Who's really lying about Universal Background checks?

This is a discussion on Who's really lying about Universal Background checks? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Came accross this little tidbit from a BATFE agent Stop Lying About Universal Background Checks It's also being used to propogate the anti-nra croud into ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: Who's really lying about Universal Background checks?

  1. #1
    Member Array gtfoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    313

    Who's really lying about Universal Background checks?

    Came accross this little tidbit from a BATFE agent

    Stop Lying About Universal Background Checks

    It's also being used to propogate the anti-nra croud into fervor.

    https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheNR...75585959121850
    StormRhydr likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    He is afraid his job may be at risk if the regulators scale back infringements.
    StormRhydr likes this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array BadgerJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic
    Posts
    1,345
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    He is afraid his job may be at risk if the regulators scale back infringements.
    I'm not sure if I've said it recently, but think about it. If all criminals disappeared tomorrow, if all vegetable matter possession became a non-crime, there'd be thousands and thousands of agents, lawyers, judges and legislators with nothing to do. They do not want crime to stop. They want to criminalize law abiding citizens, WHILE disarming them (jealousy, easier pickings).

    While they're busy investigating us, terrorists run free. While the legislators are busy making more 'gun free zones' criminals are busy more easily plying their trade.

    Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a criminal lobby or PAC in Congress pushing these things through...oh wait! :)

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,148
    Politically-motivated pap, pure and simple.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    It defies logic that in a country like the United States, a firearm can be purchased with no record of the transaction, and no review of whether the purchaser is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.
    Correction. It's the most-logical result of a free people choosing to live free, keeping their intrusive, untrustworthy gov't hirelings out of their daily lives.

    What defies logic is that so many tens of millions of people swallow the pap regularly, that depriving citizens of liberty can equate to reduced number of violent felons in the world. Ol' Ben Franklin knew it back then, when he warned those who would trade liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither. Some haven't learned anything, since then.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    In other words, a totally anonymous transaction; no questions asked.

    What this means is that convicted rapists, murderers, known terrorists, and any other individuals not legally entitled to possess a firearm don’t have to sneak into an alley to get a gun.
    They do "sneak" to private transactions to acquire their weaponry. Among other things, this is where the untraceable examples have always been. Such things aren't stocked on the middle shelf at the average gun shop. In reality, this is an entirely different market, and controlling the above-board citizen market won't stop this other market from rolling along as it always has.

    And it's not as though demanding upstanding citizens comply with an edict to register their transactions will induce felons seeking untraceable weaponry to also register their transactions. One doesn't beget the other; it only begets an infringed citizenry and a springboard for future tyranny.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    History—and recent Supreme Court rulings—supports the notion that the Second Amendment “right to bear arms” is not unlimited, and that firearms can be governed by reasonable regulations, such as background checks.
    Yeah, they do. They're lying, and they're seeking control where authority/control over the space has specifically been denied to them. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. Only the liberty-haters twist it to mean something else. And that includes the wordsmiths on SCOTUS.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) was carefully crafted to regulate access to (but not ban outright) “gangster-type” weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, which at the time were disproportionately being used to create terrible carnage and mass murder, by requiring that they be registered.
    I'd suggest a strong case can be made that registration didn't "kill" the select-fire and shorter guns. The demise of Prohibition did.

    In the long run (in the decades since), only the extreme retail cost of such weaponry has precluded its general use.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    That regulatory process has expanded, since 1998, to include the requirement of background checks on all purchasers who obtain firearms from federally licensed dealers. The dealers use, free of charge, the National Instant Check System (NICS) to conduct the checks.

    The system is fast and easy to use, and it falls within the Supreme Court’s guidelines that such checks are reasonable and not unnecessarily intrusive.
    Trouble is, the "Shall not be infringed" prohibition against gov't intrusion specifies NO intrusion, not that some twisted reasonableness and "necessity" standards be applied.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    Every law-abiding federally licensed seller of firearms in the U.S. is compelled by law to conduct these background checks on prospective firearms purchasers. Yet, despite being a “reasonable” requirement, it took almost 13 years to get it enacted.
    That's right. It's the upstanding that are compelled to follow such edicts.

    Felons go right along doing what they've been doing ... acquiring their weaponry elsewhere. And not because private transactions aren't subject to the edicts. Rather, it's simply because it's off the radar, done elsewhere, and is the only source for weaponry not tied to themselves via S/N records.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    Are background checks becoming a “slippery slope” toward outlawing guns?

    Of course not. And now we know from the Supreme Court’s rulings that the Second Amendment ensures that won’t happen anyway.
    They are indeed a necessary first stepping stone along that path. SCOTUS is well-known for allowing every infringement under the sun, up to and including the absolute bans in DC, Chicago, NYC and elsewhere. SCOTUS's rulings don't ensure a darned thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    Major lobbying groups purporting to represent the firearms industry and/or gun owners have blocked any further progress. And to strengthen their hand, they have spread the handy (and false) rationales that many lawmakers have employed to vote against what polls indicate are the wishes of a majority of Americans who don’t want criminals to be able to openly buy guns—and who favor universal background checks as a means to stop them.
    A gun gets stolen; a hundred get stolen; and Johnny Felon brings his hundred to a back-room to sell a few to Bob Felon. Always has been this way. Always will be. How will edicts demanding checks get either to stop what they do, when only the upstanding will comply? How, exactly?

    Exactly.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    “The proposed Universal Check system will create a National Firearms Registry”

    Entirely false. When NICS was developed, a standard protocol to destroy the records of approved transfers of firearms within a few hours was included. The system does not retain any records of these approved transfers and is not a national registry of any kind.
    If tracking and tracing of all transactions were conducted, you bet some nefarious hireling somewhere would be cataloging the "take" for posterity. And if BATFE's actions in past years are any indication, the "take" is kept far longer than claimed by the bally-hoo boys for overt government control over citizens' lives in such ways as universal checks. All it takes is the willingness to do so, and then it DOES become de-facto registration of everything that moves.

    Though, admittedly, everything that doesn't move won't be on the radar, if already off the radar; though it will if it ever moves again ... that is, if transacted by the upstanding such that they comply. Felons will continue to do what they do, off-radar. And if all of this is not actually being done for crime control, then it's hard to look away from the real agenda. It cannot be called something it's not: benign; or, not an infringement.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    “Having to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer places an undue hardship on lawful firearms purchasers”

    Really? Is it a chore to go to the hardware store for a hammer, or to the grocery store for food? There may be some places in this country where the nearest firearms retailer is far away; but for the most part, this simply isn’t the case. Does it make sense to ignore public safety in favor of a very few folks who live 100 miles from town?
    It does make sense to thwart intrusive governance where specifically disallowed by the Constitution. It's a hardship; a requirement; a hurdle; a step in the way of citizens acquiring weapons; ... an infringement, by any other name.

    And for those for whom this is a hurdle they cannot easily surmount, their rights are being inhibited by this blind, head-long attempt at societal control masquerading as crime control. It is what it is, when any one person's rights are infringed in such ways. And if it's so easy to ignore the infringements on a few individuals, it IS only a step away from accepting the precept that infringement of everyone is kosher. It's not. It's just not. Not for one, not for millions. Not for any price, destruction of our liberty. Else, what's the point?


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    “Only honest people who follow the law will be affected”

    Only people who follow the law register their cars and get driver’s licenses too. Also affected by Universal Background Checks, and adversely, will be those who claim to conduct ostensibly legal, anonymous sales of firearms to complete strangers.

    Universal Checks are not going to end violent crime, but they will make transfers of firearms to prohibited persons easier for law enforcement personnel to detect, deter, and punish.
    Malum prohibitum
    Malum in se

    Such crap is only unlawful because it has been made so, not because it's inherently bad or evil. And, at the end of the day, everyone has the right to arms for lawful defensive purposes ... even the potentially violent. Despite our distaste of the concept, they're still citizens.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    Recent statistics have shown that since 2000, the rate of firearms-related homicides has decreased. It might be difficult to prove, but one has to wonder if the background checks that have been required since approximately the same time have played a role.
    Statistics since the 1960's have shown that the rate of homicides in which firearms have been used as the criminal's tool have been on the decline since then. One has to wonder, then, if the smear campaign against those against government intrusion is really the smokescreen here, that improving socioeconomics and huge increase in the availability of weapons amongst citizens are really the driving factors.


    Quote Originally Posted by From the article; the author's "colors"
    Benjamin Hayes recently retired as Special Agent, Chief, Law Enforcement Support Branch, National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). He welcomes comments from readers.
    Ah. A federalist, statist.

    Myself, I'm a citizen. A free citizen, intent on remaining so, thank'ee very much.



    Quote Originally Posted by BadgerJ View Post
    I'm not sure if I've said it recently, but think about it. If all criminals disappeared tomorrow, if all vegetable matter possession became a non-crime, there'd be thousands and thousands of agents, lawyers, judges and legislators with nothing to do. They do not want crime to stop. They want to criminalize law abiding citizens, WHILE disarming them (jealousy, easier pickings).
    Decriminalizing normal activities of citizens would chuck too many out of work, the work of controlling the citizens and stealing their liberties. You're absolutely correct.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; June 23rd, 2013 at 03:23 AM. Reason: spelling, grammar
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    The problem is entirely the definition of what is reasonable. The governments idea of reasonable would be to add additional agencies and thousands of hirelings to generate hundreds of pages of forms that would necessitate additional agencies with thousands more employees to study the impact on trees blaming over forestation, chemical pollution of lakes and rivers used in paper production on guns. The term reasonable when applied to the government is an oxymoron. Applying the word moron to our government would be a more accurate and reasonable description.
    jeephipwr likes this.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,148
    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    The problem is entirely the definition of what is reasonable.
    IMO, the problem is simpler than that: It's the meaning of "shall not be infringed" and whether this holds any meaning whatsoever, whether we're going to allow continued Clintonesque slicing of our language to be tolerated amongst so-called "judges."

    Seems clear that any infringement is patently unreasonable, unauthorized, unconstitutional. So long as we've got so-called "judges" in the back pockets of the liberty-haters and statists on this question, we'll continue to be chasing our own tails.

    As you say, a government hireling's definition of "reasonable" is wholly different from a citizen's, particularly when control versus liberty is on the line along with the hireling's "gravy train" employment.
    tcox4freedom, gtfoxy and Tzadik like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #7
    Member Array atcs2152's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Kansas City area
    Posts
    49
    I find it amusing that in his opening paragraph he says
    a firearm can be purchased with no record of the transaction, and no review of whether the purchaser is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.
    implying that this can be done anywhere, anytime, then just a few paragraphs later he describes how well the NICS system works. Uh, which way is it?

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,653
    Easy to answer..... Bloomberg keeps talking about the "gun show loophole" ..... and "unlicensed dealers selling guns @ gun shows" .... neither exist. You won't come to any gunshow I've ever seen, and buy a gun from an "unlicensed dealer" or even be able to find a "unlicensed dealer" able to get in the door and set up a table to sell guns.

    enough said.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  10. #9
    Member Array gtfoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    313
    Excelent points gentlemen.

    I made almost all of these points, so they deleted my posts.

    Typical lib site fair, lose discussions so just delete and ban people from posting...

    Their idea of upholding and recognizing constitutional rights...
    Last edited by gtfoxy; June 22nd, 2013 at 10:54 PM.
    tcox4freedom likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    There is precious little truth being told in this debate. The truth is, gun control doesn't make anyone safer. Not even their vaunted background checks can actually be proven to do that. There's also not a whole lot of evidence that loose gun laws make people safer either. The fact is, in any society, there are always a few worthless excuses for human beings running around and causing trouble. The real question boils down to, will we be a society that respects the rule of law (shall NOT be infringed) and the basic morality of letting people defend themselves as they see fit, or will we turn to an act of tyranny and disarm/handicap those who obey the law.
    ccw9mm, Tzadik and BugDude like this.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by BadgerJ View Post
    ...If all criminals disappeared tomorrow, if all vegetable matter possession became a non-crime, there'd be thousands and thousands of agents, lawyers, judges and legislators with nothing to do. They do not want crime to stop. They want to criminalize law abiding citizens...

    ...Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a criminal lobby or PAC in Congress pushing these things through...oh wait! :)
    My Dad always said that the staunchest supporters of Prohibition were the Baptists, the bootleggers, and the Chicago Mob!
    Regards,
    Jim
    NRA Life Member

    He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie

  13. #12
    Member Array gtfoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilowatt3 View Post
    My Dad always said that the staunchest supporters of Prohibition were the Baptists, the bootleggers, and the Chicago Mob!
    Each with their own motivation, all culminating in relinquishment of individual-choice & self-government. Replaced by deceptive motive & false security.
    StormRhydr and Kilowatt3 like this.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array chuckusaret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilowatt3 View Post
    My Dad always said that the staunchest supporters of Prohibition were the Baptists, the bootleggers, and the Chicago Mob!
    Hey, my Dad told me the same thing. I grew up on the Ms. gulf coast and was a teenager in the 1950's and found the statement to be quite true. While enjoying the sights on Burbon St. It was not uncommon to see members of the Ms. Baptists Church enjoying the libations offered in the finer establishments that provided a nightly stage show.

    There was never a real bootlegger problem in my area, their products were readily available and at half the price of legal liquor. I bought mine on highway 49 just north of Gulfport by the creosote plant and got a discount if I brought my own Mason Jar.
    gtfoxy and Eagleks like this.
    US Army 1953-1977

    ‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
    — Abraham Lincoln

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,450
    Ask the people in D.C and Chicago about " Reasonable" laws.
    gtfoxy likes this.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  16. #15
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,183
    I think a talented 7th-grader could shoot a lot of holes in that article, starting with the underlying premise that anonymous purchases are necessarily bad. And if you're really tuned into logical fallacies, the article is a "target-rich environment."

    I wish the author would respond to two questions of mine:

    1. Nearly all the NICS reasons for denial have a 1:1 correspondence to the Form 4473 questions, and providing false answers those questions is a Federal felony offense.
    Of the "one million" instant check denials [FBI web site says 700,000 today], how many prosecutions have been attempted and how many were successful?

    2. You state "Universal Checks... will make transfers of firearms to prohibited persons easier for law enforcement personnel to detect, deter, and punish."
    What potentially illegal gun buyers who are not currently exposing themselves to the NICS-validated purchases would pursue firearms purchases if all future transactions are subject to UBCs?
    Stated differently, do you seriously think that criminals will expose themselves to background checks to buy guns?
    ccw9mm and Tzadik like this.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •