Obama throws tantrum!* Proud Day for Washington
- Thread starter dmnEPC
- Start date
Can anyone explain to me why background checks are a bad thing for anyone other than crazy people? I'm genuinely interested in understanding why this is good news.
They just want to have a record of everyone that has a gun...
That way when it comes time to ban guns they know where to look for them
and round them all up.
Not if you have a drill press and know how to use it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30i_6awxEG4]Legally Make your own Gun. 80 Percent Lower. - YouTube[/ame]
I'm not a gun owner so I don't know for sure but I think it depends on the state
you live in and what type of gun...
Michigan, for example:
Michigan Gun Laws - What are the Gun Laws in Michigan?
Normally for handguns yes, but not shotguns and rifles I don't think. Although every state has different rules. Plus there are over 22,000 gun laws on the books now maybe they need to enforce the ones already on the books before adding more...
Only fags and commies put ketchup on hot dogs. Mustard only, homey.
The US does require background checks on firearms purchases unless you are transferring privately from one party to another in person in the same state (And the other party is not prohibited from owning a firearm).
The UBC bills going around require that all firearms go through a approved license e (FFL) before they can be sold. This would prohibit all private transfers of firearms.
Give a firearm as inheritance? Felony
Loan a friend a firearm? Felony
Let someone try your firearm out at a range? Felony
Now, I don't want criminals obtaining firearms, but as it stands the government is ABSOLUTELY terrible at any sort of reasonable actions. In the past 6 years, 55,000 felons have attempted to obtain firearms at gunstores (This is very much illegal). They were denied due to current background check systems. Out of those 55,000 individuals, less than 50 have been prosecuted. 80% of firearms that are used in crimes are obtained illegally. Something like 1/2 of 1 percent are obtained through gunshows or direct gun sales.
I personally know a individual who would be dead today if UBCs were law.
Here's his story :
Guy is Korean and owns a 7-11 type store in a very bad part of Ohio. Kid comes into his store waving a knife around, store owner pulls gun on him. Kid drops knife and leaves, 30m later police show up. The kid tells the cops he tried to kill him and they remove all firearms from said store owner (All the firearms he owns were taken).
Kid comes back and informs the store owner he's going to kill him now that he doesn't have guns and leaves after telling him. Store owner goes to local gun shop to replace what police took. Due to pending police investigation he is denied a firearm (At this point, he is legally capable of owning or purchasing a firearm as a police investigation does not bar you from firearm ownership). His only option is to ask a friend to loan him a firearm. His friend loans him a 12ga shotgun.
The night he received the shotgun (About 3 days after the police took his firearms) two guys associated with the kid break into his store while he is locking up. Both are armed.
The store owner manages to fire at both guys, wounding one while missing the other. Police show up and charge one with essentially attempted murder. Since the second one was not on tape (And they couldn't find a weapon) he was charged with simple breaking and entering (As a side note he was charged 1 week later with a home invasion).
So, had the store owner of been required by law to go through a dealer as his only option, he would have been completely unarmed.
So, does a UBC effect law abiding gun owners? Absolutely.
Does it effect criminals? Nope, 80%+ already break laws when they obtain firearms for crimes.
Nope, gun stores do however have to keep a log book of all firearms sold and who it was to. There effectively is no national firearm registry.
We already have background checks. The whole reason this legislation was even proposed was because of Sandy Hook. What has been acknowledged was that the "alleged" killer had failed several background checks in the weeks leading up to that horrific day. He then broke the law and stole the guns he used. This goes to show how the existing background checks worked in that instance, and how even though he was breaking the law he decided to do it anyway.
So let me ask you this. If the existing law worked ( and who knows how many lives were saved because it did) how would this law change have changed that situation?
It wouldn't have changed it because it doesn't apply to the Sandy Hook situation (nor is it supposed to). It's simply a way to introduce consistency in the laws regarding the purchase of firearms.
Right now, you can fail a background check at a gun store and then go to a gun show and purchase a gun. This law would force all private sellers to sell through authorized dealers, effectively reducing the amount of sales that never go through a background check.
How is consistency in gun laws a bad thing?
80% of firearms used in crime are obtained already through illegal means.
Gun show purchases account for less than 0.5% of firearms obtained used in crimes.
Additionally, if you are a felon you are not supposed to be in a gun store at all. If you attempt to purchase a firearm you are commiting a crime. Currently the rate of arrest for this is around 0.001% even though law enforcement is provided a time of attempt, name, social security number, photo ID and additional information on the felon who tried.
If the UBC stuff would have passed along with a couple other ones about the mental health reporting, you would have some people not going to the doctor/shrink, or not telling them things that could be vital information to determine the proper treatment.
Not all doctors are going to put you on meds and send you on your way. Some have tougher criteria, and keeping information from such a doctor, causing them to not order treatment (drugs or otherwise) could leave the person fucked up enough to go and do what they claim they are trying to prevent.
Then you have some doctors that may be overcautious, and pass your medical info to a bureaucracy just for saying the wrong thing, and you may not know until you go to a gun store and they run a UBC on you.
Not all doctors are going to put you on meds and send you on your way. Some have tougher criteria, and keeping information from such a doctor, causing them to not order treatment (drugs or otherwise) could leave the person fucked up enough to go and do what they claim they are trying to prevent.
Then you have some doctors that may be overcautious, and pass your medical info to a bureaucracy just for saying the wrong thing, and you may not know until you go to a gun store and they run a UBC on you.
Then why do they keep trotting those dead kids out? I mean no disrespect to the families of the victims of that horrific day. But how can you deny that this bill is not a direct response to that 1 single event?
we have had this conversation many times.
1. Why does the .gov need to know (and collect $$) if I decide to pass on my guns to my children?
2. Why do i become a felon for borrowing a friends firearm w/o getting a background check?
3. Why didnt the current administration use background check's before selling guns to the cartel's to be used for murder?
4. The only people these additional impositions would be law abiding citizens. Criminals will get their gun's regardless of the law.
I could go on but I will leave you with this.
5. 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.