Help me with an argument about background checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

Because fuck the man, that's why.

Which points did you already bring up to your buddy?

---

I brought up these:
Registration leads to confiscation. He replied that a background check isn't registration. I explained that, yes, the dealer keeps the paperwork and it's not sent to the gov, but what's to prevent the gov from kicking in doors one day and confiscating all of these records?

The "slippery slope" argument. What's next? Fingerprinting or DNA samples in order to buy a gun?

Criminals don't do background checks, so what's the f-ing point?

And like you wrote, "fuck the man, that's why". The gigantic balls required to tell me that I can't give my son a gun....huge f-ing balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newracer

No one has gone door to door yet but registered guns have been confiscated in CA from individuals and probably other states as well.

---

Did a quick Google, came up with this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3117238.html

Background checks are gun registration by proxy. Gun registration is illegal in Colorado. Why? It's an infringement against the 2nd Amendment.

Why do I NEED to do a background check to lend someone my rifle for a week or two?

Why do I NEED to do a background check to sell or give a firearm to someone I've known for 10+ years and who has to pass rigorous background checks (for other purposes) every 5 years?

Why do you NEED to do a background check to give your mother or sister a pistol to defend herself?

How would universal background checks have helped the situation at Newtown, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, etc.?

Instead of implementing feel good legislation that just makes it harder and more costly for people to defend themselves, why not make it easier to put psychos like Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza in a ward for observation or admit Islamic extremism like Nidal Hassan's is a threat so law enforcement can focus on the people who ARE a problem instead of the ones who aren't?

There is a reason why the Founding Father's were insistent that government keep it's nose out of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Governments kill more civilians/citizens than civilians/citizens do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

A great friend of mine blew me away the other day. He's a gun guy and has had no less than a dozen AKs at one time since I've known him, among other weapons including his fully auto Uzi (yes, legal). He comes up to me the other day and asks me, "I know you're against all of the new gun laws and stuff, and I pretty much am too, and don't freak on my ass when ask you this, but what's so bad about making background checks mandatory?"

I made a few points and he was marginally convinced at best. Frankly, I can see how under-informed folks can think this. I mean, it sounds so good and harmless to them. I was a bit surprised that my shooting bud brought this up, but that's really besides the point.

What are the best talking points to combat this question?

---

There are none. If he or anyone else, INCLUDING SOME BOARD MEMBERS, have to ask. They're not worth wasting time on. He should now be classified as YOUR X FRIEND.

I always bring this up- how will you enforce BGC? What's to stop a person from selling it to another without a BGC even if it was the law. There is no way to prove when gun was purchased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madeinhb

I always bring this up- how will you enforce BGC? What's to stop a person from selling it to another without a BGC even if it was the law. There is no way to prove when gun was purchased.

---

I agree with this, I am against it because I believe it could lead to registration, and I think I can do a better job at deciding who gets my guns then the Government, but I also do not sell guns, I have sold one gun in my lifetime and have regretted it ever since, never again, my guns will go to my children when I get off this rock.

But to use Katrina as a part of your argument probably wasn't wise, there were circumstances beyond rescuers control in place down there, including rampant local government corruption, gangs and an unprecedented natural disaster. I know it happened and I think it was wrong, but I also think its wrong to build a city below sea level on the shore of the ocean, what part of get out of the city did those people not understand? Katrina/New Orleans was a gigantic Charlie Foxtrot.

I think that you gave your best, let time do the rest, I used to believe that back ground checks were not so bad, but then this law makes it an issue for me to hand my rifle to my best friend of 20 years to go hunting or give my kids hand me downs? GTFO. If I had concerns as to the mental instability of my children I sure as hell wouldn't give them a gun, but maybe that's just me.

I think there are parts of this law that make sense though, I wouldn't give my wife a gun, but shes Spanish....(Sarcasm) for those that don't understand....

All background checks are illegal, a violation of the 4th Amendment and an invasion of privacy. Its no ones damned business what I own, have sold, etc. The arguement that BGC's somehow "filter out" those who should not have guns is insane. A felon will fail a BGC, but then again a felon will know where to acquire a gun if one is needed. Its already been proven that it is almost impossible to screen "mentally ill" folks, so that argument is also flawed. ALL BGC's do is to add hassle to purchasing a weapon. And its easy to say well, its only a half hour and no big deal, BUT to many first timers, the BGC is a mystery which is often mis-understood as registration or other nonsense.

Background checks are not "gun registration" they are instead gun owner registration.