Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/universal-background-checks-what-do-they-accomplish-88575/)

Tackleberry1 04-10-2013 09:10 PM

Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish?
 
Through several threads here today, I have seen several of our members express support for "Universal Background Checks"... and I have to wonder... why?

What is the intent of UBC's?

What will UBC accomplish?

What are the "unintended consequences" of UBC's?

On the surface, this idea sounds logical to most law abiding citizens, however, I think most of us recognize that the devil is always in the details, and that criminals, are always... and will always be... 3 steps ahead of Law Enforcement.

Do some "prohibited" people walk around gun shows or answer adds from "armslist" in order to purchase firearms and avoid the background check? I'm sure some do, but I'm also sure the criminals are not completely stupid either.

We know that the majority of American Gun crime is comitted by the likes of street gangs.

We know that the Bloods, Crips, and MS 13 simply intimidate the 21 year old females from their neighborhoods who have no criminal records into buying guns legally from FFL's and providing them to the gang.

We know that even after UBC's go into effect, Sheniqua will still pass the check, buy the gun, and give it to her convict gang banger boyfriend... so...

What exactly are we accomplishing by agreeing to UBC's when they will have no impact on criminal misuse of firearms?

Why are so many of us falling for the lie... again... and accepting further erosion of our Liberty... again... for the FALSE promise of safety?

Think about it.

Tack

texaswoodworker 04-10-2013 09:24 PM

I posted this in a few threads today in responce to those members you are talking about, so here it is again.

Reasons why the universal background check WON'T work.


1. By definition, criminals DON'T follow laws. What's one more law to them? If they are going to use a gun in a crime, they are already looking at some seriously hard time. Do you think they really care about laws?

2. MOST guns used in crimes are stolen, or bought ILLEGALLY on the streets. AKA, the black market. A law is not going to stop this, because what they are doing is already illegal. You want to stop this? How about prosecuting these criminals? The VAST majority of them caught breaking a gun control law were never prosecuted.

3. Even the police think a universal background check is useless. It WON'T stop criminals from getting guns.

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/gun-surveyQ4.gif

4. There are already laws against selling guns to criminals. THEY DON'T WORK. Why would another one work?

5. The ONLY people who would be effected by that law are people like you and me. People who already follow the law.

On top of all of this, a universal background check would make it easier for the Government to pass laws requiring registration, and we all know exactly what that leads to.

People, why would you say yes to more gun control? Has it EVER worked before? (In case your wondering, the answer is a big NO.) IMHO, people who say yes to this law, are also saying yes to more gun control in the future. THAT is what they want, and YOU are HELPING THEM. :mad:

Today it is universal gun control, tomorrow it will be registration, licencing, and confiscation. Is that what you want? People from other countries are WARNING us about this, because they have gone through this themselves. Listen to them if you want to keep your rights. If you do want this, then you deserve every bit of gun control that comes with it.

davva360 04-10-2013 09:35 PM

Personally, I doubt that extending background checks will make a difference. Criminals avoid background checks now by buying through private sales or stealing guns. They will continue to do exactly that.

If a gun is sold privately after the law goes into effect the buyer can just say they bought it before the new law. Unless the gun has transferred through an FFL since the law passed there will be no way to verify it.

I would not object to background checks on all transfers if I thought it would do any good. After all we want to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. The problem is it will not achieve anything because the criminals will just ignore yet another law.

jrl78 04-10-2013 09:53 PM

I wish someone could ask Obama point blank on tv why he wants to get rid of “assault rifles" (they are not assault rifles!!! They are not fully automatic!!!) Yet he has armed security day and night carrying "fully automatic assault rifles" I.e. ar15. It's ok for him to protect himself with such guns but not the average citizen. Ya that sounds right, fair and just. Do you see law abiding citizens committing these crimes??? No!!!! And why is that you dummy???? Because they're law abiding freaking citizens!!!! They're not criminals, they follow the laws. And guess what criminals don't do Obama???? They don't follow the laws!!!! Sorry I gotta little worked up there :D

Vincine 04-10-2013 11:31 PM

It's true UBC won't stop criminals from making straw purchases or getting guns some other way, but I'd be willing to bet that without them, criminals would be buy guns at the LGS just like the rest of us. So, is making it harder for criminals to get guns a waste of time? Or should we make it easier for criminals to get guns.

If guns don't kill people, people kill people; then checking people follows. No? Yes? Or would you rather restrict the guns?

texaswoodworker 04-10-2013 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincine (Post 1209899)
It's true UBC won't stop criminals from making straw purchases or getting guns some other way, but I'd be willing to bet that without them, criminals would be buy guns at the LGS just like the rest of us. So, is making it harder for criminals to get guns a waste of time? Or should we make it easier for criminals to get guns.

If guns don't kill people, people kill people; then checking people follows. No? Yes? Or would you rather restrict the guns?

Criminals will get guns either way. It is NOT hard for them to get one. They can easily get them on the streets, or just steal them from houses.

Making US do that is pointless. Countries all around the world universal background check laws like that, and yet their crime never gets any better.

Bigcountry02 04-10-2013 11:44 PM

They want complete registration of all weapons. Next, to follow would be confiscation of all weapons.

Remember, history tends to repeat itself in one form or other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

Germany Firearm Law in 1928, which in-turn gave rise to the 1938 German Weapons Act, As under the 1928 law, ONLY citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

1. Gun restriction laws applied to all guns and ammunition. The 1938 revisions introduced restrictions specifically reiterating the prohibition for Jews to hold firearms, but made it easier for one party Nazi regime to gain acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."

2. The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.

3. Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.

4. The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.

5. Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.

danf_fl 04-10-2013 11:52 PM

Wait a few years. When the people who passed the law are dead and gone and the stats do not change, there will be others who will come up with other cockamany ways to infringe on the rights of citizens.

orangello 04-11-2013 12:18 AM

It will placate the anti-gun crowd; that is all it can do.

Rocky7 04-11-2013 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincine (Post 1209899)
If guns don't kill people, people kill people; then checking people follows. No? Yes? Or would you rather restrict the guns?

No offence, but that's the apple pie version and it's not that simple. It doesn't "follow" at all.

Let's back up, way back. This is about whether regulating things can also regulate human behaviour and make us better off. (Regulating the transfer of things is just a way of regulating things.)

That very presumption eats away at the foundation of liberty. Liberty comes with personal responsibility. Those two concepts are joined at the hip. The one is necessary for other. Each of those concepts provides oxygen for the other. They co-exist or neither exists. Subtract from one and you necessarily subtract from the other. All free people, including criminals, must be held responsible for what they do and must answer for it; preferably immediately.

In any event, passing more laws to stop people who are already known to have no concern about the law is irrational.

I may be mistaken, but do you not already have laws that deal with straw purchasers? Isn't the maximum penalty 10 years? I might not have that right so please correct me if I'm off the mark there.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:58 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.