Back ground checks
Is back ground checks liberal speak for universal registration?
0
-
Maybe they should start with obama 0 -
If anyone thinks background checks won't eventually enable registration, well.... It may take years, but it will come. It's all part of the slippery slope.[:(] 0 -
No, they are not registration. Not so long as records are quickly destroyed.
That's one of the concerns, that records would not be destroyed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
No, they are not registration. Not so long as records are quickly destroyed.
That's one of the concerns, that records would not be destroyed.
Aw c'mon man, do you think they are going to destroy these records?0 -
I admit that I once believed that background checks, if done on an "instant" basis were worthwhile. Over the years virtually every singe nut ball who went on a rampage actually bought the gun himself and breezed through whatever checks were already in place while the few who did not obtained their firearms illegally; either stealing them or had someone else buy them or provide them in order to get around existing laws. The two monsters (I use that word because the auto censor would bleep my real thoughts) at Columbine being examples. The only people with criminal intent who will bother to go through a background check are those who know full well that they will pass it so what is the point? If they are too young are already too crazy to obtain a gun legally then they simply violate whatever laws are already on the books in order to obtain their guns. 0 -
There isn't a law, background check or legal form that will prevent nuts or criminals from getting their hands on firearms. They can only filter out a small portion of them for a very short time at best.
The idea of eliminating private firearm sales will do nothing, it will only enable the states and feds to collect more tax money or create a new tax on top of it all.
Criminals that commit crimes with firearms should face dire consequences. Kill another person with a gun, face the death penalty. Use a gun to commit any crime and face life in prison.
I know that will never happen, but it is the only reality that might deter criminal use of firearms.
Crazy people are another thing all together. They do not care about potential consequences, so the death penalty will not be much of a deterent.
Instead of spending money on banning firearms and creating new laws, enforce the current laws, enact a nationwide death penalty and start spending money on medical research to identify, help and cure people with mental health diesease rather than either locking them up or ignoring them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sooeyman2035
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
No, they are not registration. Not so long as records are quickly destroyed.
That's one of the concerns, that records would not be destroyed.
Aw c'mon man, do you think they are going to destroy these records?
So far they have been. But there have been two times I can recall when attempts by the ATF to quietly build a database of gun owners was discovered. Both times it took court action to force them to destroy it.
My concern focuses mostly on the arrogance of the ATF where background check records are concerned. There is a history of that agency making up rules as it goes. Including rules they know to be illegal.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Is back ground checks liberal speak for universal registration?
I think when they're advocating "universal background checks," they want to eliminate sales between private parties. They don't like not knowing where the guns are.
Requiring an FFL/background check for all firearm transfers is a de facto registration in that when an FFL goes out of business, he must turn over his business records to the ATF within 30 days. With improvements in scanning technology and data storage, it would be feasible for the ATF to have created an electronic database of such records.
Moreover, the ATF can inspect an FFL's records at any time. I would not be surprised if new regulations required FFLs to keep their records online, so that the ATF can inspect those records remotely. This would be an effective registration -- one that could potentially be done by executive order or administrative action. (Recent precedent has been pretty liberal in allowing executive agencies to exercise legislative powers.)0 -
Of course it is. That is why so many gun grabbers are forgetting the gun grabbers approved term "universal background check", and inadvertantly saying "gun registration". It has been happening a lot, I especially have been noticing the slip up on morning Joe. 0 -
Within a generation, universal backgrounds checks will create the ability for the BATFE to create a data base of all legally owned firearms.
Once this is in place, any firearm will theoretically be able to be tracked back to its documented owner. If in possession of a firearm, and not the documented owner, both the one in possession and the documented owner will be subject to prosecution, because either the firearm was stolen or is was sold absent the intervention of a recording FFL.
It is not technically registration, as it does not immediately create a listing of each and every firearm any individual owns. What it does, however, is create at listing of who owns each and every individual firearm.
It does nothing for safety, the prevention of violence, etc. It only creates another avenue of criminal prosecutioin.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Is back ground checks liberal speak for universal registration?
Waco the only way a private sales background check system to work is for a universal national registration. We will have to register our hunting rifles to prove that we didn't just buy them without a BG Check. Anyone who doesn't register will be felons. I met a gun shop owner from western Canada a couple weeks ago, he told me that in his area there were a lot of guns that were never registered. Gun owners registered new guns they bought but not all of there older ones. Registration will not work if we don't comply.
I say DO NOT comply, I won't.0 -
quote:It does nothing for safety, the prevention of violence, etc. It only creates another avenue of criminal prosecution.
Not true really. I'm extremely pro gun but this could help stop the flow of guns to the bad guys. Trace it back , prosecute and keep prosecuting. You have to ask yourself how the criminals get guns. Studies show vast majority are obtained illegally via straw purchases or sales to prohibited persons. Isn't there a reasonable way to stem the flow to criminals without infringing on the good guys? I guess it depends if you think there is a chance of registration leading to confiscation. I think not. Sure Feinstein Shummer, Boxer all would love it but they will never have the chance. We have to do something to bring the majority of the public to our side so "We the People" win the battle0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
I guess it depends if you think there is a chance of registration leading to confiscation. I think not.
Why do you "think not"?0 -
There are too many Senators & Congressman on our side. Some states may try, like mine CT and NY MA CA. But that is "States rights" Already here in CT they have a record of every handgun sale if people obey the law. On any private handgun sale, a record , by SN, goes to the State and the buyer's town. And a NICS check is first required 0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:It does nothing for safety, the prevention of violence, etc. It only creates another avenue of criminal prosecution.
Not true really. I'm extremely pro gun but this could help stop the flow of guns to the bad guys. Trace it back , prosecute and keep prosecuting. You have to ask yourself how the criminals get guns. Studies show vast majority are obtained illegally via straw purchases or sales to prohibited persons. Isn't there a reasonable way to stem the flow to criminals without infringing on the good guys? I guess it depends if you think there is a chance of registration leading to confiscation. I think not. Sure Feinstein Shummer, Boxer all would love it but they will never have the chance. We have to do something to bring the majority of the public to our side so "We the People" win the battle
The current wave of Gun Laws has been triggered by events that were perpetrated by folks with no criminal record and no record of forced mental health treatment. Background Checks would factually have done nothing to prevent these events.
If you are referencing the urban wars going on where those who are not legally able to have weapons, well, one would assume they would respect the new laws as much as they do those that currently exist.0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
There are too many Senators & Congressman on our side.
How bout four years from now? How about two years from now?
Reminds me what I heard General Powellsaid recently; he was speaking about the second amendment, and actually said the purpose of the amendment was to prevent tyranny. THe interviewers jaws dropped, very concerned because Powell is a gun grabber, as was everyone else on the panel. They were relieved when Powell said "but that isn't going to happen." I was relieved also. Hearing General Powell say we do not have to worry about tyranny mande me feel a lot better.
And now you say we do not have to worry about confiscation? Thats great! Between your pronouncement, and Colin Powells, I now support registation and gun bans!0 -
quote:If you are referencing the urban wars going on where those who are not legally able to have weapons, well, one would assume they would respect the new laws as much as they do those that currently exist.
True but all guns begin legally. Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
So how do you reduce gun crime against law abiding citizens? Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs keep killing thugs. Unfortunately the thugs are the "children" the left like to include in their numbers relating to gun deaths0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:If you are referencing the urban wars going on where those who are not legally able to have weapons, well, one would assume they would respect the new laws as much as they do those that currently exist.
True but all guns begin legally. Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
So how do you reduce gun crime against law abiding citizens? Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs keep killing thugs. Unfortunately the thugs are the "children" the left like to include in their numbers relating to gun deaths
So why didn't you just agree with me in the first place?
It is not about reducing violence; it is about traceability of ownership.
You suggest positive results, but I fail to see any of significance.
A gun is used in a crime. The gun is traced back to the first 'illegal' transfer, so two people get to go to jail instead of just the one who committed the crime.
Absent the law against the transfer, the crime would have still been committed, and the one who committed the crime would still be prosecutable. What is necessarily positive about creating a crime where one never existed before?
By this I am pointing out the following:
Currently, knowingly selling to a convicted felon is a crime, and knowingly selling to a straw purchaser is a crime.
Your new universal back-ground checks would only effect sales from an owner who unknowingly sells to a convicted felon, or unknowingly sells to a straw buyer. I would suggest that this currently is an insignificantly small number of transactions, and will again state that universal background checks will have little to no bearing on these folks getting firearms, and thus have little or nothing to do with safety or preventing violence.0 -
quote:Currently, knowingly selling to a convicted felon is a crime, and knowingly selling to a straw purchaser is a crime.
you can't reduce crime if you can't prove the crime. Prove the crime =reduced violent crime.
What is your proposal to reduce gun violence on law abiding citizens/ Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs kill thugs.
Criticize all you want but until you come to the table with a viable proposal to reduce gun crime against law abiding people, you voice will be ignored. Step up with an improvement plan0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:Currently, knowingly selling to a convicted felon is a crime, and knowingly selling to a straw purchaser is a crime.
you can't reduce crime if you can't prove the crime. Prove the crime =reduced violent crime.
What is your proposal to reduce gun violence on law abiding citizens/ Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs kill thugs.
Criticize all you want but until you come to the table with a viable proposal to reduce gun crime against law abiding people, you voice will be ignored. Step up with an improvement plan
The best way to prevent innocent deaths in America today would be to mandate that every car be equipped with an blow to start alcohol lock.
Second would probably be mandated life alert service in the bathrooms of everyone over 60 years of age.
Do you want to solve a problem or just look for ways to disenfranchise freedom seeking gun owners?
Edit:
The point is, obviously, that universal background checks will make some feel like they've done something, but statistics will show you that it will have virtually no effect.0 -
quote:The best way to prevent innocent deaths in America today would be to mandate that every car be equipped with an blow to start alcohol lock.
I'd support that in a minute
The bathroom mandate no There you only risk hurting yourself. Your choice
quote:
statistics will show you that it will have virtually no effect.
That's BS show me one supporting stat.0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:The best way to prevent innocent deaths in America today would be to mandate that every car be equipped with an blow to start alcohol lock.
I'd support that in a minute
The bathroom mandate no There you only risk hurting yourself. Your choice
quote:
statistics will show you that it will have virtually no effect.
That's BS show me one supporting stat.
Show me where anyone who was denied by the nics check was even charged, let alone convicted of a crime.0 -
quote:Show me where anyone who was denied by the nics check was even charged, let alone convicted of a crime.
There are some but not a lot so I basically agree but read my premise, I'd support if they are willing to properly punish the offenders
my quote quote:Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
But still not one proposal for a way to reduce gun crime agaist law abiding citizens0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:Show me where anyone who was denied by the nics check was even charged, let alone convicted of a crime.
There are some but not a lot so I basically agree but read my premise, I'd support if they are willing to properly punish the offenders
my quote quote:Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
But still not one proposal for a way to reduce gun crime agaist law abiding citizens
Ok, you 'basically agree' that you have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I basically agree as well.
Very glad we've had this rivetting conversation.0 -
quote:'basically agree' that you have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist
Damn that was a huge leap. The problem that exists that the majority of Americans want fixed is to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen. The left and the MSM want you to believe it's about children and they both want no guns eventually but the majority of Americans just want to be safer in the homes & neighborhoods. If we keep the majority on our side we win, if we don't we lose.
The Courts will not save us as nowhere in the 2nd or any of the support writing is registration prohibited in fact it could be specifically approved via the "well regulated" clause.
Remember that the age of the Supreme court and from whom the next Judges will likely come. 5-4 is in jeopardy. The 1994 AWB was never successfully challenged maybe not even challenged at at. Perhaps because of the sunset provision, our lawyers on our side figured it wasn't worth it but more likely they felt they would lose.
The fringe right , and I'm not berating that in any way, is a losing position. I wish it wasn't. I don't want any increased restrictions. However I see things as they are not as I want them to be. (Before you all go nuts that is NOT a Kennedy reference he stole it) for me it's more of the Jack Welch business philosophy when GE was not crazy left. If you want to win the war you have to conquer the middle. You can stay on the fringe and resist forever but you never win0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:'basically agree' that you have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist
Damn that was a huge leap. The problem that exists that the majority of Americans want fixed is to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen. The left and the MSM want you to believe it's about children and they both want no guns eventually but the majority of Americans just want to be safer in the homes & neighborhoods. If we keep the majority on our side we win, if we don't we lose.
The Courts will not save us as nowhere in the 2nd or any of the support writing is registration prohibited in fact it could be specifically approved via the "well regulated" clause.
Remember that the age of the Supreme court and from whom the next Judges will likely come. 5-4 is in jeopardy. The 1994 AWB was never successfully challenged maybe not even challenged at at. Perhaps because of the sunset provision, our lawyers on our side figured it wasn't worth it but more likely they felt they would lose.
The fringe right , and I'm not berating that in any way, is a losing position. I wish it wasn't. I don't want any increased restrictions. However I see things as they are not as I want them to be. (Before you all go nuts that is NOT a Kennedy reference he stole it) for me it's more of the Jack Welch business philosophy when GE was not crazy left. If you want to win the war you have to conquer the middle. You can stay on the fringe and resist forever but you never win
If you were have to have read Heller, you would have seen that the prefatory clause was specifically addresses as having no bearing upon the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. To employ the 'well regulated' notion would be in effect a direct overturning of Heller. Possible to be sure, but unnecessary. Heller also confirms the wides powers of Government to 'Licences, Register, and Regulate'. There is little need to concern ourselves with a new court, as the power (as I read it) to totally remove (regulate) AR-15s from the street was already codified in that seminal victory for Gun Rights.
Conquering the middle for any positive result can, IMO, only be done by focusing upon the recognition that freedom is not without cost. As pointed out previously, we accept an order of magnitude more killing of 'innocents' through drunk driving accidents than innocents that are killed by firearms. Society has deemed this an acceptable cost for the freedom of society at large to not be encumbered with the cost and inconvenience of the implementation of technology that currently exists.
Conquering the middle cannot be achieved through implementation of panaceas that do not fix the situation in any real way. If freedom and liberty are to survive, the middle has to be brought to the understanding that the freedom of anonymous and unregulated firearms ownership is demonstrably less dangerous than hazards we already accept.
Drunk driving deaths can only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a car. The middle knows this and accepts that the results are not worth the solution. You, however, appear to be an interesting member of that middle, in that you actually seem to advocate for the imposition of cost and inconvenience upon the vast majority for the action of a very few.
Firearms deaths can be only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a firearm. Most understand this, and it is our task, IMO, to broadcast this reality and to demonstrate how the benefits of this solution are not worth the cost to our freedoms and liberties. Perhaps I will never convince you, but there are members of that middle who will see the inherent value of these freedoms.
Preemptive surrender is seldom a winning position.[:)]0 -
Regarding the auto breath analyzer. The fringe didn't want air bags either yet the majority do and gladly pay for them. Perhaps I spoke too soon as cost could become a factor. Let me revise my opinion that I would like to see them on any car in which the driver was convicted of DUI. The fault of your logic IMO is that the middle accepts the risk of a drunk driver because acholol consumption is a common experience for them. They mostly all have an occasional drink and are comfortable with it. On the other hand most of the middle does not own and have never handled a firearm and are extremely uncomfortable with them.
quote:Firearms deaths can be only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a firearm
Agree but that was and never has been my position Again I advocate methods to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen.0 -
[:(!] To those that are truly ignorant of the california registration scheme, that has been going on for years, and those that are clearly schills for the anti-gun groups: The dealer record of sale(DROS) forms that were sent to calif. DOJ were to be destroyed,by law, after the background check was done by the State. An old DOJ agent confirmed this and it is also written into the law. What he also confirmed was that before the hard copy is destroyed the information was given over to ATF in calif. This was confirmed by an ATF agent in san francisco many years ago.
Soooooo....the state complied with the letter of the law but records/registration was stored.
If you have a legal action that may prevent you from possessing a firearm in calif. the government looks up your firearms history and will send someone to your last known address to pick them up til your legal matter is resolved.
The ignorant can learn, the schills will see their day when light is shone on them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:'basically agree' that you have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist
Damn that was a huge leap. The problem that exists that the majority of Americans want fixed is to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen. The left and the MSM want you to believe it's about children and they both want no guns eventually but the majority of Americans just want to be safer in the homes & neighborhoods. If we keep the majority on our side we win, if we don't we lose.
The Courts will not save us as nowhere in the 2nd or any of the support writing is registration prohibited in fact it could be specifically approved via the "well regulated" clause.
Remember that the age of the Supreme court and from whom the next Judges will likely come. 5-4 is in jeopardy. The 1994 AWB was never successfully challenged maybe not even challenged at at. Perhaps because of the sunset provision, our lawyers on our side figured it wasn't worth it but more likely they felt they would lose.
The fringe right , and I'm not berating that in any way, is a losing position. I wish it wasn't. I don't want any increased restrictions. However I see things as they are not as I want them to be. (Before you all go nuts that is NOT a Kennedy reference he stole it) for me it's more of the Jack Welch business philosophy when GE was not crazy left. If you want to win the war you have to conquer the middle. You can stay on the fringe and resist forever but you never win
Where is the middle ground? I believe recent polls (I hate using poles not knowing the questions or sampling) show most Americans support the 2 amendment and want existing laws enforced.
As for giving the government the ability to track the weapon back to the unlawful transaction and prosecute might have unintended consequences. What about stolen weapons that could be the new growth industry. They could bring a premium price. I hate bringing this up knowing criminals would never have thought of this on there own.0 -
How about we create a "No Buy List" for those people who are NOT allowed to purchase a weapon?
If you're not on the list, you MUST be approved!
The list would be comprised of current felons and parolees. It only follows that everyone else must be good to go.
Make it available on the web like a "No Fly List" where everyone can check it anonymously. All the D.O.J. needs to do is update the list as people are added or removed.
COB0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
48 comments