Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Why does universal background ✔ = National registry???

FL180FL180 MemberPosts: 58 Member
Let me preface this by saying that I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and strongly oppose a national gun registry.

The Justice Department under President Obama and NRA President David Keene have said that the problem with universal background check legislation lies in the fact that background checks are largely ineffective unless there’s an accompanying gun registry. Mr Keene and many others believe this would be the first step toward government confiscation of weapons.

I believe there are certain individuals that should not be able to have firearms such as violent criminals and those with mental illness. The way to prevent these individuals from purchasing firearms is to require everyone to pass a background check. I don't think I have a problem requiring these background checks at gun shows either. Where I would draw the line is in sales or gifts to family. As long as the records of these checks are destroyed within 24 hours (or maybe it's 48 hours, I forget) like they are now, I don't have a problem with them.

What I don't understand is why the Justice Department and Mr. Keene believe universal background checks would be ineffective unless they are accompanied with a gun registry. Can someone please explain to me why you need a gun registry to have background checks be effective? This just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for an honest explanation.
«1

Replies

  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,152 Senior Member
    Because Gun control is about CONTROL more than anything else. They want Registration, so they can follow up with confiscation.

    They WANT registration, so they will get it any way they can- and right now they are trying to get it with a background check bill. Every step, every compromise is just a tad closer to the end goal of disarming the peasants.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • FL180FL180 Member Posts: 58 Member
    I understand that the gun grabbers WANT a gun registry and that they are tying a gun registry to background checks because we all know most Americans favor background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them like I mentioned above. What I don't understand is why the NRA publicly says that they oppose universal background checks. Do they really oppose background checks? Or do they oppose the riders the gun grabbers are tying to background checks like sales between family and gun registry? Why don't they just say they oppose these parts instead of saying they oppose a national background check? I think saying they oppose universal background checks hurts their image.

    I don't see why a gun registry is needed to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those with mental illness.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,152 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    I understand that the gun grabbers WANT a gun registry and that they are tying a gun registry to background checks because we all know most Americans favor background checks

    No we don't.

    Government oversight of a private party transfer is abhorrent to me.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,628 Senior Member
    A. They want to track all guns all of the time and any sale must go through a FFL dealer on our $ so that they can achieve this.

    B. I have no doubt they have been keeping tabs on all sales through your LGS for awhile now even though they are not supposed to keep a record of it, they also want to know all about Dads and Grandpas guns that were never run through any sort of background check back in the day and have remained in the families for generations, thus universal back ground checks.

    Up until now it has been on us to make sure we are not transferring a gun through a private transaction to someone that is ineligible to own a firearm and we suffer the consequences if we do. If the Governments background check kicks you out during a purchase for possibly being a person not allowed to have a firearm, not much happens, they have rarely investigated these rejections.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • FL180FL180 Member Posts: 58 Member
    I'm sorry, that was an assumption on my part. I shouldn't have said "most".

    Let me ask you this though. Do you think that a rapist, murderer, or psychopath should be able to own a firearm? If not, how do you keep them from owning a firearm without going through a background check?
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    I believe there are certain individuals that should not be able to have firearms such as violent criminals and those with mental illness. The way to prevent these individuals from purchasing firearms is to require everyone to pass a background check. I don't think I have a problem requiring these background checks at gun shows either.

    This statement is pure fiction. Do you think that violent criminals are running to gun shows and engaging in private party transfers? They are buying on the black market (no background check) or stealing weapons (no background check) or having someone else buy for them (no background check). All three of these scenarios are already illegal and will not be affected by a universal background check.

    The background check ONLY affects the law-abiding citizen and creates a database.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I'm confused. When I buy a weapon from a licensed dealer, they call in and do a background check. Do they not?

    That's all we ing need.

    What we DON'T ing need, is more stupid ing bull to have to legally purchase firearms.


    That's a lot of "ing's"
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    However it also makes the firearms acquired in that manner much much harder for cops to track if they end up being used in a crime and ultimately there is no way to know for sure that the person you're dealing with is legit other than instinct.

    Why should a cop be able to track anything, unless it is to return stolen property? If you are the victim of theft, call in the serial #and hope you see your gun again. Just like your bicycle.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,628 Senior Member
    Admittedly the issue most people have is with private sales. I know we're not supposed to talk about those, but I've conducted many transactions in random public parking lots that are perfectly legal in my state and no different than selling a lawn mower on craigslist. It's a great way to cheaply swap and upgrade my collection and eliminates expensive transaction costs like shipping, ffl fees, etc. However it also makes the firearms acquired in that manner much much harder for cops to track if they end up being used in a crime and ultimately there is no way to know for sure that the person you're dealing with is legit other than instinct.

    In MN you need to have a CCW or a "permit to purchase" a handgun from an FFL, you show the private seller your photo ID and one of those and I am good with that, no need for involving more than that.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • FL180FL180 Member Posts: 58 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    This statement is pure fiction. Do you think that violent criminals are running to gun shows and engaging in private party transfers? They are buying on the black market (no background check) or stealing weapons (no background check) or having someone else buy for them (no background check). All three of these scenarios are already illegal and will not be affected by a universal background check.

    The background check ONLY affects the law-abiding citizen and creates a database.


    You bring up some good points and I think I would have to agree with you.

    But, if you got rid of background checks all together then don't you think more of those people that shouldn't have guns would get them? I think background checks serve as a deterrent to those people that can't own firearms from getting them. Will they get a gun from the black market like you mentioned? Quite possibly, but maybe not every one of them. There is no way to tell if a criminal that wants a gun, but can't legally get one, eventually gets one from the black market. Maybe that background check stopped a percentage of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun from getting one?

    The question then becomes, at what cost are we willing to stop that given percentage?


    Great discussion here! Thanks for participating.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    We have allowed the camel's nose under the tent by submitting to background checks of any type, even for purchases from a dealer. Why do gun dealers need to endure the harassment of having a FFL? Other than having a business license to sell furniture, groceries, hardware, shoes or clothes, what's so different about selling guns to non-criminals? The entire concept of "licensing" any business is so the government can collect sales tax. Once a crime is committed using a gun, a baseball bat, a piece of rope, or a cucumber from the grocery store, why not punish the criminal instead of the vast majority of folks who DON'T misuse those items. A gun is an inanimate object with no will of its own, so the answer must be that the politicians are on a power trip and they're jealous of the independence that being armed gives.

    Bottom line- - - -if making gun buying illegal prevents criminals from getting guns, why not make it illegal to rob, rape, murder, or steal? Oh, yeah- - - -we already did that, didn't we? Channeling Dr. Phil- - - - - -"How's that working out for ya?" Go ahead and drink some more kool-aid- - - - -gun owners with more than three brain cells to rub together DO NOT support universal background checks! The dummycraps just want everybody to believe that lie!

    Edit: Back when I was teaching at a big high school in Nashville, the price of a 9MM handgun- - - - -with ammo- - - -was $35.00 from a guy cruising the parking lot before school. No background check required!
    Jerry
  • FL180FL180 Member Posts: 58 Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    In MN you need to have a CCW or a "permit to purchase" a handgun from an FFL, you show the private seller your photo ID and one of those and I am good with that, no need for involving more than that.

    This sounds like a good alternative and compromise. You still make sure that a person is legally allowed to make a purchase and there is no record for every purchase you make.

    I'm curious, is there an electric database that is updated instantly? Or is your card good for say 5 years and then you go through another background check? For instance if you commit a crime, say assault w/ a deadly weapon, are you kicked out of the system immediately preventing you from making a gun purchase a week or so down the road?
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Isn't a "permit to purchase" system de facto registration, even if specific guns aren't documented? What's to prevent a corrupt government (such as the one we have now) from simply confiscating all the guns a permit holder has at his primary residence? It's happened numerous times over really bogus complaints. I had a really good friend who got all his guns seized over a blatant lie his wife swore to in a domestic violence complaint. 15 guns simply disappeared after a raid by the Nashville police department, with no means of tracking the chain of custody.
    Jerry
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,152 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    I'm sorry, that was an assumption on my part. I shouldn't have said "most".

    Let me ask you this though. Do you think that a rapist, murderer, or psychopath should be able to own a firearm? If not, how do you keep them from owning a firearm without going through a background check?

    Total non-sequitor. If there were universal checks, it would not catch one criminal. They tried that in Canada. Not one criminal caught.

    Criminals break laws, by definition. They won't follow a background check law.

    Plus, your position is morally repugnant. You are forcing behavior on the Law-Abiding because of the actions of criminals. A Morally correct action is the law-abiding forcing behavior on the criminals. You are punishing those that have done no wrong. That is morally bankrupt.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,946 Senior Member
    WHAT THE HECK IS A UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK?????

    I've hear a lot of talk about this, and it seems that everyone has their own idea of what it is and means. What I haven't seen is any legislation, proposed, pending, passed or otherwise, that strictly defines what this is.

    Do the gun grabbers want us to pass a law requiring universal background checks to find out what it is?
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,152 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    What's to prevent a corrupt government (such as the one we have now) from simply confiscating all the guns a permit holder has at his primary residence?

    Or de-funding the background check system under a false budget scare (**cough** sequestration! **cough****cough**) to shut down all buying?

    The answer is to always default to the side of freedom. Or, just use the "Jews in the Attic" test: Look at something and ask "Could this contribute to Jews hiding in the Attic?" if the answer is YES, then it is evil and should be struck down.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,628 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Isn't a "permit to purchase" system de facto registration, even if specific guns aren't documented? What's to prevent a corrupt government (such as the one we have now) from simply confiscating all the guns a permit holder has at his primary residence? It's happened numerous times over really bogus complaints. I had a really good friend who got all his guns seized over a blatant lie his wife swore to in a domestic violence complaint. 15 guns simply disappeared after a raid by the Nashville police department, with no means of tracking the chain of custody.
    Jerry

    You go to your local LEO and he has you fill out a form for a background check and they do the check and give you a card they have filled out in house, the permit to purchase simple allows you to purchase a handgun with out a waiting period in MN, the LEO is supposed to round file the paper work after they do the check. If I was not clear, you DO NOT need to do any of the things I previously listed in MN to do a private sale, I just feel more comfortable with that option in general, I have sold one gun this way to someone I new personally.

    Teach, if you are on the outs with your wife, I don't think there is any state that could not happen in.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    You bring up some good points and I think I would have to agree with you.

    But, if you got rid of background checks all together then don't you think more of those people that shouldn't have guns would get them? I think background checks serve as a deterrent to those people that can't own firearms from getting them. Will they get a gun from the black market like you mentioned? Quite possibly, but maybe not every one of them. There is no way to tell if a criminal that wants a gun, but can't legally get one, eventually gets one from the black market. Maybe that background check stopped a percentage of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun from getting one?

    The question then becomes, at what cost are we willing to stop that given percentage?


    Prior to 1968 GCA there was no FFLs and no background checks. You bought guns at the hardware store or a mail order catalogue. People would get out of prison and could freely buy almost any gun of their choosing.

    Was the crime rates worse before 1968?

    Now we have a classes of "prohibited persons" for something that "shall not be infringed."

    At the end of the day, if someone cannot be trusted with a gun they should not be walking around with the rest of us.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,397 Senior Member
    Well, about that background check thing. Back when I was in grade school and raising knotheaded dairy bulls bought for the princely sum of $5 and making them steers, and bottlefeeding them for a while and feeding them good stuff until they were big enough (450-600 lb.) to sell at the stock barn, the gun transactions at the LGS went like this before 1968 (In 1968 I was 15 and bought quite a few guns from 11 y.o. until then). Go into the LGS with cash money in hand. Owner knew me, and asked', "What you want, boy?" with a smile on his face. Me, "Watcha got new in stock?". Him, "Well, look around and let me know if something catches your fancy". I'd look and find something I liked, lay it on the counter, he'd ring up the sale on the register, I'd pay, and be out the door with a new rifle and a few boxes of ammunition. That's pretty much how sales went back pre-'68.

    Crime back then was nothing like it is now, too.

    Universal background check is nothing more than an attempt to make all private sales that are legal now go through a Sheriff or Police Office or FFL to run a check and make money for the gooberment. Think on this; there are over an estimated 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the U.S. Universal background check would be voluntary at best on those already in circulation. Lots of people aren't all that willing to 'bend over and spread 'em' for the government. Can you see a problem here?

    The government has passed all kinds of gun laws and enforce very few. Is this a problem? A law passed that goes unenforced is no law at all! If the laws on the books were enforced, there would be no need for more that do nothing.

    State mental health services are practically nonexistent now compared to when I grew up. Back then if you were a danger to yourself or others, you weren't on the streets living in a cardboard box.

    Wake up and see this for what it is; universal background checks and bans on firearms aren't about safety. THEY ARE ABOUT CONTROL! Well, not entirely; the government is scared spittless about all those arms in private hands that could be turned against them if they try to trash the Constitution and go completely communist/socialist/fascist, or whatever -ist they decide to try out. They need to register those arms so they know where they are for a future massive ban and confiscation, little realizing that doing so would signal the start of the second American Revolutionary War.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,462 Senior Member
    Without a registry, there is literally no way for them to possibly enforce anything. Got an old gun sitting in your safe? How do you prove when you got it, how do you prove where it came from? I could say I had it for 10 years via private party purchase but just traded it for an old motorcycle yesterday. Universal background checks are a feel good law that is not going to do much of anything. Think some home boy selling gats out the back of his trunk is going to do a background check?

    80,000 people went to get a background check last year and were declined. There were 17 convictions. Now you are telling me you want to add to that number? We cannot enforce the laws we have now, but we think adding more laws is the solution. There were convicted felons who were able to legally purchase a firearm from a dealer because the system was so backed up, and the delayed response wasn't declined in time. Now imagine adding all the private sales to that. Bottom line, the people who are pushing these laws have their heads so far up their own butts that there is no way anything sensible can come from them.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • FL180FL180 Member Posts: 58 Member
    CaliFFL, TennMike and SirGeorge... Very good points!

    This thread has gone in a direction I didn't intend, but it has gotten VERY interesting to me. I started this thread thinking that we could have background checks without having a gun registry, but have heard some very good opinions on why there should not even be background checks.

    It appears our country has much bigger problems that it needs to work on besides guns.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    It appears our country has much bigger problems that it needs to work on besides guns.

    You are absolutely correct. If those problems are not resolved SOON, we will need our guns more than ever.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    Let me preface this by saying that I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and strongly oppose a national gun registry.

    The Justice Department under President Obama and NRA President David Keene have said that the problem with universal background check legislation lies in the fact that background checks are largely ineffective unless there’s an accompanying gun registry. Mr Keene and many others believe this would be the first step toward government confiscation of weapons.

    I believe there are certain individuals that should not be able to have firearms such as violent criminals and those with mental illness. The way to prevent these individuals from purchasing firearms is to require everyone to pass a background check. I don't think I have a problem requiring these background checks at gun shows either. Where I would draw the line is in sales or gifts to family. As long as the records of these checks are destroyed within 24 hours (or maybe it's 48 hours, I forget) like they are now, I don't have a problem with them.

    What I don't understand is why the Justice Department and Mr. Keene believe universal background checks would be ineffective unless they are accompanied with a gun registry. Can someone please explain to me why you need a gun registry to have background checks be effective? This just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for an honest explanation.

    Rather than explaining the obvious.....I'd rather you think on this and tell us what your conclusions are. Teaching and enlightenment means showing what you have learned from what you've perceived. Show me what you've learned.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    The prohibition of access to weapons for certain people went on long before firearms were even invented. Even back in biblical times, whatever group happened to be on top of the pile at any particular time enslaved those they conquered, and forbade them from carrying arms- - - -back when those arms were swords, spears, or clubs. Given their head, our modern-day "progressives" would do the same thing, "all for the good of the people", of course! The founders of our nation were wise enough to allow for the "people" as defined in the Bill of Rights to have the means to prevent a tyrannical government from imposing its will on the general population, notwithstanding the opinion of Dianne Swine-Stein that legislators can pass any laws they want, and let the courts sort things out.

    The French had the right idea a couple of hundred years ago about how to handle out-of-control legislators! I wonder if they would rent us their Guillotine for a little while?
    Jerry
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    I have a moral/immoral question for everyone that supports Gun Control or Universal Background Checks.

    Do you believe it is immoral to punish a classroom full of kids for the misbehavior of a single child? Or to punish all Muslims for the behavior of a few radicals? It appears that you do not believe it is immoral, as you wish to punish law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few mentally ill sociopaths that commit mass shootings.

    This is just what the politicians are preparing to do to the law abiding gun owners.

    Maybe if those that believe in using immoral collective punishment, they would support banning alcohol since some individuals choose to drink excessively and drive killing innocent individuals and families. So if you ban all alcohol that will prevent DWI's.

    Collective punishment is unfair and deeply immoral. Passing a law that is extremely unlikely to have any positive effect on gun violence or the prevention of mass shootings is the very definition of collective punishment.

    Taken to another aspect, if you prevent a law abiding individual from being armed and unable to protect his family you should be held liable as collective punishment for the actions of the criminal and preventing self protection of the victim.

    Sometimes we, gun owners, try to use logic and statistics to debunk gun control to those that have no experience with firearms. Maybe it is time we try other approaches to convey our position and put the gun control on the defensive to justify their position. I have used the above on a the Americans for Responsible Solutions and have yet to receive a comment or rebuttal to this position. I suspect this has stumped them for a reasonable answer or denial that they are really Immoral in their thinking. Just a thought.
  • avmechavmech Senior Member Posts: 856 Senior Member
    Cuba instituted a registry a long time ago but after Castro was in power. Then the guns were confiscated. Look to Germany under Hitler...........there are more examples throughout history in other countries that have the same result.

    Universal checks end up with a registry, history tells us the rest.
    NRA Benefactor Member
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,262 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    Let me ask you this though. Do you think that a rapist, murderer, or psychopath should be able to own a firearm? If not, how do you keep them from owning a firearm without going through a background check?

    Simple. In the words of Stephen Lang's Stonewall Jackson, "Kill them Sir! Kill every last man of them!"

    The point I try to make loudly and often - Our criminal justice system was built on a foundation of the concept that you are innocent until proven guilty. A background check reverses the core of this doctrine, and we seem to be forcing it on ourselves because we lack the will to properly deal with our criminal element. If they shouldn't own a gun, they shouldn't be out on the streets with the rest of us - WHO DON'T HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD TO RESEARCH!
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 21,094 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »

    It appears our country has much bigger problems that it needs to work on besides guns.
    NOW you're getting it.

    Guns aren't the problem per se, they're just being paraded out as the "whipping boy" in the hopes of convincing enough of the "sheeple" that they are baaaaaaaaaaad (pun intended) and need to be taken away.

    If the Gov't ever succeeds in disarming the population, they know from that point on, they'll have free reign to do WHATEVER they want, to us "subjects", and they think we'll have no option but to take it
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    What the first American citizens knew, and what American citizens will eventually re-learn, is that politicians lie to their fellow citizens to get elected, to get re-elected, and any times in between that will further their agenda. They make laws as fast as they can dream them up, and enforce only the ones they like, against the people they don't like. The government is run by these people and staffed by the people they hand-pick for the qualities they admire most.

    Do you really believe that background checks are ever destroyed? I don't. They may be deleted from the 'official' database, but there are umpteen obscure bureaus that collect and share intelligence who never delete information. Do you think J. Edgar Hoovers secret files, collected over 40 years were ever destroyed? Do you think the CIA only conducted espionage against foreign powers? I don't. What the hell does the NSA do? Nobody knows. Every branch of the military has their own intelligence gathering sections. We don't even know how many agencies collect information, or who they collect it on.

    The present administration has highlighted the corruption in government more than any other in recent years, because they are so confident in their unlimited power that they barely even try to hide their authoritarian goals. They have proven to more people than ever before that political office is more often than not the refuge of untalented opportunists who take the easiest route they can find to power over their fellow citizens.

    For all the reasons stated in the other posts, and for the truths I have stated, we the people should never assume that the people in government have our best interests at heart, nor that they want new laws for the reasons they say. We have to start making politicians prove what they say and prove that there is a need for the laws they want to make.

    We need some government...just not this one.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    FL180 wrote: »
    Let me preface this by saying that I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and strongly oppose a national gun registry.

    The Justice Department under President Obama and NRA President David Keene have said that the problem with universal background check legislation lies in the fact that background checks are largely ineffective unless there’s an accompanying gun registry. Mr Keene and many others believe this would be the first step toward government confiscation of weapons.

    I also believe this to be true. It probably wouldn't happen overnight, but it would come much sooner than many might think.

    I believe there are certain individuals that should not be able to have firearms such as violent criminals and those with mental illness. The way to prevent these individuals from purchasing firearms is to require everyone to pass a background check. I don't think I have a problem requiring these background checks at gun shows either. Where I would draw the line is in sales or gifts to family. As long as the records of these checks are destroyed within 24 hours (or maybe it's 48 hours, I forget) like they are now, I don't have a problem with them.

    The problem is, as Bisley pointed out, that it's unlikely that ALL records of a given transaction are destroyed. As we have seen demonstrated time and again, poilticos and functionaries absolutely LOVE to twist words around so that they are indeed doing 'exactly what was promised' and that makes folks feel good about things....until they find out that what was promised isn't exactly what you thought it was.

    What I don't understand is why the Justice Department and Mr. Keene believe universal background checks would be ineffective unless they are accompanied with a gun registry. Can someone please explain to me why you need a gun registry to have background checks be effective? This just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for an honest explanation.

    Well, to effectively be able to control something, you'd want to have all the information you could possibly have wouldn't you? As stated above, many of these things sound good to the low information listener, but end up being something entirely different than was previously thought. Of course, by that time, it's too late.

    Remember, it's not that the DOJ and Keene agree that BG checks need a registry to be effective. The DOJ (and many 'ban' type politicos) believe that to do what they want,(which isn't necessarily keep criminals and other baddies from getting guns) they need a registry. Mr Keene agrees with that, and wants to make sure it doesn't happen.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement