Poll: Would you support universal background checks if no information about the purchase was collected?

[Stomper]

But I pay my taxes on each check. So im getting reamed weekly.

 

[Baseacegoku]

View attachment 337339

 

[Stomper]

I hate everyone..... EQUALLY!!

 

[Baseacegoku]

I hate everyone..... EQUALLY!!

You, me and every single intelligent person on the planet hates everyone equally. But we love some more than we love others.

 

[Stomper]

You, me and every single intelligent person on the planet hates everyone equally. But we love some more than we love others.

It's a kinder, gentler, more compassionate nation.... I love some LESS than others.

 

[Baseacegoku]

It's a kinder, gentler, more compassionate nation.... I love some LESS than others.

I love my wife with a hug and a kiss. I love robbers with .45acp.

 

[Goosebrown]

This whole survey is based on the wrong assumption. It is impossible to do the background check without collecting the data. So UBC = information about the purchase is recorded. So go bubblegum yourself

It is possible to collect and use the data to get a yes or no. Then toss the data. Keep the yes or no with a transaction ID. NOTHING IN THE DATABASE OTHER THAN THAT

 

[The Heretic]

It sounds like a firearms permit.

I would "support" it as an something to replace the system we have now.

Would the politicians/anti-gunners? No way in hell! The whole idea behind the UBC laws was to get that data for de-facto registration.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

i wouldnt vote for it but if theres the slightest unlikely chance sb941 would go away so that i could sell my personal property without a permission slip MAYBE on a good day after pokin the ol lady and having 5-6 drinks i MIGHT say i will tolerate it but probably not.

lets be honest. they want them registered

 

[11Charlie]

I voted it was either #2 or #3

 

[bbbass]

How is it a right if I need a permission slip?

Nobody's biz what I buy or sell as long as it is a legal product!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Caveman Jim]

See this is what I was thinking. No info on what is being purchase. Just a background check that is run and a yes or no answer. That way the government doesnt know what is being purchased.

They know that John Doe it is making a firearm purchase. It doesn't matter what kind it is, they know you bought a gun!!!
So no I will not comply with any unconstitutional laws.

 

[woody06]

The problem isn't recording information on what was purchased, it's the fact that purchase itself was recorded. The government doesn't need to know who purchases a gun as long as the purchaser isn't a convicted felon or someone who is prohibited from buying one.

 

[transittech]

I am going to step in it and disagree with most of you (probably). A firearm is a privilege earned through good behavior, not a right. Most felons have thrown away their right to a firearm, and have no business owning an offensive stick or a rock, let alone a gun. So yes, I support background checks on the person, not the weapon*. The guberment has absolutely no business recording what I buy**, but it is their job to make sure prohibited persons cannot easily buy firearms.

Keeping felons from accessing prohibited items is the billion dollar question, and I believe, outside the scope of this thread.


*Selling "no background checks" to the entire country - good luck, never gonna happen. Its a fight not even worth fighting, time to know when you're beat.
**The government has no more business recording gun purchases than they do alcohol purchases, drug purchases or shoe purchases. Its none of their bubblegum business what I buy.

 

[The Heretic]

The problem isn't recording information on what was purchased, it's the fact that purchase itself was recorded. The government doesn't need to know who purchases a gun as long as the purchaser isn't a convicted felon or someone who is prohibited from buying one.

The problem is that with the serial number/etc., then the gov. has evidence they can present in court that will prove one of two things:

1) You own this firearm and therefore they can confiscate it when that time comes.
2) You sold the firearm without following the BGC law and you can/will be prosecuted for that violation.

Without that info, they cannot prove either fact in court as the evidence is ambiguous.

 

[Cheby]

It is possible to collect and use the data to get a yes or no. Then toss the data. Keep the yes or no with a transaction ID. NOTHING IN THE DATABASE OTHER THAN THAT

How would you verify if any particular firearm was sold with the background check then at some point in the future?

 

[mkwerx]

Simply put - no. "Shall not be infringed" is a simple four word phrase that seemingly stymies politicians, and they do everything and anything to ignore and trample upon it. We have too many infringements as is. There is no quarter, no compromise from the anti gun crowds. To them "compromise" means WE give up something, and get nothing in return. And as soon as you compromise once - they will want more, they want more "compromise" - once you compromise yourself once, you are compromised forever.

When the country was founded - there were no limits on who could own a gun, aside from a person's financial ability to obtain one. A criminal conviction did not keep you from bearing arms after your sentence was complete. Being depressed did not keep you from keeping a firearm. There were no age limits. There were, in places, limits based on skin color but that was wrong, and was ultimately struck down.

Even if they offered up removing every other gun law on the book - it wouldn't be enough because they would slowly, but surely, try to put all that crap back in place.

As pointed out in another thread - the hypocrisy of the anti-gun crowd is astounding - they do not want to partake in a permitting system to exercise THEIR civil rights, but fully expect us to jump through hoops to exercise ours. Maybe when they have a background check to purchase a communications device, or to access the internet, or when they have to register their smart phones and computers with the federal government, or when they have their rights to speak stripped from them for a criminal conviction they will understand our point better.

UBC schemes are back door gun registration - they don't need to gather data about the gun, that just makes their job a bit easier knowing exactly what gun to look for. All they need to do is register gun owners - and that is ultimately what background check systems do. We live in the computer age. NOTHING that goes onto a computer is ever gone. Once it's transmitted from one machine to the next, it essentially becomes immortal. They can claim no data is stored, but that's a flat out lie.

I do believe that our government will eventually turn on us - either New York style, where they simply come for your guns when you are dead, or someone makes a claim that they believe you are mentally unfit WITHOUT getting a judge to adjudicate you so, or whether it be a full on door to door confiscatory scheme. The sole purpose of background checks is to know who the law abiding gun owners are, so they can be disarmed. Politicians don't really give a flying F about criminals with guns - if they did they would keep their criminal asses locked away and out of society at large. They don't want YOU or ME to have a gun, because that means we can resist whatever totalitarian BS they eventually try to hit us with. Republicans and Democrats are essentially one in the same. The current crop in DC has shown they have next to no spine - if they did they would have done more to Stop Obama's extra constitutional executive order spree, they would've actually pushed back against democrat BS by pushing through bill after bill to restore our rights, affirm liberty, and really show the democrats for who and what they are. But they didn't, because in truth, that would expose how rotten the entire bunch is. It was genuinely surprising to me that Congress didn't gave when Obama demanded gun control. They caved on just about every other damn thing - they gave him his budgets and wouldn't let the government remain shut down - we don't need full time federal government. But they caved and Obama after throwing his tantrums, got his way.

They're still the same congress, so they will likely be as spineless with our new president. We may get a bone thrown to us ala the Hearing Protection Act, but they will find another way to bone us by some other measure. In their eyes we are serfs, not citizens. We work for them. We work for their benefit. No compromise on their parts, so we should give none on ours. Background checks simply do not work - they do not stop people bent on harming others, they do not stop criminals from getting guns, and only serve to infringe upon the rights of the law abiding. Screw that.

 

[Lilhigbee]

I am going to step in it and disagree with most of you (probably).

Almost guaranteed!!

A firearm is a privilege earned through good behavior, not a right.

Really?? Ever read the constitution?? The First ten Amendments, referred to as the Bill Of RIGHTS?? The second one that includes firearms, and the phrase "...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE..."??
Believe what you want; the earth is flat, sun comes up in the north, BHO was a good president, whatever. It doesn't change the facts one bit. Firearms ownership is a right!!

Most felons have thrown away their right to a firearm, and have no business owning an offensive stick or a rock, let alone a gun.

So felons HAD a right to a firearm before they were a felon, and they threw it away, but the rest of us never have that right, only a privilege?? Not sure of the logic there??

 

[Roop]

I am going to step in it and disagree with most of you (probably). A firearm is a privilege earned through good behavior, not a right. Most felons have thrown away their right to a firearm, and have no business owning an offensive stick or a rock, let alone a gun. So yes, I support background checks on the person, not the weapon*. The guberment has absolutely no business recording what I buy**, but it is their job to make sure prohibited persons cannot easily buy firearms.

Keeping felons from accessing prohibited items is the billion dollar question, and I believe, outside the scope of this thread.


*Selling "no background checks" to the entire country - good luck, never gonna happen. Its a fight not even worth fighting, time to know when you're beat.
**The government has no more business recording gun purchases than they do alcohol purchases, drug purchases or shoe purchases. Its none of their bubblegum business what I buy.

When I lived in Idaho, I could present my CWL at the time of a purchase, and didn't have to go through the NICS check, although I still had to fill out a 4473 if purchasing from an FFL. On this line of thought, it would be simple enough to add a "Prohibited Person" designation to one's driver license at the time of renewal. Not at all unlike the "Under 21" that already goes on there.

 

[Roop]

Really?? Ever read the constitution?? The First ten Amendments, referred to as the Bill Of RIGHTS?? The second one that includes firearms, and the phrase "...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE..."??
Believe what you want; the earth is flat, sun comes up in the north, BHO was a good president, whatever. It doesn't change the facts one bit. Firearms ownership is a right!!

No such thing as "Rights". Only privileges. A lot has been taken away since those words were written, at the time it really only pertained to white land owning men. Ever been in the back seat of a cop car? Been in the military? It only takes about 2 min in either one of those to realize there are no such things as "Rights". The Confederacy thought they had the "Right" to secede in 1861, turns out they were mistaken. You can scream all you want about Rights, but the hard truth is unless you are god of the universe, you have no Rights, only privileges afforded you by those in charge.