Where are they getting this 85% figure of NRA members or 90% of Americans supporting them??
Printable View
Where are they getting this 85% figure of NRA members or 90% of Americans supporting them??
From bs polls
Even if the numbers are anywhere close, I suspect most sheeple don't realize what a universal background check really means and would be shocked if you told them they would have to run a background check to give their son/daughter/grandson/wife/whatever a firearm, and their heirs would lose all rights to the firearms upon their death.
One more reason to setup a trust.
I'm looking for a can anyway so that's my next call tomorrow.
They're likely trying to convince members that everyone else is doing it....
I don't buy it for a second.
Universal background checks sound great on paper. In reality its problematic at best. You would have to exempt family members who can legally own firearms. So If you wanted to give your kid a rifle for christmas you could. The same with inheriting firearms. Then how is a system going to be set up? In Colorado we are close with the only thing changing being private sales. How would they set up a system for a background check so people don't have to go through an FFL?
Then the elephant in the room. It does no good without registration and I'll be damned if thats anything I could support. You can ask for a transfer through an FFL now if you choose.
"Just like the 60% of gun sales are done public." Not threw an FFL. LOL what a joke that was!Quote:
Originally Posted by Boadie30
Registration.....then......confiscation!
NO!!! to universal background checks.
If I knew nothing on the in's and out's of this I would say that it sounds like a good idea as well.
Why do you always post threads without any links?
the only other thing I can think of with this is that most people go a background check with a gun dealer or at gun shows. Everyone gets up in arms about the gunshow loophole yet very few states actually have this and the ones that do are some of the safest.
Just like the rest of the bullshit, they make it up.
NOT ONE MORE INCH
I am in between houses and do not have a internet sevice at the moment... Being on the internet with this piece of crap phone blows.. You all are my crutch till Feb. 25th when my new house is finished being built.. Sorry and thanks...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
its our right and not some privilege for the gov to decide.....there shouldnt be any backround checks period
At a minimum, CCW holders shouldn't have to go through a background check period. We've already tagged ourselves. Isn't this the case in some states?
Correct but I believe MOST FFL holders will refuse to help out and the majority that will help will charge "an arm and a leg" to run that BG check.[Mad]Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Man
did you know that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot, and 80% of the public believes them?
Disclaimer: I am not stirring the pot, I'm legitimately asking a question...Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty19
How is (not defending this position at all, I'm against it for a variety of reasons) Universal background checks in any way a form of registration? I'm genuinely curious. I do a BGC every time I purchase a firearm from an FFL- cool, fine, all good. But somehow it's a form of registration when I would have to do a BGC with a private sale? If done via an FFL and the FFL was forced to keep the 4478 on file, in regards to privacy and current procedures, then it really would be more hassle for buyer/seller than anything else, right? Or am I wrong on this? I don't know all the details behind a UBC system proposed by Congress, so if done the same as now just bringing the buyer and seller together with the firearm to an FFL to conduct a normal 4478 with BGC then I fail to see any type of "registration." For the record, I'm vehemently against this idea to include the reasons like 1) an FFL would most likely charge for the service, costing the seller/buyer more than they intended the deal to cost, 2) if not done through an FFL, how would the seller respect the privacy of the buyer if individuals had to submit checks via CBI? And the list goes on. I just would like some clarity on how a UBC is considered "registration."
At best it's a state issue.
Anytime you fill out a form for a firearm, it is a sort of de facto registration. The fact that if a gun is recovered in a crime, its origin can be traced to the original buyer, says that info is out there and can be used by someone later to create a database. With massive amounts of computer memory and processing power available and super cheap prices, I would be surprised if all that stuff isn't already logged somewhere for access by God only knows who.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Those guns you get through your FFL? Essentially "registered" to you in my personal opinion.
Form 4473 info is theoretically not kept in any database. Nor are there drones in the U.S., the Patriot Act never passed, the tooth fairy exists, as does Santa Clause & Heaven, the President adheres to the Constitution, and Social Security will be solvent when I am 65.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Youth was grand, I miss it dearly.
The only way to enforce something like this is if every firearm is registered. If Joe Bob has a firearm that he sells or gives to Billy Ray, the only way to know that it was checked is to know that Joe Bob used to have it and it was transferred via (insert govt. agency here) to Billy Ray.
Otherwise, if they don't know what Joe Bob had and Billy Ray now has it...it's unenforceable.
Having moved here from GA, I'm offended at the slight given Joe Bob and Billy Ray...them is good people [Mad]Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
No need to be condescending- I was simply inquiring as to how a universal background check would be any different than our current setup with buying through FFLs? I have never bought a gun from a private party- so I guess yes, perhaps all of my firearms (with the exception of those handed down by family) are "registered"... No need for the Melvin-esque diatribe on how young people are naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Thank you Jackrabbit for not being condescending. What we need is more privacy laws that state they can't make a database out of 4473s. (my mistake on saying 4478.)
I didn't slight either one. I have friends with 2 first names. They would likely be in cahoots in the presented scenario. Good friends trading guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
...on the other hand, that John Doe guy can be a dick.
In Ronin's example, his family wouldn't be able to hand down any firearms to him without a background check.
Which is yet another reason I think this idea is fucking stupid. How would they be able to track and enforce such a silly law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Because law abiding people tend to obey, no mater how silly the law is.
It sure as hell ain't going to stop criminals.
Also, the term for anything involving a BGC we always called "papered".
As in, "Yeah, that gun is papered to me. This one is not."
A lot of people avoid having guns papered to them, so if there ever is a confiscation scenario, they will be low on the list. As opposed to my buddy who buys and sells like he's changing his underwear, and probably has a couple hundred guns papered to him scattered about the universe.