Poll: Universal background checks

[CascadeSam]

The gun-grabbers often use misleading questions and statements to manipulate the responses into the answers they want to hear or see and if that does not work then they pull numbers out of thin air. I think they learned their math and statistics from the radical feminists.

 

[slimmer13]

The gun-grabbers often use misleading questions and statements to manipulate the responses into the answers they want to hear or see and if that does not work then they pull numbers out of thin air. I think they learned their math and statistics from the radical feminists.

I agree. I do not think that the gun owners who say they support Universal background checks realize that it means that if old dairy farmer Leroy, borrows a 22 mag from his old war buddy, alfalfa farmer Jed, to put down a sick cow that he is a criminal if they do not do the transaction through a FFL with all the associated fees and paperwork.

 

[slimmer13]

Cool. I will "loan you my AR indefinitly for a small fee of $1275. Let just not tell anyone about the loan fee.

 

[Kimber Custom]

E. Banning military-style semi-automatic guns, which automatically reload when the trigger is pulled is a loaded question.

To the uninformed that sounds scary and 'unreasonable'.

 

[slimmer13]

I guess you don't understand the difference between loaning something and selling something.

If it is true than you can "loan" someone a firearm without a transfer under the proposed legislation, how is pointing out the HUGE and obvious problems in their thinking not understanding the difference between loaning and selling.

What would stop people from saying "Ill sell you this pistol without a transfer but if the ATF comes knocking, you just borrowed it"?

 

[BSG 75]

If it is true than you can "loan" someone a firearm without a transfer under the proposed legislation, how is pointing out the HUGE and obvious problems in their thinking not understanding the difference between loaning and selling.

What would stop people from saying "Ill sell you this pistol without a transfer but if the ATF comes knocking, you just borrowed it"?

Do you understand the difference between prostitution and having a one-night stand? In one, money changes hands. Same thing with "loaning" a firearm and selling one.

 

[carracer]

I'm unable to find the actual poll questions. The way they are phrased has a lot of influence on how the answers are. If there was no mention of registration being necessary to prove background check for private sales then it would be easy to obtain the desired result from the firearms owning go hunting once a year public that has never purchased a private party firearm. After all, who would be against just a general background check? We probably are the exceptions to the general shotgun owning public.

 

[slimmer13]

Do you understand the difference between prostitution and having a one-night stand? In one, money changes hands. Same thing with "loaning" a firearm and selling one.

Oh ok, the whole thing depends on the honor system. Gotcha. Im sure everyone will be 100% forthcoming when asked if $$$ changed hands.

 

[dallen1x]

Don't get me wrong, I am not interested in compromising with the anti's. But if they get the background checks passed maybe we can turn the tables and chip away at it a little at a time and use the slippery slope to our advantage and slide right back to freedom.

If the background check was on the buyer ONLY no information what so ever collected on the firearm. I could see some value. It should be free. Like the NICS is now.

NO Background Check where our personal data is submitted to look up information should be acceptable.

What about a system like the lottery bar code scanner machines that are in every store now?
I think we (Oregon) have bar codes on the back of our drivers licenses.
Walk into a store to buy a firearm, scan your drivers license, clerk verifies the photo matches you, system compares you against a compiled list of criminals.
No data about you or the transaction is stored anywhere. Can't track your purchases like Safeway does.
Takes longer to hand the clerk your money / card than to get verification.
Set it up like a simple go/no go doorway and the bad guys will know that they can't buy anything.
Those who are bad guys and don't know it (they are out there) will get told no.

Private sales could also use these nifty little machines. Set one up at a gun show as a free service.

Dang, I'm tired. Now that I type this out it sounds kind of like giving in. Anyway, look it over.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Universal Background Checks bill has stumbled in the Senate Judiciary Committee for all the reasons WE don't like them.
Thanks Senator Coburn:

Gun Background-check Bill Stumbles, Senators Press On

A cornerstone of his effort has been an expansion of background checks, but lawmakers have been grappling with how to shepherd it through a divided Congress.

Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy said he hoped to move three more bills through committee in the coming week.

But the bill on federal background checks for all gun purchases hit a roadblock after two senators negotiating on its provisions brought their talks to a halt.

Democrat Chuck Schumer was seeking to team with Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican with an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, but the pair failed to resolve a dispute over requiring that records of private gun sales be kept by the seller.

Republicans argue that such data should be destroyed, or it could ultimately be used to compile a national gun registry, something currently prohibited by law.

Despite the setback, Coburn insisted he was "still hopeful we'll get a bill that will actually enhance background checks."

"Our deal is to find the sweet spot in the middle," he told reporters.

The "middle" scares me without a provision for destruction of the transaction records.

 

[Glock Jock]

I'll vote for universal background checks right after we get Obwans REAL birth certificate, his school records, ALL the info on Fast & Furious and Holder and Obwan are in jail.

This is the absolute truth. Except even if we did get all that info I still wouldn't do a universal back round check.

 

[slimmer13]

No one is saying it is easily enforceable. The only way it can be enforced is with gun registration, or with "stings" as they do with prostitution and drug sales. You could advertise a gun for sale. An undercover cop poses as a "buyer" and meets with you to buy your firearm. If you sell it to him/her - that is, you accept money for it just in case you are still unclear about the difference between selling and loaning something - without running a background check they will arrest you. All they would have to do is do a few stings like that, publicize it, and that would scare most people into doing background checks.

Ding ding ding, exactly. And what do you suppose will happen to you when caught with a gun that is unregistered to you? You will be charged with a crime just like in the example that I provided. I am pretty sure that the "common sense exemtions for temporary transfers like sporting and hunting purposes" have not been clearly defined and will be interpreted to mean that someone else can use your fire arm at the range or hunting only if you accompany the borrower the entire time the firearm is in their possesion.

In all reality it is all a moot point though. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled first step toward confiscation.

 

[jimmer5]

I am not 100% opposed to background checks. What I have an issue with is the government keeping records of those background checks.

Let's not kid ourselves here - the ATF form 4473 that you fill out when you buy a gun over the counter is kept by the FFL for 20 years. If the FFL goes out of business, those forms are turned over to the BATFE. This means that we already have de-facto registration on a limited level. 20 years is a long time, and plenty of businesses fail. If you require background checks for every firearm purchase, there will be a paper trail following every firearm that get's sold after 2013, which would create a de-facto registry of all firearms. All the government would have to do is seize those records and they would know exactly who has what (the legal sales anyway).

There has to be a way to do a background check without keeping a record. It could show that an individual had their background checked on a particular date, but not what they purchased. So long as your record is clean, it's not the government's business to see what you purchased or how many. I also don't believe that a background check should be required between family members (and close friends, but I don;t know how you could prove that).

 

[Kimber Custom]

I think most gun owners are ok with nearly universal background checks.

For the record; I am not.

 

[jimmer5]

For the record; I am not.

Edited my post to make it a personal statement, not an assumption of other's feelings.

I recognize that background checks are not very helpful in the real world - they really only stop people who have a criminal record or who have been judged "mentally defective" in court. I am opposed to new gun laws and restrictions. That being said, I am curious - how many of you are opposed to a background check where no record of your purchase was kept? Theoretically, wouldn't (nearly) universal background checks with no record keeping be a step forward for gun owners? I still think that transactions between family members need to be exempt. (Edited to add: I say "a step forward" because right now the current background check system keeps a record of your purchase at the FFL for 20 years).

We can shout "no background checks" all we want, but we're not going to get that in today's political climate.

 

[Kimber Custom]

That being said, I am curious - how many of you are opposed to a background check where no record of your purchase was kept? Theoretically, wouldn't (nearly) universal background checks with no record keeping be a step forward for gun owners? I still think that transactions between family members need to be exempt.

I am against any and all background checks. Without repeating myself too much; they are a waste of time and resources (both public and private).

We can shout "no background checks" all we want, but we're not going to get that in today's political climate.

Americans have compromised liberty in nearly all aspects of our lives and now you can't buy a large drink in NY, get on a plane without a body cavity search, build a house on your own land or carry a gun without a license (to name but a few).

I for one am done compromising my liberties regardless of the political climate.

 

[Member 3687]

It is not for safety of children or to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guy it is the first step to complete registration and people control.

Dorner had police and military back ground checks with medical profile for law enforcement and did it stop him from doing what he did, NOPE.

It is just another excuse to keep tabs on us pee-ons.

 

[WilliamIV]

I honestly don't think the background check thing would help. Everyone knows there are ways around it. Two things to help with the whole gun violence issue would be better mental illness treatment, keeping the criminals locked up, and harsher punishment for gun crimes. Do the anti gun people realize that all the mass shootings are mentall ill people? Plus the firearms used in those shooting have usually been stolen. It just drives me crazy they think ar15 styke rifles need to be banned when they aren't even being used in these shootings as well. So I am confused on what suddenly sparked their minds on ar15's need to be banned.

 

[WilliamIV]

How the Magazine Ban, Drones and the Chris Dorner Shootout could affect you - YouTube

This guy has some good points as well.

 

[kumabear17]

For the record; I am not.

I agree with you. Anyone who believes "most gun owners are ok with nearly universal background checks" either needs to find new friends who own firearms or has a very naive group of associates. Any additional background check system put in place will just be a stepping stone to some form of registration, higher fees and further restrictions as the Government begins to realize just how many guns there are in American. The FFL checks didn't start until what, 1968? Now how many firearms do many of us have that go back before that time?