Help me with an argument about background checks.

[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?

[Sharpienads]

Because fuck the man, that's why.

Which points did you already bring up to your buddy?

[XC700116]

First one that comes to my mind is that with the new BGC law there's also the law to pay for them. So it's now a sort of "poll tax" as has been hammered on here over and over.

Second, it establishes a basis for questioning the legality of ownership and leaves the burden of proof to the owner that they aquired the weapon prior to July 1 2013. And although they "say" that's not the case, it will be done at some point when a DA is headhunting simply because there is no burden of proof on the state specifically written in the law. This is the ONLY way it's even remotely enforcable outside of a sting operation or catching them in the act, for guns that are not sold new after 7/1/2013. (ie if someone has a gun that was sold to someone else as new after 7/1/2013 they could find that information via standard trace procedures currently in place)

Third, the loan a gun to your buddy on a 5 day hunting trip, or your spouse for that matter, issue. (basically the poor constructs of the law to begin with ie- the devil in the details)

Fourth, it won't stop a single one of these shootings, and it will only cost tax payer $$$.

[CroiDhubh]

1. As a private citizen who has the right to own a gun, I shouldn't have to get permission from the government to buy, sell, or gift it to another private citizen who also has the right to do so. As provided by the second amendment.

2. Making us pay for it makes it a Poll/Sin tax...this is against the law

3. You are violating people's fifth amendment rights by telling them they MUST incriminate themselves, and by not doing so, you charge them with not incriminating themselves. This is unconstitutional.

4. Why do you have to get permission or tell the government you are exercising a RIGHT, not a privileged? At any point did you have to tell them you are getting Alice in Wonderland or Dante's Inferno?

5. Incremental-ism, my friends, incremental-ism.

[MED]

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?

Is he talking about background checks in concept or the idiotic bill passed by the legislature?

The idiotic bill as passed restricts how and where we can lend our firearms. Secondly, the idiotic bill as passed has no exemption for concealed carry holders. Third, the idiotic bill has no appeals process other than getting your record expunged. Even if a person agrees, with background checks, the idiots in the legislature passed a horrible bill. It is easy to attack the legislation even if you agree with background checks.

[newracer]

Simple, the only way background checks can be enforced is with registration, historically registration has always lead to confiscation.

[thedave1164]

I view it as simply as this.
if you are not trustworthy enough to own a gun, then why are you trustworthy enough to roam free in society?

[davsel]

Simple, the only way background checks can be enforced is with registration, historically registration has always lead to confiscation.

^^^ This

Last weekend I had a similar conversation with a TEU Sergeant at a party. I used this argument, and all he could come back with is that "no one has ever gone door to door in this country and confiscated guns." I brought up Katrina, and he started ranting about special circumstances. He told me he has had this argument with the gun guys in the department, and no one can give him a good reason. He even insisted that gang bangers purchase their guns without background checks from local gunshows - even called it the "gunshow loophold." At that point, I gave up and grabbed another beer.

Some people, you just can't reach.

[TFOGGER]

Simple, the only way background checks can be enforced is with registration, historically registration has always lead to confiscation.

DINGDINGDING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

[newracer]

^^^ This

Last weekend I had a similar conversation with a TEU Sergeant at a party. I used this argument, and all he could come back with is that "no one has ever gone door to door in this country and confiscated guns." I brought up Katrina, and he started ranting about special circumstances. He told me he has had this argument with the gun guys in the department, and no one can give him a good reason. He even insisted that gang bangers purchase their guns without background checks from local gunshows - even called it the "gunshow loophold." At that point, I gave up and grabbed another beer.

Some people, you just can't reach.

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