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

[Caveman Jim]

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.

Refer back to post #32. They still know you are making a FA purchase & I'll bet you a doughnut that they WILL keep track of that in some database....

 

[Caveman Jim]

Again, irrelevant to the question.



Again, adding things to the question. The question is not about ANY current UBC, it's about a hypothetical UBC that does not exist so far as I'm aware.

I saw nothing in the OP stating "A new BGC" or assumed therfore.... just sayin

 

[Baseacegoku]

I saw nothing in the OP stating "A new BGC" or assumed therfore.... just sayin

As the OP. I did mean a hypothetical system that is not the one actually in place at the moment.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Are you frickin' kidding me?
I am with @IronMonster : support, NO - tolerate, barely.
First of all, the notion that "no information is collected" is pure BS.
I see the serial number & model information as first an attempt at tracking stolen firearms and secondly a tracking of chain of ownership, much like car VINs. Considering there is already a significant database of serial number / model on firearms from all the BGC tracking entries, if the gun has been exchanged, having a serial number and entering it would most likely identify THE gun being purchased, and at worst case, narrow it down to one of two or three.

How about if NO information is collected? Your non-prohibited status could be printed on your drivers license, like a motorcycle endorsement. A new BG check could be run when your license renews (10 years?). Upon conviction of a felony or involuntary commitment the court punches a hole in your license where the endorsement used to be. Think that can't work? Try not paying your car insurance and see how fast the bank finds out. Under this plan the merchant doesn't even record your name, they just view your license to see the endorsement, not much different than if you were writing a check. If the penalties are stiff for selling to a felon the merchants will be diligent.

 

[Baseacegoku]

How about if NO information is collected? Your non-prohibited status could be printed on your drivers license, like a motorcycle endorsement. A new BG check could be run when your license renews (10 years?). Upon conviction of a felony or involuntary commitment the court punches a hole in your license where the endorsement used to be. Think that can't work? Try not paying your car insurance and see how fast the bank finds out. Under this plan the merchant doesn't even record your name, they just view your license to see the endorsement, not much different than if you were writing a check. If the penalties are stiff for selling to a felon the merchants will be diligent.

This is an even better idea that the one I had.

 

[PaulB47]

The question ASSUMES that it is proper to disarm and keep disarmed certain people not in jail. If you believe in rights, this makes no sense. Either there is an RKBA or there is not. If there is, then it's so no matter who you are. Disarming people who are not causing any harm is "mala prohibita" and that cannot trump a fundamental right.

This is one of the reasons why I don't actually believe in rights. Nobody else does either; they just like to imagine they do. But it is all fake.

The Rulers Don't Want Universal Background Checks, by Paul Bonneau

 

[Goosebrown]

4473 requires one serial number. My method does not. Any info they collect, they toss. No info saved other than yes/no transaction number and date.

 

[jackrv]

I could be wrong but I haven't seen this said:

Name me one other Constitutional Right that requires a background check. When that happens I will support some form of what you all were saying.

Jack

 

[mjbskwim]

Before you read further know that I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment and love my guns. I am just curious as to what others thought about this idea.

I had this thought the other day that maybe gun owners would be ok with universal background checks if there was no information collected about the firearm being purchased and I mean NO information even being written down. Just a check to ensure that the buyer is legal to purchase and all that jazz.

EDIT: I'm thinking I probably shouldn't have left in that 3rd option on the poll.

This is kind of an oxymoron here,to think the government won't keep the information you would have to give them to do the check.
I mean how do they do a check without a persons info?
Who's going to make sure the info is deleted after the check is done?
Sounds like the fox guarding the hen house to me

 

[transittech]

How about if NO information is collected? Your non-prohibited status could be printed on your drivers license, like a motorcycle endorsement. A new BG check could be run when your license renews (10 years?). Upon conviction of a felony or involuntary commitment the court punches a hole in your license where the endorsement used to be. Think that can't work? Try not paying your car insurance and see how fast the bank finds out. Under this plan the merchant doesn't even record your name, they just view your license to see the endorsement, not much different than if you were writing a check. If the penalties are stiff for selling to a felon the merchants will be diligent.

Or they could just call it a CHL...

Yup, the laws are messed up...

 

[TINCANBANDIT]

Only if they require background checks for the other Constitutional Rights

 

[bbbass]

I support background checks on Politicians and Celebutards before they speak on camera. Also on lobbyists. And bloggers. And before pregnancy or marriage. Barbers too (they wield sharp instruments).

 

[Caveman Jim]

As the OP. I did mean a hypothetical system that is not the one actually in place at the moment.

Now ya let the cat out of the bag.

 

[GlockFan1990]

That sounds like compromise. So I would support it if:

1. NFA was repealed.
2. no background checks for CHL and FFL holders while license is active
3. Background check delays were resolved the same day
4. Background check denials had a avenue for a fast appeal process. Admitted for depression 10 years ago and no problems since then? had a non-violent felony conviction for weed like 20 years ago? etc
5. free. if we are going to spend a trillion dollars building crap in Afghanistan then the background check should be free.

I can't like this enough, I would give a million likes if I could l.