Help me with an argument about background checks.

[Clint45]

I disagree with background checks for private party sales, but I can understand why they appeal to some people . . . especially with how it was widely misrepresented that "anyone" could buy full-auto weapons "at a gun show" or "off the internet" with no background check . . . all of which we know to be FALSE. As the "Universal Background Check" law was presented to the people via the media, it certainly seemed reasonable . . . although most criminals either steal their guns or buy them from other criminals, not via sources like armslist, and most armslist sellers would flat out refuse to sell to someone who obviously looked like a thug or gangbanger.

The main issue I have with the UBC isn't so much that the law would require private party sales to go through a FFL or possible registration, but all the SMALL PRINT hidden in the law, which amounts to a dozen vague and arbitrary "secret laws" that the average person -- and probably many Senators -- don't even know about. Like equating "sale" with "transfer", meaning if you swap shotguns with a neighbor, gift your fiance a gun from your collection, or even store a gun at a relative's house for more than 72 hours, an official background check must be conducted at an FFL or all parties involved are guilty of a felony offense. Felony? Doesn't the law say it's only a misdemeanor? It does, but the SMALL PRINT adds a "prohibited person" clause, thereby making the misdemeanor indistinguishable from a felony as pertains to firearm ownership under federal law . . . so if you are arrested for the misdemeanor crime of loaning a rifle to a coworker during a week long hunting trip, thereby losing your right to possess firearms, and a probation officer searches your home to see if you are in compliance and finds a single .22 LR cartridge forgotten in the back of a closet, you could be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years in federal prison, no parole.

And that is why I'm opposed to UBC. It is all the small print and draconian penalties for things that should not even be prosecuted as crimes in the first place.

[GilpinGuy]

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.

No. Sorry man. I don't ex-communicate everyone I disagreee with, and he doesn't even disagree - he was just asking a question. Sheesh. And what if I can convince him to be on our side? It's not worth the effort to even try?

[cstone]

Background checks are not, and never will be mandatory for criminals. Laws do not serve to protect people. Laws are enacted to punish behavior that the government (our society) has decided is not in the interest of the greater good.

Victims do not care whether they were killed or assaulted with legally purchased firearms or illegally obtained firearms.

I personally believe society would be better served if the state focused on punishing actions of criminals rather than focusing on the tools they use to commit their crimes.

When will we all need background checks to obtain computers and have limits placed on the high speed capacity of our internet connections? Cyber stalking, computer hackers, child pornography, etc... If it would only save one child...

Be safe.

[Snowman]

Try not applying logic. In a perfect world guns would still exist.

[Goodburbon]

http://www.ar-15.co/threads/99889-My...-Universal-BGC

[Byte Stryke]

Oddly enough, I ran into this very same question yesterday, My Response was:
"We wouldn't need a UBC if they politicians would stop letting criminals back out onto the streets."

it was like someone went in at midnight and turned ALL of the Stadium lights on at once.

[Great-Kazoo]

No. Sorry man. I don't ex-communicate everyone I disagreee with, and he doesn't even disagree - he was just asking a question. Sheesh. And what if I can convince him to be on our side? It's not worth the effort to even try?

Your OP sentence says it all regarding your "friend"
I made a few points and he was marginally convinced at best.

If you have to TRY and convince him it's not worth the effort. His mind is made up. Prior to the back ground check ballot issue being voted on, like every other ballot a booklet was issues to voters. 98% of voters never read the booklet. EVERY gun owner i talked to were all ?????? Really I never knew that" Trying to get them to read the info was an exercise in futility.
WHY?? BECAUSE IT MADE SENSE

[muddywings]

I thought this would be a good thread to post this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-democra...094000548.html

In their push for broad legislation, liberals are making the perfect the enemy of the good
Apparently, a group of senators is "quietly seeking a new path on gun control." Or at least, they were quietly doing so until The New York Times wrote about the once-covert effort. Now, of course, the efforts are less quiet.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) is reportedly back talking to Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) about how they might attract more support for a bill expanding the current background check system. The two senators, it seems, are focused on background checks and background checks alone, a move I think wise given the widespread view that such a measure is entirely appropriate.

Unfortunately, the Times also detailed a push being lead by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to revise or expand penalties for firearms trafficking offenses. Now, federal prosecutors really do not need more tools to prosecute individuals they catch trafficking in illegal weapons, but of course, no United States senator has ever gone hungry by being "tough on crime." And yet... the mere fact that Gillibrand is pushing for more gun regulations at the same time Toomey and Manchin are trying to revive background checks shows that Senate Democrats learned little from their last gun-control fiasco. Furthermore, Gillibrand's stated reason for pursuing the new law might well be the poster child for the sort of reasoning that keeps gun rights enthusiasts paranoid and the NRA fully funded.

Gillibrand's quote in the Times is simple, and its logic is straightforward. Asked why she we need stricter trafficking laws, the junior Senator from New York explained that "I think trafficking can be the base of the bill, the rock on which everything else stands. I also think it's complementary to background checks because, let's be honest, criminals aren't going to buy a gun and go through a background check. So if you really want to go after criminals, you have to have to do both.

The most ardent gun rights advocates literally stay up at night worrying that each gun regulation they allow to pass could be the one that sets off the avalanche that turns this nation into some sort of gun-outlawing regulatory hell. This group of people is naturally suspicious of arguments for "common sense" gun control, not so much because they really think that their gun rights would be in any sense compromised by the recently defeated revisions to the existing background check regime, but rather because they do not think that the advocates for the aforementioned regime will be content to stop once background checks are in place.

Many of these pro-gun individuals would be fine with background checks. But they fear, with some reason, that if they concede on background checks today, then the next time some madman gets a firearm and kills 30 people, the same proponents of background checks will be harnessing public outrage by turning the families of the victims into lobbyists for what they will undoubtedly label "common sense" reform that decent American couldn't possibly oppose. For that reason, the position of many gun rights advocates is that they prefer to defend their right to "keep and bear arms" from the Rhine so they will never be forced to do so from the Rubicon.

Even crazy-sounding theories occasionally appear to have at least a tiny basis in reality. Indeed, from time to time, gun regulation proponents appear to push for stricter gun laws irrespective of whether or not particular proposals actually make anyone safer. The fact that President Obama allowed Sen. Feinstein to push him into calling for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban — despite the fact that virtually every non-partisan group that has studied the AWB found that it had virtually no impact on violent crime rates — suggests that at least a few powerful people are more interested in restricting gun rights than they are with actually curbing violent crime. Indeed, the president dramatically weakened the chances of getting background checks approved by attaching it to a push for the AWB, thereby allowing group like the NRA to, I think unfairly, imply that the president's motive for pushing reform was more anti-gun than anti-violence.

Which brings us back to Sen. Gillibrand and the renewed push for reform. Consider the New Yorker's stated logic for pursuing tighter gun trafficking laws: Criminals will not buy guns through a complete background check regime, so if we manage to pass that, we also need to pass a another criminal statute relating to the possession, movement, and distribution of firearms. Here's what every gun person wonders when they read Gillibrand's statement: "Wait, I thought the whole point of background checks is to keep guns away from criminals… Is she saying that if it works, then we need another law?"

I want background checks to pass, but I hold out little hope that they will. And if they have any chance at all, it will be as a standalone measure not packaged with any other proposals. Senate Democrats need to wake up and stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Chad4000]

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.

yeah I disagree here too.... I still think its our responsibility to convince as many people as possible... our numbers are inherantly declining. theres are growing exponentially, even to the point where gun owners are questioning themselves. its hard to fight because the other side is so much more powerful, but if there is somebody that just needs a little push...Im giving it....

[spqrzilla]

We had a discussion on Shall Not Be Questioned (pagunblog.com) about this awhile back, referencing Schumer's language (identical to the original language MAIG gave Colorado Democrats here) and the many ways it sets up criminal traps for law abiding gun owners. Dave Kopel analysed the problems with the Manchin Toomey "compromise" bill and how badly written it was.

The bottom line is that it isn't about background checks, its about making gun ownership more risky for the law abiding to drive people out of it.