Would you support a Universal Background Check that does NOT record serial numbers?

[53convert]

no.... the dems and by proxy the gov. have proven time and again they are not to be trusted.

 

[abajaj11]

I did not support the enemy the last two presidential elections, but we still got the lesser of two evils. Putting your head in the sand and pretending nothing is going to happen is no course of action.

I think we are going to loose some of our rights this time around... too many things have lined up for them in a very short period.....

we can perhaps choose which loss of rights will hurt the least or let the messiah force his will on us and possibly loose it all now instead of later

Sorry if I sound a pessimist, but I am sure gun owners are going to take a hit.

I beg to differ. I think if we all stick together and call our congressman & 2 senators once a week, write and post issues online, contribute to the NRA, GOA & SAF, then nothing will happen. It will go away.
there is NO reason for ANYTHiNG to be passed. The system is NOt broken as far as guns are concerned. Violent crime is down. Number of mass shootings is down...believe it or not.
So why should anything be passed? Just because the fascist propaganda press and leftie fascists in the government think it should?
People have died for the right to keep and bear arms throughout history....the least we can do is not lose heart, and keep the pressure on them....
WE CAN WIN THIS WITHOUT GIVING AN INCH.

 

[mblndl]

I really don't have a problem with showing that I'm not a felon or a nut-case to buy a gun. I have nothing to hide. But I do have a problem with having to register what I buy.

 

[Jack T.]

I really don't have a problem with showing that I'm not a felon or a nut-case to buy a gun. I have nothing to hide. But I do have a problem with having to register what I buy.

The fact that I have something to hide makes me neither a felon nor a nut-case.

Which background check did you go through before you went to church last Sunday? Which background check did you go through before you voted in the last election?

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I beg to differ. I think if we all stick together and call our congressman & 2 senators once a week, write and post issues online, contribute to the NRA, GOA & SAF, then nothing will happen. It will go away.
there is NO reason for ANYTHiNG to be passed. The system is NOt broken as far as guns are concerned. Violent crime is down. Number of mass shootings is down...believe it or not.
So why should anything be passed? Just because the fascist propaganda press and leftie fascists in the government think it should?
People have died for the right to keep and bear arms throughout history....the least we can do is not lose heart, and keep the pressure on them....
WE CAN WIN THIS WITHOUT GIVING AN INCH.

Your exactly right. Why should we let the government take rights away? People have fought for the past 230+ years to preserve our constitution and we are just supposed to sit back and hope nothing happens. Or sit back and hope they only get a background check. I don't think so. We HAVE to be active every day in this. We should not have to give on anything. The current system we have is not broken but only not ran properly. Why not actually prosecute people that break the law? But the way things are now is to let criminals get off easy. Or to not do anything at all. I don't care what the government thinks is right, they are wrong. Nothing that they are proposing will help to make things better, and they know it. It all boils down to one thing, confiscation. Now I know there are some of you who think us that believe this are paranoid. If that is what you think than that is your right, but there are millions out there that feel the same way. I don't remember in 94 sheriffs coming out saying they won't abide by the governments new restrictions if they are passed. Nor were there governors coming out saying the same thing. This is the worst it has ever gotten and the government is hoping that people will side with them because of what happened in sandy hook. They will exploit anything to get what they want. And that is plain sick. Why should we settle for what they want? We DO NOT have to submit. And we SHOULD NOT submit. That is what the government is counting on. Feinstein is already hoping by showing pictures of the dead children that she can convince people to side with her. And Obama does pretty much the same thing. They will stop at nothing to succeed. And if for some reason they do get something passed, we must resist and not let it rule over us. They would be the ones pissing on the constitution, not us. But I do have fears that calling and writing our senators and congressmen won't be enough. We have to sit back and hope they do the right thing. And Coburn is already wanting to do the UBC, so you never know. And this is what scares me the most about it. They are all in it for themselves. When you can't even get a congressman to say the real reason for the 2A is to protect against tyranny you know something is off. He believes that it was created to give people the right to hunt and sport. Well that isn't why it was written. And anyone that doesn't believe the 2A was written to protect against tyranny doesn't really support the 2A in my books. If you did then you wouldn't have any problem saying that. We have to really pour it on more than ever. I just read that a few days ago anti gun groups were in Harrisburg, PA protesting. They are starting to spread everywhere trying to get people to screw us. The more people that join the anti's the harder it will be for us to succeed.

 

[mugsy]

No, I would not support it, because it would involve threatening prison and fines against people who are engaged in completely peaceful conduct that doesn't threaten the rights of others in any way... namely, engaging in a voluntary exchange between individuals. I oppose the current FFL background check requirement and all other prior restraints on the RKBA or any other right for the same reason.

Henschman - how is a background check itself a prior restraint? It is a check to see if you have a disqualifying condition - like being a certain category of criminal or an adjudicated mental defective but absent that is doesn't stop anything. Voting is also a right for qualified individuals (essentially adult citizens) but you may be required to show ID (an idea very popular on this site) proving residency, citizenship or voter registration. Why must gun purchases be totally exempt from a check for disqualifying conditions?

I do think a purchase card or simply an annual update to the weapon license BGC - which would serve the dual purpose of being a purchase card might work. I also think a form of NICS available to private persons w/o going through an FFL and not requiring a retained 4473 might be good. I concur, however, that the danger is that any paperwork (or electronic records) generated might be retained or would make a very tempting target for a future "improvement" to the law.

 

[waltham41]

I beg to differ. I think if we all stick together and call our congressman & 2 senators once a week, write and post issues online, contribute to the NRA, GOA & SAF, then nothing will happen. It will go away.
there is NO reason for ANYTHiNG to be passed. The system is NOt broken as far as guns are concerned. Violent crime is down. Number of mass shootings is down...believe it or not.
So why should anything be passed? Just because the fascist propaganda press and leftie fascists in the government think it should?
People have died for the right to keep and bear arms throughout history....the least we can do is not lose heart, and keep the pressure on them....
WE CAN WIN THIS WITHOUT GIVING AN INCH.

I truly hope and pray that you are right. But Obummer winning twice has broken my spirit and has got me very pessimistic about our current government and future way of life.

 

[flybeech]

Well would you ? If a Universal background check proposal was introduced which did not track, or record the serial number, or any other information regarding the gun purchased would you still oppose it?

What about a system where gun purchasers could go to the sheriff's office and complete a background check, then could go to a gun dealer show they were already approved and purchase a gun.

I'm just throwing out ideas here, but the above should satisfy the stated reasons why the gun grabbers claim we need a background check.

Personally I would favor 1 of the above options over the current 4473 form that we have to fill out now.

And how would this appeasement be Constitutional?

It's the whole "shall not be abridged" thing.

 

[SoonerStatePawn]

Everyone wants gun transactions to be safe, but I honestly don't see any way that a UBC will work without ultimately leading to Gun Registration. I don't care what they say right now, it will happen if we pass UBC. If anything was to pass on the Federal level I could see it being a Hi-Cap Ban, and maybe dealing with Gun Shows in some capacity. Possibly eliminating private gun sales at Gun Shows.

I think the Democrats have finally realized that their not going to win in this debate and moved on to immigration. If anything happens it will probably be decided on a State by State basis.

 

[henschman]

Henschman - how is a background check itself a prior restraint? It is a check to see if you have a disqualifying condition - like being a certain category of criminal or an adjudicated mental defective but absent that is doesn't stop anything. Voting is also a right for qualified individuals (essentially adult citizens) but you may be required to show ID (an idea very popular on this site) proving residency, citizenship or voter registration. Why must gun purchases be totally exempt from a check for disqualifying conditions?

I do think a purchase card or simply an annual update to the weapon license BGC - which would serve the dual purpose of being a purchase card might work. I also think a form of NICS available to private persons w/o going through an FFL and not requiring a retained 4473 might be good. I concur, however, that the danger is that any paperwork (or electronic records) generated might be retained or would make a very tempting target for a future "improvement" to the law.

A background check is a prior restraint on a right because it is a hoop you have to jump through before exercising the right in question. That is the definition of a prior restraint. One big problem with prior restraints is that they are very overbroad -- they put a burden on millions of people who are not threats just to try to stop the few "bad apples." Also, such burdens always have a chilling effect on the right in question. It is just common sense -- make it harder for people to do something, and less people will do it.

But the best argument against background checks is what I referred to in my previous post -- the non-aggression principle. It is simply unjust to threaten to initiate force against people who aren't threatening others in any way. Voluntary exchange between people, by itself, almost never falls into this category. If a person alleges that another person's ownership or transferring of a gun violates someone's rights, he should be the one to have to prove it, not the accused. Any determination that a person does not have the right to possess a gun needs to be an individual inquiry -- not a broad prohibition of an entire category of people, not all of whom are threats to the rights of others when armed. This is also a highly overbroad use of force.

As to the comparison with voting, the "right to vote" is a creation of government, and has nothing to do with natural rights. It is just a procedure for engaging in a particular system created by government. By contrast, the right to free association, including the right to free exchange, is part of people's natural rights, because like I said, it can be done without threatening the rights of others in any way.

And before someone starts pointing out all the long-standing and widely supported laws that violate this principle, I will say that the fact that our natural rights are violated in many ways in our current society does not disprove their existence.