We have to look down the road, beyond the current inconvenience.

    How are people supposed to get permission to buy arms, from the same entity that potentially tyrannizes them?

    How about a NICS check for every citizen before they are allowed to vote?

    As for a previous statement about only criminals will fail the check... We're all just one bad day, wrong place at the wrong time, from being criminals.

    The burden to prove guilt lies with the state. Or at least it's supposed to. This system puts the burden of proof to show innocence on the citizen, and that too before they exercise a God given right.

    When this fails to prevent crime, then they'll institute registration. Then you'll have to show identification and prove that your gun is yours... papers please?

    Oh whoops, can't let your wife or child borrow your gun, you might get in trouble.

    We're all statutory criminals that haven't been caught yet. And we don't even know it.



    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Many of the things the you stated the government could decide to do without universal background checks.

    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.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Smilinswordsman View Post
    I like the idea of Universal Background Checks. HOWEVER in order to enforce mandatory background checks of private transactions would require a registration database proving that a background check was run before the firearm was sold. I, like many others in this forum, am firmly against a national registry that lets the gov't or any hacker know exactly what type of and how many firearms I own. Therefore I am against Universal Background Checks.
    Actually, no it wouldn't. I think there should be a list of those who Can't have a weapon. Then, any person who sells a firearm can simply call in and check against that list. If it comes back approved, then an approval number is given and the seller is required to keep that approval number for seven years. Then, if the gun is ever used in a crime and it's traced back to you as the original buyer, all you have to do is provide the number to prove that you sold it legally. No FFL needed, no cost involved, and it puts legal pressure on both the buyer and the seller to obey laws.

    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.
    Harvester likes this.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    Can you say Shall not be infringed!!!!!!!!!!!




    [CENTER]/CENTER]
    That works well in a perfect world. However, in the real world it's already happening. What we need to do is find out how the staunch the bleeding - and in my opinion, people saying "the 2nd amendment is my permit" or "shall not be infringed" as the answer to the questions does nothing to deal with the reality of the current situation.

    That's not saying I disagree with you. It's saying that it complete misses the reality we live in.
    bklynboy and GeorgiaDawg like this.

  8. #68
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    . 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.
    You can already do this voluntarily. Just pay an ffl holder to run the background check just like they would if you bouoght a gun over the internet. Many do it for as little as $25.00.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by harrymut View Post
    What does it matter if there is a national registry for all firearms? I'm not sure how many non-criminal gun owners there are in the U.S., but I'll just throw a number out for sake of the point I'm about to make , 100 million non-criminal gun owners.
    Now, how would the government round up 100 million people all at once? If they tried to take people's guns word would spread quick and the U.S. government would have war on its hands. I know a lot of military and law enforcement, these guys aren't sheep all them aren't going to follow these orders, also many of them would give people they know heads ups. The logistics just aren't there to make it work.
    How'd hey do it in Nazi Germany... How will they do it in NY state... Oh, it can be done...

    Quote Originally Posted by harrymut View Post
    Some people said that even it there are universal background checks a criminal can get a firearm.

    Not everyone who loses their mind and goes on a killing spree is a connected criminal.

    The white boy from the upper middle class neighborhood, who has no friends and is extremely socially awkward isn't going to have the courage or know how where to find illegal firearms and any decent career criminal isn't going to trust him either.

    Not everyone who is a killer is well connected to the criminal world, they are loners. A loner can easily go to a gun show where there are no background checks and buy weapons.
    No, a criminal who doesn't trust loner boy will just charge him more... and not sell from his usual location in case he's a cop shill. Joe blow can drive up in the hood and get a prostitute, or some smack, or anything else he wants... all he's got to have is some cash... the Pro will ask him "are you a cop?" that's the extent of the background check in criminal activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by harrymut View Post
    Not everyone who kills someone is connected to career criminals.
    You don't have to be a "made man" to get a gun... or a "friend of ours"... or even a "friend of mine."

    Quote Originally Posted by SayVandelay View Post
    But the way it is right now, Al Capone could go to a gun show and walk out with 20 guns. Nothing wrong with stopping that, even if it doesnt stop all criminals from getting firearms every time.
    Not if he was under indictment, under the current law.

    Quote Originally Posted by harrymut View Post
    I agree with allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns more places. I like the odds of me having a firearm and the criminal having a knife, bat, hammer etc.

    When I have a firearm and the criminal has one, then their chance of survival go up and mine go down.
    Good luck with that. I have a looking glass you can walk through if you think it will help your fantasies come true... Fact of the matter is this... if you as a law abiding citizen is banned from having a magazine with more than 10 rounds... the criminal will have one that holds 30... like your odds now? Or how about this... in the few cases in which assault weapons with extended mags were used for crime during the ban... many of the mags discovered to be part of the crime were marked LAW ENFORCEMENT/MILITARY ONLY.

    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.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,492
    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...

    Logistics. indeed.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  11. #71
    VIP Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    2,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Perhaps if they were done well, if they had the right information, they would.
    I disagree. This is yet another example of putting law-abiding citizens through hoops because of something a criminal might do. It's ridiculous. Also, I worry about the entire "mentally healthy enough to own a gun" paradigm that everyone seems to be pushing these days. That's a very slippery slope if you ask me. Every totalitarian regime of the last century used "mental health" to rule over their people. "Ah, so you don't agree with the great Soviet State? Then you're crazy and will be locked away."

    Be careful what you wish for.
    phreddy, zacii and OD* like this.
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array Civil_Response's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,558
    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.

  13. #73
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder71 View Post
    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.
    California Dreamin'

    The criminals don't bother... there will be straw purchasers... the purchaser will have his new gun "stolen" he will report it.

    "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."

    BORG Obama
    zacii, SpringerXD and OD* like this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  14. #74
    Member Array Harvester's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    90
    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!!
    Molon Labe

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    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).
    SpringerXD likes this.
    "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

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

are universal background checks a bad idea
,

background checks infringe on second amendment

,

how can i know if i'll pass a nics check

,

powered by mybb crystal ball

,

powered by mybb family names

,

powered by mybb free criminal background check online

,
powered by mybb health matters
,

powered by mybb lethal weapon 3

,
powered by mybb mn road conditions
,
powered by mybb psychology gender
,
powered by mybb show me yours
,

powered by mybb world health organization suicide

,

reasons against universal background checks

,

universal background screeing means confiscation

,
what is meant by universial background check
Click on a term to search for related topics.