Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Tackleberry1, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    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
     
  2. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.
     

  3. davva360

    davva360 New Member

    562
    0
    0
    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.
     
  4. jrl78

    jrl78 New Member

    64
    0
    0
    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
     
  5. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    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?
     
  6. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    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.
     
  7. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,234
    38
    48
    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.
     
  8. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,360
    31
    48
    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.
     
  9. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    It will placate the anti-gun crowd; that is all it can do.
     
  10. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  11. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    Criminals ARE buying there guns at the LGS... Just like us! ;)

    Only difference is that the criminal is threatening to kill Sheniqua's mother if she does not conduct the transaction for them.

    This is why Sheniqua never does any time for providing the Glock that capped 1 rival gang member and 3 innocent bystandars... she was under durress.

    Making BGC's universal will protect Sheniqua and stop this from happening how?

    Making me take my son to an FFL before gifting him a pistol on his 21st birthday will protect Sheniqua how?

    If we set aside the "lofty" goals of legislation and look at how it actually works on the street, we begin to see that doing away with BGC's entirely would actually help society. At a minimum, it would keep Sheniqua out of the equation.

    Tack
     
  12. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,823
    134
    63
    I have never heard gun shop customer say "Aww shucks. I can't pass a background check."
     
  13. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    This is it all right here.

    How are people imbued with responsibility for their liberty? By being indoctrinated with various moral codes. Where do moral codes come from? By the poor outcome for those without them. NYC and Chi both have strict gun restrictions. NYC has the lowest gun violence & crime rate its had in decades. Chicago is having its highest. The difference is, basically, if you have a gun in NYC, you go to jail. In Chicago you don’t.

    There is a value in a government that can immure its population from the law of the jungle, but when the population becomes immured from the consequences of its own actions as well, the jig is up.

    And so here we are.
     
  14. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    No, but I'd bet a criminal would.
     
  15. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Can you explain the part about not going to jail for a gun in Chitcago? :confused:
     
  16. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    Do you really think that's the only difference - whether or not gun control is enforced?

    ps: I don't. I think it was the broken windows approach in NYC. It wasn't that gun laws were being enforced, it was that laws were being enforced.

    I believe my conclusion is supported by what has happened in other areas, other cities and other countries for that matter. The problem is criminals and the problem is the violence they do. When attention is focussed on those and when personal responsibility is consistently imposed (as it was/is under the "broken windows" philosophy), the problem is being addressed. When we focus on things rather than people, it doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  17. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,823
    134
    63
    The second amendment guaranteed every American the right to bear arms. EVERY American. Later it was established that convicts forfeited that right. Later still, anyone found to be guilty or plead guilty or no contest to domestic violence was disenfranchised. Now they want to expand the background check to exclude the "mentally ill." Next will be anyone prescribed medical marijuana. Then anyone who drinks alcohol. Then tobacco users. Then blacks. Then Jews. Then? Until only the military and law enforcement have arms.

    The second amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Let's just ask the founding fathers what they meant by that.

    "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." --George Washington

    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." --George Mason

    "Congress has no power to disarm the militia." --Tench Coxe

    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson

    "The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    --Samuel Adams

    "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." --Thomas Jefferson

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the direction of congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? --Patrick Henry
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 11, 2013
  18. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,973
    49
    48
    and kids under 18 smoke. and kids under 21 drink. and some parents don't put infants in seat belts. and people get crack. and people break the speed limit. and people murder.

    there should be no laws because people break them? :confused:

    i support backgound checks. i support any law that attempts to prevent violent criminals from taking the EASIEST way to get a gun. stealing or buying guns illegally is just that...illegal...and can create other charges against scumbags. if it prevents ONE violent criminal or mentally deranged psycho from easily getting a gun, i say "YES!"

    i don't see the big deal...backgound checks are automatic and i carry my gun out in 10-15 minutes. hardly a big deal imo.
     
  19. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,973
    49
    48
    does anyone think private sales NEEDS some control?

    PLEASE be real. the VAST majority of gun sales to criminals are through person to person sales.

    don't freak out...just think about it and discuss. :)
     
  20. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,823
    134
    63
    And people get cancer from tobacco and diabetes from sugar. Cars wreck. Planes crash. Should we create legislation to ban everything?