No to Universal Background Checks

This is a discussion on No to Universal Background Checks within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by pmspaul This right here is what I cannot understand. In one breath you acknowledge that it's the other factors that are the ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: No to Universal Background Checks

  1. #16
    Member Array J.Thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by pmspaul View Post
    This right here is what I cannot understand. In one breath you acknowledge that it's the other factors that are the reason for increased violence. Then you say it's reasonable to succumb to UBC's and subsequently registration which we all know will not affect the cause or the criminals.

    It is not reasonable to pass laws which violate the US Constitution. The reasons our rights have been eroded to where they are now is because people before us compromised them. If we continue to do things in the interest of being reasonable, all my grand children will know is that in the old days people had guns and shot for pleasure and now anyone with a gun is a criminal.

    So I ask you sir, where is your line in the sand. When is enough infringement enough?
    I don't like the government in my business anymore than you do; I'm a child of the Reagan era, born and bred a conservative. I'm a big fan of keeping the government out of my daily activities. But it's unreasonable to think that we can eliminate background checks, and it's unreasonable to believe that we aren't registering our guns already. The government currently has no freaking clue what guns I have in my home or on my hip, that much is true, but that's because I live in a state where registration isn't presently required. On the other hand, the fact that I submitted my information for a background check to get my permit to acquire and later on my permit to carry, makes it pretty evident that I do in fact own guns, they just don't know what or how many. There are states that do require registration and have for quite some time; the government, at least at the local and state level, knows who has what in those areas.

    So does the idea of "strengthening background checks" cross the line for me? I'm not thrilled about it, and it's pretty pointless considering it won't solve a single problem that needs to be addressed. But being so pointless I find it more important for me to fight the things that have more serious consequences. I'm VERY concerned about being forced to register serial numbers. I'm VERY concerned about magazine limits and bans on specific models or features that have nothing to do with how dangerous a particular firearm is. I'm VERY concerned with what we can do to solve the cultural and societal issues in which gun crime are so deeply rooted. I would rather the government go after the criminals and enforce the laws we already have rather than arbitrarily writing legislation that does absolutely nothing but punish the good guys.

    But I have to ask this as I wonder myself: If we know that the root of the problem lies in our culture, in our society, what other rights are we willing to infringe upon to solve those problems? For instance, I really do think the violence on TV and in movies and video games is a huge contributing factor but like it or not, the First Amendment protects the companies that produce such material. Are we willing to infringe upon their rights in order to protect our Second Amendment rights?

    I really do think that both sides need to put the tape measures down and pull their pants up. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy and what's happening in Washington disgusts me but we're only going to make any kind of headway if both sides are willing to approach the problem with level heads and open minds. The issues are far more complex than simply stating and restating what the Second Amendment says and what it means and telling the left to take a walk.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array ScottM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    716
    So I ask you sir, where is your line in the sand. When is enough infringement enough?
    After he let's just one more right get chipped away.
    I'm a child of the Reagan era, born and bred a conservative. I'm a big fan of keeping the government out of my daily activities.
    No, you are not.

    The progressive/liberal mindset that permeates this board has become too much to bear.

    See ya'...

  4. #18
    Member Array pmspaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Thompson View Post
    But it's unreasonable to think that we can eliminate background checks, and it's unreasonable to believe that we aren't registering our guns already.
    I think the issue at hand is whether we allow them to tighten up the background check provisions, which I expect will be designed to force registration. If we agree it's pointless, why submit to it? I think it should be fought tooth and nail because of what it will lead to, which is what you are VERY concerned with, which is forced registration. I believe UBC's and Registration are a single issue that must be fought.

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Thompson View Post
    I'm VERY concerned about magazine limits and bans on specific models or features that have nothing to do with how dangerous a particular firearm is.
    We agree that magazine and firearm specific bans won't work. So, wouldn't we need to fight that too? Why submit here when we agree it's something to be VERY concerned about?

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Thompson View Post
    I would rather the government go after the criminals and enforce the laws we already have rather than arbitrarily writing legislation that does absolutely nothing but punish the good guys.
    I agree here too. But enforcing laws doesn't seem to be the priority. While legislating more restrictive laws on the law abiding does seem to be a priority. So, what is the end game? Likely complete control and confiscation. Do I think immediately, no. Eventually, yes. This would be all the more reason to resist these proposals.

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Thompson View Post
    But I have to ask this as I wonder myself: If we know that the root of the problem lies in our culture, in our society, what other rights are we willing to infringe upon to solve those problems? For instance, I really do think the violence on TV and in movies and video games is a huge contributing factor but like it or not, the First Amendment protects the companies that produce such material. Are we willing to infringe upon their rights in order to protect our Second Amendment rights?
    This the argument I've been looking for.....to use on people who think it's ok to infringe on the 2nd to solve the problem. It's a logical reason to infringe on their 1st amendment rights to accomplish the same goal. Do you think they'll be on board with that? Nope. And neither would I. But it will be a new way to frame the argument and maybe show them their hypocrisy.

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Thompson View Post
    I really do think that both sides need to put the tape measures down and pull their pants up. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy and what's happening in Washington disgusts me but we're only going to make any kind of headway if both sides are willing to approach the problem with level heads and open minds. The issues are far more complex than simply stating and restating what the Second Amendment says and what it means and telling the left to take a walk.
    So after all of this, you still haven't indicated when enough will be enough and you'll stand up to oppose more restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights. I can tell you that the other side isn't interested in being reasonable or compromising to approach or address this problem. Why in the world should we compromise more to accommodate them? If what's going on disgusts you, do something about it.

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,149

    Re: No to Universal Background Checks

    I'm gonna take these in the reverse order...

    ScottM,
    Forums are for reasonable discussion of presented topics...

    If you're gonna get your knickers in a twist when somebody's bein' reasonable (even if he's wrong), you probably won't be missed. But, there's plenty to talk about... So, stick around...
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottM View Post
    After he let's just one more right get chipped away.No, you are not.

    The progressive/liberal mindset that permeates this board has become too much to bear.

    See ya'...
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Thompson View Post
    I don't like the government in my business anymore than you do; I'm a child of the Reagan era, born and bred a conservative. I'm a big fan of keeping the government out of my daily activities. But it's unreasonable to think that we can eliminate background checks, and it's unreasonable to believe that we aren't registering our guns already. The government currently has no freaking clue what guns I have in my home or on my hip, that much is true, but that's because I live in a state where registration isn't presently required. On the other hand, the fact that I submitted my information for a background check to get my permit to acquire and later on my permit to carry, makes it pretty evident that I do in fact own guns, they just don't know what or how many. There are states that do require registration and have for quite some time; the government, at least at the local and state level, knows who has what in those areas.

    So does the idea of "strengthening background checks" cross the line for me? I'm not thrilled about it, and it's pretty pointless considering it won't solve a single problem that needs to be addressed. But being so pointless I find it more important for me to fight the things that have more serious consequences. I'm VERY concerned about being forced to register serial numbers. I'm VERY concerned about magazine limits and bans on specific models or features that have nothing to do with how dangerous a particular firearm is. I'm VERY concerned with what we can do to solve the cultural and societal issues in which gun crime are so deeply rooted. I would rather the government go after the criminals and enforce the laws we already have rather than arbitrarily writing legislation that does absolutely nothing but punish the good guys.

    But I have to ask this as I wonder myself: If we know that the root of the problem lies in our culture, in our society, what other rights are we willing to infringe upon to solve those problems? For instance, I really do think the violence on TV and in movies and video games is a huge contributing factor but like it or not, the First Amendment protects the companies that produce such material. Are we willing to infringe upon their rights in order to protect our Second Amendment rights?

    I really do think that both sides need to put the tape measures down and pull their pants up. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy and what's happening in Washington disgusts me but we're only going to make any kind of headway if both sides are willing to approach the problem with level heads and open minds. The issues are far more complex than simply stating and restating what the Second Amendment says and what it means and telling the left to take a walk.
    Mr. Thompson...

    You're right about the complexity of the issues. But, the truth of the matter is, simply. Universal background checks will not affect anybody but the law abiding. Senator Leahy, today, rebutted Mr. La Pierre, who essentially said the same thing I just did. Leahy said, "Of course it will affect criminals! They won't be able to buy guns illegally!"

    That's pretty naive, honestly, don't you think? I mean, in many states such as mine, in order to deal illegal drugs, you must have a tax stamp.... I know of no case in which an apprehended drug dealer has ever had the requisite stamp... So, there is usually an additional charge levied against them for not having said stamp...

    No criminal, purchasing or selling arms, in the back alleys, from the trunks of vehicles, will ever bother with the lawful requirement to go to an FFL.
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,176
    I'm not really a fan of the checks but I'm a reasonable man and I understand the intent of the checks currently in place. Imagine if there were no checks at all; not only would we be able to buy our firearms but criminals could too
    Criminals buy guns every day,guns that have been bought by straw purchasers,and guns that have been stolen from homes and gun stores during Armed robberies/burglaries.
    I have legally sold and given guns to family and friends in legal FTF transfers knowing that they could pass a background check,would I sell to just anybody that couldn't meet my criteria of producing a CHL or that offered me more money than they could buy a new gun for,no way sometimes membership in the concealed community does have it's privileges
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  7. #21
    Member Array nwbackpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    160
    It doesn't HAVE to be about registration. There are (currently) strict laws in place about this for dealer purchases and I don't see a reason for this being the case for private purchases.

    There is always a line between personal liberty and societal responsibility. If universal background checks (with no registration) will help stop guns getting in the hands of criminals then I am OK with it as long as it can be demonstrated that there is a positive impact of this change. For me, it would be a price I'm willing to pay AS LONG AS the law is written in such a way that prevents a federal database of registered firearms.

    The slippery slope arguments don't always apply. We can tinker with the laws in a way that accommodates the concerns of the majority and retains our rights. We must be vigilant that changes do not go too far, but change in itself is not always a bad thing.

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    If you have Universal Background Checks (UBC) with NO registration, all it takes is a secret finding from Obama and/or Holder and those checks all become a part of a database. They won't have all that is already out there, but they will have any exchange from here on out. In a few years the database will contain a high percentage of whats out there and that will be ipso facto registration. I read a week or so that DOJ already made secret approvals to begin keeping files on citizens without probable cause i.e. nothing to prove they are a terrorist/danger to the community/etc.

    Its a slippery slope.
    Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

  9. #23
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749

    No to Universal Background Checks

    Although the irony would be the database would only contain transactions between law abiding individuals.

    -john
    Doghandler likes this.

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,578
    I dont think I can put this plainly enough. The gun regs background checks ccw permits etc etc etc that we have to do went over the line of constitutionality long ago. And THEY DO NOTHING TO STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING A GUN!!!!!!
    Why oh why is that so hard to understand?? Criminals dont buy guns at gun shops, or gun shows for that matter normally. They steal em or they get em from other Bgs that have carved a niche for themselves supplying guns that have not and never will see gun store and are untraceable.

    NOTHING has been done from the first gun reg to the last one enacted that has stopped a criminal from getting a gun. End of story. Fact. Twist it anyway you want it but theres truth now accept or live in some flower power fantasy land.

    Until each and every gun owner in this country finally gets a grip, stops cowering and being willing to accept this and accept that on some fantastical argument that has never and will never hold water we are headed for the cliff.
    Everyone says its time to stop the infringement. No its not. Its time to not only stop it but batter back the infringement thats been allowed to occur by our grandfathers who were just figuring out that their government would leave them alive as POWs on foreign soil. Swear they didnt exist. Lie whatever to cover their tracks and push their agenda.

    For crying out loud. How much more does it take? A swat team kicking in your door for a 22 rifle before we all wake up??
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,149

    Re: No to Universal Background Checks

    Quote Originally Posted by nwbackpacker View Post
    It doesn't HAVE to be about registration. There are (currently) strict laws in place about this for dealer purchases and I don't see a reason for this being the case for private purchases.

    There is always a line between personal liberty and societal responsibility. If universal background checks (with no registration) will help stop guns getting in the hands of criminals then I am OK with it as long as it can be demonstrated that there is a positive impact of this change. For me, it would be a price I'm willing to pay AS LONG AS the law is written in such a way that prevents a federal database of registered firearms.

    The slippery slope arguments don't always apply. We can tinker with the laws in a way that accommodates the concerns of the majority and retains our rights. We must be vigilant that changes do not go too far, but change in itself is not always a bad thing.
    Existing background checks have allegedly stopped many thousands of transactions where the purchasing person (hopeful) was found to be barred from firearm ownership. Less than 100 were prosecuted.

    The state in which the Sandy Hook Tragedy was perpetrated is now seriously considering actually reporting required records to the NICS system, which they have admittedly been lax in doing to date.

    The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook tragedy would have not been in such a report, one, and two, he committed the crime of murder, then the crime of theft to get the firearms he used....

    More stringent background checks would not have stopped him.

    Regardless of whether background checks are preformed in every legal transaction, criminals will not obey the law, whether there is de facto "registration" or not.

    UBC laws are sheer folly, and will only serve to unnecessarily burden the law abiding. Period.
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  12. #26
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,837
    The issues are far more complex than simply stating and restating what the Second Amendment says and what it means and telling the left to take a walk.
    NO...its really not.
    As far as I am concerned, the "left" can go jump off of a cliff. We'd all be better off if they did.


    For me, it would be a price I'm willing to pay AS LONG AS the law is written in such a way that prevents a federal database of registered firearms.
    You're a gullible sort. The Government dosent care what firearms you own. You are already registered as a gun owner if you ever underwent a background check with NICS.
    Explain to me how an ATF examiner can whip out a sheet that had every single NICS transaction that I did in the year 2012 if it isn't considered "registration".
    Go ahead... explain that one away.

    It doesn't HAVE to be about registration
    That it exactly what it is about. Just because you dont believe it dosent make it so. All it has ever been about is registration and thats all it will ever be about.


    Think about it. Everyone here is concerned about registering guns.
    When tyrants go around collecting guns...do you really think that they care what guns you have, or will they just take YOU because you are a gun owner.

    For those that doubt...go get some history lessons.Study up on them. Learn from the mistakes we have already made and then endeavor not to repeat them.
    MrsHB, Ghost1958, OD* and 1 others like this.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,149

    Re: No to Universal Background Checks

    Yeah,HG. You're right of course.

    And, the "sweet" part for the govt is this... They don't even have to keep the records, their licencees do all the record storage for them.

    The govt isn't "registering" guns... They are keeping records of serialized NICS checks... If they wanna find out who bought guns, all they gotta do is take a list of numbers to the appropriate FFL, and now, they have the name of the purchaser, and the serial number of the weapon, and make and model...

    But, the BATFEDs are NOT "registering" guns, they're just keeping a list of numbers, and who called in each NICS request.

    That, IME, is a very simple "confidence game"

    Sweet!
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,578
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Existing background checks have allegedly stopped many thousands of transactions where the purchasing person (hopeful) was found to be barred from firearm ownership. Less than 100 were prosecuted.

    The state in which the Sandy Hook Tragedy was perpetrated is now seriously considering actually reporting required records to the NICS system, which they have admittedly been lax in doing to date.

    The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook tragedy would have not been in such a report, one, and two, he committed the crime of murder, then the crime of theft to get the firearms he used....

    More stringent background checks would not have stopped him.

    Regardless of whether background checks are preformed in every legal transaction, criminals will not obey the law, whether there is de facto "registration" or not.

    UBC laws are sheer folly, and will only serve to unnecessarily burden the law abiding. Period.
    Not taking issue with this post using it as reference.
    Lets use a tiny bit of common sense here. If I for example know ive been a baaadddd boy an will not be able to pass a check and I want a gun Ill just buy one off someone I know or steal it. (I wouldnt but using myself as an example). Or get it from any illegal arms dealer of which there are thousands of small backroom places to get a gun no questions asked.
    A good part of the reason most of these folks arent prosecuted is because after looking at the individual case its been some poor guy with a domestic rap in his past someplace, or a theft that was classed as a felony when he was underage etc etc likely forgot about it or didnt realize since he isnt a hardened criminal just a guy that made some goofy error someplace down the line even the powers that be think it would ridiculous to prosecute him for in good faith trying to get a firearm.
    Again. Criminals I mean actual violent bank robbing raping murdering, pillaging, plundering criminals never have, dont now and will never get a firearm from a dealer etc where a background check will do squat to stop em.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  15. #29
    Member Array Crashoften's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Reno Nv
    Posts
    154
    To anyone who has said that the background checks are not, or do not have to be about registration, a simple question.
    How can these checks be enforced without registration?
    Unless there is a way to check then it is simply the honor system. I'm all for an inexpensive way for me to check on a prospective buyer. Or lets make concealed carry permits available in every state and if you have one you show it and you are good to purchase the weapon. But again there is not a way, at least that I know of, to enforce any of this without having registration! I buy a gun , decide it's not what I wanted, and sell that gun. Who is going to check on me to make sure I did a background check on the buyer? Nodody has record of my purchase in the first place RIGHT????

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashoften View Post
    To anyone who has said that the background checks are not, or do not have to be about registration, a simple question.
    How can these checks be enforced without registration?
    Unless there is a way to check then it is simply the honor system. I'm all for an inexpensive way for me to check on a prospective buyer. Or lets make concealed carry permits available in every state and if you have one you show it and you are good to purchase the weapon. But again there is not a way, at least that I know of, to enforce any of this without having registration! I buy a gun , decide it's not what I wanted, and sell that gun. Who is going to check on me to make sure I did a background check on the buyer? Nodody has record of my purchase in the first place RIGHT????
    I can understand the thought process of wanting a way to check a guy wanting to buy a gun from you. I really can.
    But, (theres that word again) you being able to check isnt any better than than gun store checking. There are holes all through the idea if you think about it.
    1 A violent criminal doesnt want to buy a gun from mr law abiding citizen. He does not want you to be able to identify him if that gun turns up from a crime he commited and tosses the gun when its traced back to you. Not even his face from a mug shot. Hes going to either steal it or hes going to get it from another criminal where he knows theres no paper on it.

    2 Even if you could check the guy wanting to buy your 38 snub lets say. And hes clean. That doesnt mean hes just gotten divorced and wants to knock off his ex cuz hes mad at her. Or any number of other things that happen everyday.
    A criminal becomes a criminal for a lot of different reasons. Not all are gang bangers career criminals etc. A ton are just plain everyday joes that for some reason like i mentioned above are gonna kill somebody with the gun he got off you even though he may not have ever done anything before or even owned a gun before.

    Bottom line is background checks of any kind private or not serve no purpose. Criminal dont want to buy one from you and the guy fixing to off his wife cuz he caught her bed with another guy likely aint done nothing before to check.

    Background checks are useless on so many levels just like ccw permits, and all the rest. Theres no rational reason to have them. They are in fact unconstitutional and we better get to not just stopping whats being proposed we better get to shoving the already in place stuff back otherwise this will never stop and only get worse
    stanislaskasava likes this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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 the background checks for buying a gun and conceal carry permit the same in ohio
,
magazine ban won't pass
,

no to universal background

,
say no to universal background checks
,
say no to unvirsal gun check
,
universal bacground check and conceal carry
,
universal background check
,
universal background check concealed permit
,
would universal background checks and registration of guns mean the same thing
Click on a term to search for related topics.