Who here is part of the "92%"?

[MadCat0911]

So does the "no gun control at all" crowd think that criminals should just be allowed to walk into a store themselves and legally buy guns?

 

[pcfixer]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ground-Checks-We-ve-Had-The-Former-Since-1993

Ultimately, the push for "universal background checks" is an effort designed to end all private gun sales and gun transfers, and to create a paper trail on every gun in the country. Gun grabbers have estimated that 40% of the guns in America right now were sold pre-1993, and therefore have no paper trail on them. They want to change this.
As David Kopel said before the Sen. Judiciary Committee on Jan. 30, this will necessitate a gun registry if it is to be enforceable. And any student of history knows that gun registration leads to confiscation at some point.

The bottom line: the push for "universal background checks" is not so much about the background checks as it is about expanding government's knowledge of the precise whereabouts of every gun in the country. Like all gun control, the predominant goal is simply more control.

The government does not need a data base. 4473 kept at retail stores is quite enough

 

[Robert]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ground-Checks-We-ve-Had-The-Former-Since-1993



The government does not need a data base. 4473 kept at retail stores is quite enough

.. and that's the problem with this "new" attempt in changing the 'existing' system .. Government expansion efforts.. Not good.

 

[6pack]

UBCs are non-enforceable in the real world. It's a worthless law the way it's written, and is just as bad as banning weapons or limiting magazine capacities. The concept is fine, but it just doesn't work. Like others have said, it should be a simple NICS check, no other paperwork.

 

[chuckgregory]

I'm okay with a NICS check with a very limited data retention policy. Could it be made into a service that could be used in private transactions?

 

[livefreeordie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuvCTZ9XtrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuvCTZ9XtrM

Colion Noir on Universal Background Checks and Polls.

I have put a few of his videos out before but I was hoping for a written response. Sorry for being lazy but feel others are more adept at crafting better and broader arguments.

 

[Brychan]

So does the "no gun control at all" crowd think that criminals should just be allowed to walk into a store themselves and legally buy guns?

Yes, then if they commit a crime put them away.
Backgound checks are no more than a speed bump in slowing down a criminal who wants a gun. Actually since they don't have the 7 ++++ day wait I am sure they can purchase and have in thier hot little hands a gun much quicker than a law abiding citizen.

 

[N3YMY]

The only thing that concerns me about the NICS: is the data retention system, is the firearm information really being destroyed.?

Unfortunately no.

Elsewhere (in this thread?) it was recent revealed/speculated that NICS data is stored offline....

 

[Pushrod]

I can't believe how many on here advocate for infringing on this Constitutionally protected Right. Even a little infringement is still infringement.

I will agree that if there was a voluntary system available for checking the background of someone that you wanted to sell a firearm to, that kept no type of record, I would support such a system.

 

[gamer_jim]

I think every citizen should have access to NICS via a web-based application, only id information no information about the firearms. Then permit face-to-face transfers that require the seller to use this. Government would know you checked on someone but wouldn't know what.

 

[wesser1]

There are two things to consider with this topic. The first is that if you force "universal" background checks, you have to be performing a registration of firearms owners. If not, how do you know if a transfer went through the background check? The only solution is to have NICS available to the public and request everyone use it to perform a check before making a transfer, and require dealers to use it. This will allow people like me to perform a quick check before selling a firearm to a stranger. This seems like the only logical solution other than registration, which I am opposed to because it leads to confiscation.

 

[Robert]

Unfortunately no.

Elsewhere (in this thread?) it was recent revealed/speculated that NICS data is stored offline....

Is there any proof of that? (Like we now have with MD)

 

[BenL]

Here's what I propose, just to shut them up about background checks and the "gun show loophole."

Death by 1,000 cuts. I'm not willing to give an inch.

On its surface, BCs sound perfectly acceptable. Then they add a registry. Then fingerprinting, "for verification". Before you know it, you're begging for scraps of rights that were once uncompromised. Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary safety deserve neither.

 

[sclag22]

If we are to have background checks, they should be completely anonymous (for what the background check is for). There shouldn't be any record that John Smith had a background check pulled to buy a gun -- it should simply be John Smith had a background check.

They would have a system that would be logged into remotely, as to not trace the source, and then the SSN would be searched in the database. If passed, good to go, that is all.

 

[Dogabutila]

So does the "no gun control at all" crowd think that criminals should just be allowed to walk into a store themselves and legally buy guns?

Yep. I do commit 3 felonies per day you know. As do you. Keep that in mind. Do you really think it makes a difference? Cause criminals seem to be able to get guns whenever they want anyways.

 

[gtodave]

A lot of it boils down to personal accountability, and making smart choices. Universal BG checks are the Lib's way of closing the "Gun show loophole", where anyone can sell to anyone on a private deal. I have to admit...carrying around a gun with a "For Sale" sign at a gun show has always struck me as odd. You have NO IDEA who is coming up to you and asking to buy. It very well could be a felon, and there is little that can be done to find out.

If everyone used a little common sense on this, the "gun show loophole" wouldn't be a problem. The last few transactions I've had with people that I didn't know, there were groundrules laid out in advance: You needed to bring a DL or other photo ID, and you had to bring your paperwork from your last regulated firearm purchase to prove you weren't disapproved from firearm ownership. This isn't foolproof, but it's pretty damn close.

What I don't want with UBGC's, is to not be able to legally sell a gun to someone I've known most or all of my life. That just makes no sense at all. I've done a lot of trading with long-long time friends, and I know their backgrounds better than any NICS system could, as I was probably there for the felonies they got away with

 

[MadCat0911]

GOA posted this link, seems on target for our own polling here too.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/s...-math-doesnt-add-up-for-gun-control-advocates

 

[Streetgang]

So does the "no gun control at all" crowd think that criminals should just be allowed to walk into a store themselves and legally buy guns?

Yes, then if they commit a crime put them away.
Backgound checks are no more than a speed bump in slowing down a criminal who wants a gun. Actually since they don't have the 7 ++++ day wait I am sure they can purchase and have in thier hot little hands a gun much quicker than a law abiding citizen.

Exactly Brycan! A criminal is put away for a crime. According to the law, they serve the time, and have paid their debt to society. Now they no longer are criminals...
If we had stronger incarceration and a death penalty that was used, maybe crime and recidivism rates would go down.
I have a friend who in his 20's did time for cocaine distribution. Now he's 54 and still hasn't paid his debt because the .gov won't restore his civil rights...
Is that right?

 

[Boom Boom]

Close to 300 votes in our poll now and 92% against UBC. The irony is thick. Makes a person wonder if the statists "misread" the original poll results.

 

[jrumann59]

If we are to have background checks, they should be completely anonymous (for what the background check is for). There shouldn't be any record that John Smith had a background check pulled to buy a gun -- it should simply be John Smith had a background check.

They would have a system that would be logged into remotely, as to not trace the source, and then the SSN would be searched in the database. If passed, good to go, that is all.

Using a SSN is totally opposite of anonymous. Logged into remotely with no tracking sorry but that happen with the way the internet is setup. Once you login all the IP and other information I am sure is logged.