[HotGuns]

For those that are on the fence about universal background checks and for those that think its "no big deal", here is a good article that explains what the anti's dont want you to know.
Think it'll be easy to get a background check for every transaction you make? Think again.

Just How 'Convenient' Would Mandatory Background Checks Be?

Whether or not you realize it, you probably live in walking distance from a Federal Firearms Licensee. A recent map of the U.S. by Mayors Against Illegal Guns shows just how much of the country — 98.4 percent — lives within 10 miles of an FFL, an agency capable of performing a background check.
Their argument is that it is not an inconvenience to mandate background checks for all gun transfers, including personal sales. We get it, we don’t want the wrong people to get a hold of guns, either. But what MAIG doesn’t get is that the FFL system isn’t tailored for this.

 

[Ghost1958]

Really, even if ffl would come to your living room and do it for you for free that isnt the problem with it.
One. Its illegal and unconstitutional. Pesky little 2A thing. Shall not be infringed and all that:image035:
Two. It never has, doesnt now and never will accomplish anything.
Three, See number 1

 

[ColoradoNative]

“The Justice Department under Obama issued a study that said a background check wouldn’t mean much unless it included a gun registry. Cuomo in New York and Sen. Dianne Feinstein have also said they both want to enact forced government buybacks,” (NRA) Keene said. “That means if they know you own a gun, you’ll sell it to the government at a price we dictate. That’s confiscation.” From Newsmax.com
So it isn't about convenience. It's about a gun registry. This should scare the lead out of any American. Just ask the Jews.

 

[Crowman]

The "Brady Bill" brought background checks to America, however it went to the Supreme Court who ruled such checks as unconstitutional(as a federal mandate and left it up to states) yet did not strike down the entire Bill:
In its 1997 decision(Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997) in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive.

 

[bigtime_077]

Not a matter of convenience. It is a matter of the only way they could truly be enforced is through full gun registration. Gun registration is illegal under current federal law. So it would be in my opinion, try to get this passed, then when more school shootings happen, and horrifically they will, they will come back to the table and say well we can't be sure that all the background checks are happening so now we need to repeal the no registration law and force all gun owners to register. Then when more mass murders happen, which they will, it will be well we know what's best for the US so now we need all of your guns turned in. Then once we have all your guns say bye bye to the rest of your rights because they know better than you do. When you are looking at all this from the big picture a rationale person will see that these measures will do nothing more to stimey gun violence and I believe they know it. So there are only a few reasons they are looking for this. They either want to take all our weapons eventually which I still believe if it came right down to it I think they know it's not feasible and avoid an all out war, or they keep bringing up the statistics of the percentage of gun owners in the nation. So if maybe they think the publics opinion has changed even a little towards gun control then they are hoping to drive voter to vote against pro 2nd amendment congressmen and women who are typically republican and vote in ones that look to restrict our rights which are usually democrats. Once they control all 3 chambers of the government they can hit us with any and all taxes they want. Think about it if the Republicans gain control of the Senate and retain control of the House they will probably try to repeal Obamacare. That would be a huge blow to the Democrats. Again I am not trying to fear monger or create conspiracy theories this is just some of my opinions.

 

[RETSUPT99]

Let me see if I have this straight...it's not an inconvenience for the government to have me go register my desire/transaction (with a cost) to give my grandson a gun as a gift, but it is an inconvenience to expect someone to get ID to vote?:banghead::aargh4:

 

[ColoradoNative]

Interesting point in the article that most don't think about.

"And the right to gun ownership would be the only right that people would be presumed not to have. Unlike every other Constitutional right, mandatory background checks cut to the very core of the Second Amendment. You would not have the right to keep and bear arms. Not without proving otherwise, first."

:blink:

 

[Rock and Glock]

Obama wants to destroy the Republican Party. If he can use the 2A to do it, fine. If not, he'll try to use Sequester. If not that, the debt ceiling...........or the budget..........I have no doubt destruction of the 2A for all intents and purposes is VERY high on the list...........but he has some other items on his list too.

They will stop at nothing to win and steal away the 2A. Lies, prevarication, dissembling.......they have no shame. The UBC are just another lie.

 

[ccw9mm]

Being turned into a marionette is decidedly inconvenient. I'm busy.

The moment when (if) full and complete control takes hold, it would then be one of the last spigots that can be shut off at any time, or restricted to such a low flow that nobody would be able to purchase a gun or ammo without the autocrats' say-so.

And once full and complete knowledge of where every transaction came from and went has occurred, that's de-facto registration (via the trace trail). And the step between that and confiscation is only a hair's breadth away, if only it's acted upon. And it could then be acted upon at any moment ... one by one, criminals all (who defy or attempt to defy orders to confiscate). A nation of criminals, claimed as such by the folks we hired to ostensibly protect and defend the Constitution.

Beyond that, there's the simple little issue of unconstitutionality of the whole scheming thing: infringement in spades, up down and sideways.

The criminalists aren't getting away with it unseen. Our People are watching. And we're no longer waiting idly.

 

[zamboni]

Sew they get a green~light on this and now what; I can simply walkout with ah Class III :22a:

all in favor say........AYE

 

[Crowman]

Since passage of the "Brady" Act of 1994, Most, if not all, states have done background checks...... Crimes with firearms are still running just fine, gang bangers are still doing their shootings, there have been mass shooting, etc........ That Act had the most impact on law abiding citizens and very little on non-law abiders....... This is just another proposed bill to create the illusion that see we fixed it........

 

[goawayfarm]

We don't even have UBC yet & every time I buy a firearm through a FFL, my 'instant check' ISN'T. On EVERY NICS check I have done, I get delayed. This requires me to make a SECOND trip to the dealer to compete the transaction. This costs me time & money that I have to figure into the price I'm willing to pay for a firearm.

Does anybody think that having ALL transactions go through a FFL going to be quick OR CHEAP? Anybody that thinks so is an IDIOT!

This will end up being worse for everybody & will lead to registration.

 

[SFury]

How inconvenient is the NICS check? Answer that, and you will know.

It's the current universal background check that apparently isn't universal enough.

It's not like the NICS system ever goes down, or gets overloaded with requests...