Why the Opposition to Universal Background Checks?

"62 percent of online sellers agreed to sell guns to investigators posing as buyers who couldn’t pass a gun background check – a felony under federal law.

"82 percent of sellers on Craigslist agreed to sell guns to people they believed to be prohibited purchasers – though the website prohibits online firearms sales."
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/html/news/gun.shtml

"The private-party gun market, sometimes called the informal gun market, has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006326

Undercover investigations of gun owners who sell firearms at gun shows have yielded similar results. It seems that most gun owners are quite willing to knowingly sell guns to convicted felons as long as they personally profit from such transactions. No wonder they oppose any regulation of private party gun sales. The last thing they want is accountability. The private market for guns in America is the black market.

 

The opposition to universal background checks is grounded in the idea that the government has no power to determine who can and cannot own a firearm. The 2nd amendment laid out no exceptions or loopholes. "Shall not be infringed" was about as obvious and provocative as they could get. They wrote what they meant, and meant what they said. And those words leave no opening whatsoever for the arbitrary ability of the government to deny individuals the right to purchase firearms. Felon or not.

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
so, you would enslave or kill all gun owners. (you are spouting your pure hatred)

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
so you want us to be at the mercy of the inner city gangs who are as well armed as an individual can be

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
socialists want to pick and choose what privileges others may utilize

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
are you ready to impose your will upon another?

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker
you prefer a dictatorship?

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
if it weren't for the Founding Fathers, you'd be kneeling before a dictator

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
I suppose properly would be to go on bended knee?

and yet here you are saying this, more or less:
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." Author unknown.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933

Now explain to the rest of us how our Rights interfere with yours?

 

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

According to the department of justice, 0.7% of firearms acquired by recorded criminals occurred through gun shows. At the top of the list was acquired from a friend or relative, or bought on the black market from someone who could not legally possess them either, such as drug dealers.

Statistical analysis and dissection aside, there is good reason to oppose implementing universal background checks in the name of trying to fight crime. Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and numerous other mass shooters all managed to pass the federally mandated background check, before taking possession of their firearms, and enacting their murders.

Expanding the system to cover private sales would ultimately serve no purpose if those who should not have them, are already able to pass through the system and acquire their firearms.

Even if they could not have passed the background check, the system can be easily defeated through the use of straw purchasers to pass the background check, and then turn the firearms over to those who are disqualified. We have seen it countless times before, there is no reason to believe it will not continue to be a problem.

 

A lot of your quotes are fabricated or taken out of context. Patrick Henry was advocating for a state right to arm every man in the militia when he said, "The great object is that every man be armed." I have a right to life and widespread gun ownership in society threatens that right.

 

"Over the last three decades, gun activists and lawmakers have purposefully hindered the ATF and carefully molded the agency that enforces gun laws to serve their own interests, stunting the ATF's budget, handicapping its regulatory authority, and keeping it effectively leaderless."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms

And why can the system be so easily defeated by straw purchasers? The NRA does everything in its power to make it easy for criminals to bypass gun laws and then says, "See gun control doesn't work." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unfortunately, the NRA has more influence over Congress than the rest of America.

 

At the same time, your right to life does not trump anyone else's right to life, or defending that right against those that would seek to violate it.

 

The ATF has become involved in numerous scandals in recent times, including the loss of department issued machine guns that the agents were responsible for. There is even talk of dissolving the organization entirely, and reassigning its individual duties to other agencies subjected to greater oversight; firearms and explosives will go to the FBI, alcohol and tobacco to the DEA.

And yet the National Rifle Association cannot convince congress to undo the various reinterpretations the ATF is known for implementing without congressional authority.

What does any of the above have to do with the fact that numerous mass shooters successfully passed the federally mandated background checks, and would not have been stopped by expanding said checks to all private sales?

 

really. Now you are attempting to rewrite history......
so, tell us again, what Right have I deprived you of?

 

"I'm afraid of being hit by a car. Widespread car ownership in society threatens my right to life."
It sounds pretty stupid to base laws irrational fears.

 

Having trouble distinguishing between the legal carrying good guy, and the criminal who is illegally carrying?

Check the stats.... the folks that have jumped through all the hoops to acquire a CCW license are not the ones responsible for the bulk of the gun violence statistics. In fact rarely are CCW's revoked due to gun violence.

 

The other thing is, our current gun crime rates are at lows we haven't seen since the early 1960s. Crime is getting better, despite the so-called loose gun enforcement. There is no need to do all this stuff that won't stop criminals, but will make it a pain in the ass for law abiding folks. Criminals are still going to buy from their black market sources (stolen guns mainly) and relatives.

 

Some real problems with the NYC report in which the report says the authors called 125 people selling a firearm online. The targets were selected after a careful search for sites that were "more attractive to
prohibited or unscrupulous purchasers". Already the sample is biased.

And 15 investigators spent 18 days on this and only tried 125 sellers? That's not even one contact per day per investigator. How many calls did they really make and didn't include in their report? They could have easily made well over 1,500 contacts. that's just 10 per investigator over 2 weeks. I smell a rat.

And it was run by NYC Mayor Bloomberg, irrational gun banner. More rat odor.

The NEJM link is light on data as well, its almost all political ranting for gun control.

 

Dangerously insane or not, right?

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*). Bovine waste matter of the first water. The Founding Fathers were NOT insane. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

The NRA represents most of America, the majority of people do not want more gun control.

The problem is not the gun lobby, its the gun banners. The banners have lied and twisted "common sense" gun laws into de facto bans so often that they are not trusted at all. In the 1960's and 1970's, the banners wanted safety permits, gun purchase permits, safe storage, concealed carry permits, to promote public safety and reduce crime. Everywhere those measures were enacted, the banners ratcheted up the requirements for the permits that they became insurmountable and served as functional bans.

After decades of legislative and court battles, some banners refuse to obey the law (Illinois, DC, LA). They lose in court, then tweak their laws or regulations, and keep the "ban" going. After Heller won in the Supreme Court, DC changed its law slightly but did not change the impact, Heller went back to court and again the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. DC still refuses to obey the law.

After Sandy Hook, the universal background check would probably have passed except the banners required documentation of all sales. Sen Coburn proposed universal checks be performed by the seller, without going through an FFL, and the seller is responsible for the keeping a record. Sen Schumer refused saying the check would be pointless without federal records - that sounded like a national gun registry. To the gun banners, the registry was the goal , not public safety.

SO if you want to blame someone, blame the banners. They are completely untrustworthy.

 

"Why the Opposition to Universal Background Checks?"

because it;s a right we all have not a privilege only some have

so why check to see if someone has the right.... when we all do

 

No, the Founding Fathers were not insane nor is the Constitution a suicide pact. I do not believe I said any of those things at any point. My point was only that the 2nd amendment left no room for ambiguity. "Shall not be infringed" was pretty frank. A quick detour through some founding documents, the anti-federalist and federalist papers being among them, will confirm for you that the intentions of that amendment were exactly that. It's not necessarily that they thought crazy people should arm themselves, but that they realized laws often don't stop crazy people and that the harms of universal background checks sharply outweigh the meager benefits. They simply did not believe the government had a place is approving or denying the ability of certain individuals to purchase firearms. A belief I strongly agree with.

 

You're taking the phrase "shall not be infringed" out of context and using it to rationalize your own opposition to background checks. The fact that "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" appear in the same sentence means that your interpretation can not possibly be correct. The Second Amendment seems to represent a vague commitment on the part of the federal government to keeping the people well armed as members of their state militias. The right protected belongs to the people- a collective noun. A small group such as convicted felons could be disarmed and the people could still retain the right. I'm not sure that the Second Amendment says anything about background checks at all. It's not always easy to interpret a piece of Constitutional text in order to address modern day problems.

 

But most of those people may be willing to sell their guns to violent criminals even if they are not involved in violent crime themselves according to the NYC report. You're really missing the point of this thread.

 

No, that is NOT what the NYC report says, not even close. The NYC report claims that the internet is an avenue for people to circumvent the FFL's and background checks. It does not say that people with concealed carry permits are prone to selling guns to people who cannot pass a background check.


And the NYC report is very suspect and riddled with flaws, as many have pointed out. Its nothing more than a hit piece.

 

You are making a fundamental mistake in examining the intent of the Founders. You have the situation backwards - the Constitution was written to place strict limits on the federal government, not the people or the states. All powers and rights reside with the states and the people, unless a power is expressly stated and given to the federal government, then the federal government does not have that power.

The Bill of Rights does not limit the rights of the people. It is actually redundant, and some thought it dangerous to start listing specific rights of the people. For example, in Federalist 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.​

It does not matter what the 2nd Amendment says regarding an individual right to bear arms, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate firearms.

Notes on the Constitutional Convention show that a possible reason for the 2nd Amendment was to exempt state militia from Article 1 Section 8, the prohibition against a standing army. In that light, the wording makes better sense.

In the 1960's and 1970's, some people argued that the above rational was a better argument for gun rights than basing it on the 2nd Amendment, but the process of "incorporation" was well under way, and people had already fallen into the trap described in Federalist 84, that the Bill of Rights listed the all the rights of the people.

 

more What if's....that is all you've had besides some lame-assed report done by identifiably gun rights haters.

Proof?

 

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

 

Did we not entertain such a discussion on the other board at one point?

By rule of the supreme court in DC v Heller it was ruled that the second amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for the purpose of self defense. There was no mention of the right being contingent upon service within a state or government-sanctioned militia for that right to be made use of by the people. Nor was there anything to suggest the right is a collective right.

It is also worth mentioning that the matter of felons is not as cut and dry as some may believe. Felons are able to petition the courts to have their constitutional rights restored upon meeting certain criteria, including their second amendment rights. There is even discussion in the courts if it is lawful for the federal equivalent to not be funded, when certain states refuse to enact their own restoration of rights policies.

 

Pray tell what was the original point of this thread? That there are individuals who value profit above all else? That has been an undeniable fact of life since the beginning of mankind.

As the member Battle3 has explained, the report leaves much to be desired in the way of accuracy. A sample size of one hundred and twenty five individuals, drawn after selection of specific sites to focus on more than others, is hardly conclusive of anything.

Regardless of such, there is the simple fact that most recent mass murderers have been able to pass the federally mandated background checks required to purchase a firearm. Some have even done it more than once. The individual responsible for the Virginia Tech incident passed four separate background checks, months before carrying out his plans.

It is interesting to note that convicted felons, who are prohibited from firearms ownership, do not appear to be the type who commit mass murder events, even when they can acquire firearms from the black market, or straw purchasers.