Universal Background Checks: Senate supposedly near a deal

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-near-a-deal-on-background-checks-for-most-private-gun-sales/2013/02/23/d55e5f4a-7d0c-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

My local turd gargler McCain is one of the ringleaders of this mess.

I sent him this:

Senator: I strongly oppose any notion of "Universal Background Checks" for private sales of firearms. I will not comply. And I will be watching your vote on this issue. I am much more afraid of government, and Washington DC in particular, than I am of any criminals that might get guns via private party purchases. The government has already failed in so many ways in its various over-reachings. You people in DC are so out of touch. Sandy Hook has nothing to do with gunshow loopholes or private party transfers. Any action on the part of the Senate or House on this matter is a shameful attack on gun owners by a mechanism to implement a registry. Be ashamed of yourself for attempting this legislation. Be doubly ashamed if it passes. You dishonor the office.

Write your critters.

[brimic]

I applaud what you did, but its still just urinating into the wind.

[zxcvbob]

http://youtu.be/EZDBXm11WXY

[Doggy Daddy]

My local turd gargler McCain is one of the ringleaders of this mess.

Shows it takes more to be a patriot than an honorable military record.

[Monkeyleg]

Benedict Arnold had an honorable military record...for awhile.

[RaspberrySurprise]

My senators are Levin and Stabenow, so yeah...

[Ron]

This goes nowhere without the House.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.

Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?

[Regolith]

I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.

Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?

Universal background checks make setting up registration easier, and registration leads to confiscation.

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.

Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?

A healthy suspicion of the power of political persecution or government myopia.

As well as an appreciation of the notion of private property rights.

I can sell my table saw to anyone I want.  I can sell my dirtbike to anyone I want.  I can sell my software that I write to anyone I want.  I can sell my gun to anyone I want.

Look at the use of IRS audits as weapons.  The use of the TSA no-fly list or close examination list as political weapons.  You really think government can be trusted not to abuse a more extensive power to audit all gun sales, or to create a registry?

I don't.

And I will not comply.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

I guess I don't see confiscation as a real threat. I don't think it will happen, certainly not in my lifetime but probably not my children's either. I don't think the registry is that big of a deal.

In terms of property rights, the difference between a gun and a dirt bike or a table saw is that only one of those things can take away the lives of 10 people from 100 yards in a matter of seconds. I don't think it is unreasonable to track and regulate dangerous items, just like we do with deadly chemicals and explosives.

[RocketMan]

Curious, background checks are already required for firearms purchases from commercial gun dealers.   The Senate deal is to institute background checks for all gun sales between private individuals.  Bad juju for many reasons, most already listed above.

[Gewehr98]

Confiscation DID happen, both in New York and California.  

[dm1333]

Uhoh!

[Boomhauer]

Tell me what was the 2nd Amendment conceived for then?

[RocketMan]

Curious, registration leading to confiscation of some firearms has already occurred in this country on two occasions that I can think of offhand, once in California and another time in New York if I am not mistaken.  Others may chime in with a correction.
And the whole, "take away the lives of 10 people from 100 yards in a matter of seconds" is nonsense.  It just doesn't happen, even in combat.
You're falling for sound bites.  Do a little research, find some facts, and get back to us.

[zxcvbob]

I guess I don't see confiscation as a real threat. I don't think it will happen, certainly not in my lifetime but probably not my children's either. I don't think the registry is that big of a deal.

In terms of property rights, the difference between a gun and a dirt bike or a table saw is that only one of those things can take away the lives of 10 people from 100 yards in a matter of seconds. I don't think it is unreasonable to track and regulate dangerous items, just like we do with deadly chemicals and explosives.

It has already happened to SKS owners in California.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Man you guys are fast, thank you.

I know the long distance thing is BS, and that it almost never happens outside of the movies where every shot (from a good guy) is a head shot. But they do have the potential of doing a LOT of damage in a short period of time, and other items like certain chemical compounds and explosives are regulated and tracked simply as a means of limiting the potential damage.

In terms of background checks, thanks RocketMan, I thought that was the deal from the sound of it I thought that gun stores were NOT required to do background checks. I still don't know if I would oppose some way to track private sales although I'm not sure how you would do it.

In terms of confiscation, I'm at work so if someone could send me a link I would appreciate it. A quick google turned up an article about confiscation in california but in the article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html it states "The program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally ill.." Given the source and the lack of time to read it at the moment, I wonder if anyone could confirm this?

I think that was everything...Thanks again guys. I am genuinely curious about this issue and absolutely think it is every law abiding citizens right to protect themselves and their families. I simply don't get a lot of chances to converse with many pro-gun rights voices on a regular basis.

[RocketMan]

Welcome aboard, Curious.  The thing about gun control that frosts me is that it is completely ineffective, a waste of time and resources.  Gun control has never worked to reduce crime.  And assault weapon bans (whatever an assault weapon is) will not stop mass killings.  Someone intent on quickly killing large numbers of people will find a way to do so, even if semi-automatic centerfire rifles are done away with.
In fact, there are many simpler ways to kill a lot of people more quickly with easily obtainable materials than using firearms.  If the left is eventually successful in their efforts, I predict even more people will die in mass killings, as infrequent as they are, as killers shift to other means.

[Tallpine]

I still don't know if I would oppose some way to track private sales although I'm not sure how you would do it.

Works well on drugs, don't it?   

[dm1333]

Curious,

Are you by any chance a California resident?  This is what one of your Senators has to say about gun ownership.

http://www.therightscoop.com/dianne-feinstein-in-1995-i-would-have-confiscated-guns-if-i-could-have-gotten-the-votes/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648

Of course Governor Cuomo was also very blunt about his desire to confiscate guns. 

[Gewehr98]

California confiscation of SKS rifles:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/xcibviewitem.asp?id=195

New York City did something similar, and conducted raids.

[zxcvbob]

Curious, Are by any chance from Canada, eh?  ("aboot")     No offense intended.

[French G.]

Universal background check is nothing more than crushing private commerce. And if you don't comply every court will uphold the feds crushing you since it is interstate commerce regulation. It is not the goal, it is the means to an end. Anyone who hates guns and thinks about it knows it will be ineffective. They want to create more criminals with the side benefit of scaring away new people to the gun world.

[lee n. field]

Man you guys are fast, thank you.

Not really.  We've just been over this, again and again.

I know the long distance thing is BS, and that it almost never happens outside of the movies where every shot (from a good guy) is a head shot.

Basically, don't believe anything about guns you see in a movie or on the stupid box.  Or anymore, have read to you by the major news media.  A combination of factual cluelessness and an evil agenda.

 

But they do have the potential of doing a LOT of damage in a short period of time,

Otherwise we wouldn't own them.