"92% of Americans support background checks"

This from the same President who told us that the Mexican drug cartels get 90% of their guns from the U.S. and claimed that he supported the Second Amendment after sitting on the board at the Joyce Foundation for 11 years. Yeah, sure I believe him. Most transparent administration ever, going to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion in his first term, going to close Gitmo and pull all of our troops out of Iraq in 18 months... Just a humble, honest Chicago politician, right?

r1derbike said:

I hope everyone got and filled-out their NRA-ILA survey. The truth is out there.

Click to expand...

That survey is no different than what others here are accusing the CBS poll of, and thus not really giving a true cross section of how the American public as a whole feels. The NRA-ILA survey was sent as a means to raise monies from existing members.....they already know how we are going to answer. In all seriousness, they were not really concerned with our response other than the donations they were seeking. It is a prime example of a biased survey/poll.

Most legitimate polls will tell you who they surveyed and how they obtained their numbers. This means as much if not more than the poll numbers themselves. While I have not seen this info on this poll, unfortunately, I have seen it from other similar polls that were taken unbiasedly. It is a disturbing trend. While one may want to argue about validity, sometimes there is no argument, even when we don't agree. Even when those taking the poll are misinformed, if the pollsters did not give this misinformation, nor seek out those specifically, it does not distract from the poll any more than any other margin of error. When this is the case, it is a waste of time to blame the poll, it means we need to change the minds of those taking the poll or to suffer the consequences.

I didn't give any monies, and it does give the NRA the will of its members. I don't believe the NRA had a cross-section of the American public in mind when they sent it. It does have the empirical data of its members only. Hardly the case when these other polls are hand-picked from many segments of society to augment their numbers.

At least they now have the will of their members documented. We haven't seen to what end those numbers will be used yet.

It becomes an infringement in that, you are basically asking the government for permission to exercise a right. If it is a right, you don't need permission. When the government gats involved this way, it becomes a privilege.

It's not the check we really mind so much. (No we don't LIKE it, but we have become conditioned to it.) It's the inevitable compliation of owner data and ultimate confiscation we don't like.

Poll results are understandable for all of the reasons cited. However, I find it totally reprehensible that the Administration is selling "background checks for all gun sales" when they are fully aware that the proposed legislation extends far beyond simply sales.

There are plenty of ways to implement a system that solves the background check issue while not forming a national registry.

The politicians are unwilling to strike a compromise with firearms owners.. An updated system could safely allow sales across state lines to and from private parties, however they want to force everyone to use dealers only. Which they can control and eliminate.

If they wanted to make everyone sell their cars only through dealers and their houses through realtors there would be outrage. As everyone knows that being forced to use a service mean the cost will be high.

Most people are for background checks, even I am. I'm NOT in favor of "universal background checks".
A useful illustration is that the current system has a few holes in it, like a small wound on finger but rather then putting a band-aid on the cut, the current administration wants to saw the arm off to the shoulder.However they offer a compromise of only sawing the arm off to the elbow.

csspecs, I started a thread a while ago asking if it is possible to implement a check system that effectively protects buyers' privacy, and the ultimate answer is, even if it is, there is no way to ensure that they won't change their minds in the future and abuse it anyway. The CURRENT system should protect our privacy, but we all know it is only as good as BATFE's willingness to leave the records alone.

What system do you think would allow a check that would still have teeth, yet not allow for compliation of data?

csspecs said:

There are plenty of ways to implement a system that solves the background check issue while not forming a national registry.

The politicians are unwilling to strike a compromise with firearms owners.. An updated system could safely allow sales across state lines to and from private parties, however they want to force everyone to use dealers only. Which they can control and eliminate.

If they wanted to make everyone sell their cars only through dealers and their houses through realtors there would be outrage. As everyone knows that being forced to use a service mean the cost will be high.

Most people are for background checks, even I am. I'm NOT in favor of "universal background checks".
A useful illustration is that the current system has a few holes in it, like a small wound on finger but rather then putting a band-aid on the cut, the current administration wants to saw the arm off to the shoulder.However they offer a compromise of only sawing the arm off to the elbow.

Click to expand...

That's a very good analogy, I like that!

mljdeckard said:

What they don't say, is how many of the people surveyed know that a background check system already exists. The media has a lot of people convinced that anyone can walk in and buy anything they want to.

Click to expand...

That would be our illustrious ms feinstein. To listen to her I can go into Walmart & buy any old high powered military style assault machine gun with high capacity military style assault clips & walk right out.

There was a blurb about a tax to go towards safety in "violence wracked" California. How can we be "violence wracked" when we have some of the toughest gun laws (including background checks) in the country?

As for 92% favoring background checks, I have two words for Dear Leader...

YOU LIE!!!

mljdeckard said:

csspecs, I started a thread a while ago asking if it is possible to implement a check system that effectively protects buyers' privacy, and the ultimate answer is, even if it is, there is no way to ensure that they won't change their minds in the future and abuse it anyway. The CURRENT system should protect our privacy, but we all know it is only as good as BATFE's willingness to leave the records alone.

What system do you think would allow a check that would still have teeth, yet not allow for compliation of data?

Click to expand...

And we already know the BATFE has only our best interests in mind...

To all who seek to indulge in the Constitutional Pie....I say EAT IT.

There are plenty of ways to implement a system that solves the background check issue while not forming a national registry.

Click to expand...

And NONE of them is enforceable without REGISTRATION.

I'm from Chicago.

Chicago made it a crime to have an unregistered handgun.

Then they stopped letting people have registration forms... or accepting them, even if they were xeroxed copies of the existing form.

That's how they implemented and enforced their handgun BAN.

"Universal background checks" are the stalking horse for universal REGISTRATION.

Registration of firearms has NO purpose besides facilitation of future bans and confiscations.

I just saw this on Michelle Malkin's "twitchy" site:

"A “Fact” About Gun Sales That Does Not Hold Up

73% of gun owners say they purchased their firearms. Of that, 63% (not 60%) were purchased through the mail, at a gun store, a pawn shop or other store (other would be Wal-Mart, Gander Mountain, Dick’s Sporting Goods, etc.).

They show that 4% purchased their guns at a gun show. The bulk of sales at gun shows are through FFL’s. But for the sake of the whiners, let’s split it down the middle. 2% at gun shows were through FFL’s and 2% through a private sale. 29% say they acquired their gun from a friend or family member. If we deduct the 24% who say they inherited their firearms or received it as a gift, that leaves us with 5% who purchased it from a family member or friend.

So that leaves 65% of guns purchased where a background check was required. 5% of sales were done between family members and friends without a check. Another 24% were given as gifts or inherited. That leaves the final 6% which were sold in other markets or acquired through a trade. Even if we are generous and include sales between family members and friends, we are left with a figure of eleven percent. Not forty percent."

Blackstone: In answer to your question about what in the Constitution prohibits the government from background checks, you have to understand the purpose ofthe Constitution. Our Constitution was written to LIMIT the scope of government intrusion into a citizen's life.The Tenth Amendment specifically and clearly states that ANY power that is not granted specifically to the federal government in the Constitution belongs to the people or the states. Of course our federal government tossed that idea into the trash bin somewhere around 1863 or so but I cling to the original thoughts and intents of our founders since there is an abundance of documentation concerning their fears (which have mostly all come to fruition) and their intent to limit governmental powers.

The Bill of Rights specifically states some of the God given rights they believed people should be guaranteed, and licensing or prohibitting those rights is a violation of our founders intents and should be illegal if we didn't have a kangaroo court system. If that doesn't answer your question let me know and I'll try another way of explaining.

The minimum speed limit should be 155 mph as so few accidents occur at that speed.


The numbers are bogus and they can't keep them straight.

mljdeckard said:

csspecs, I started a thread a while ago asking if it is possible to implement a check system that effectively protects buyers' privacy, and the ultimate answer is, even if it is, there is no way to ensure that they won't change their minds in the future and abuse it anyway. The CURRENT system should protect our privacy, but we all know it is only as good as BATFE's willingness to leave the records alone.

What system do you think would allow a check that would still have teeth, yet not allow for compliation of data?

Click to expand...

A system that is set on the state level and linked to your drivers licence or ID number.. Call the number, type the persons drivers licence number in, press a number for level of check required for the transaction and get a yes or no answer along with a transaction ID that you keep for your records.

As for enforcement, illegal things happen. But a legal penalty for not having your transaction ID should the firearm trace back to you would put teeth into the system.

The government would not know who was selling what, and since the system would be co-mingled with all other background checks it would be impossible to zero in on firearms transactions.

But this system could be used to check people, like a baby sitter or nanny without invading their privacy. You would just get a yes or no, not any details.

Yes, the NSPOF survey used for the 40% not store sales showed something like 3% those were mail order sales. The authors of the report on the survey pointed out that the 1968 GCA outlawed mailorder sales, so the respondents must have been refering to transaction initiated by mail, with the gun delivered to a local gun store for completion of the transaction with a 4473. When I mentioned this explanation, I was reminded that pre-1898 antiques and muzzleloading replicas can be sold by mail order to individuals.

Still, of the 37% personal transactions, 19% are gifts, 5% inheritances, and 4% from gunshow and flea markets lumped together.

Universal Background Checks have been sold with the lie that 40% of gun sales are AKs and ARs at gun shows without a background check. The same folks who gave us that stat are the folks saying 92% of the public want UCB with universal registration (permanent records keeping on background checks, not just those who failed as current, but of the millions who passed: backdoor registration of gun owners).

I smell the stuff that my uncle shoveled out of the dairy barn to spread on the vegetable patch as fertilize.

But this system could be used to check people, like a baby sitter or nanny without invading their privacy. You would just get a yes or no, not any details.

Click to expand...

Why are federal prosecutors reluctant to prosecute people turned down for gun sales? These background check database systems are plagued with both false positives ("Teddy Kennedy is a terrorist who should not be allowed on your airliner") as well as false negatives. The NICS background check data is as unreliable as the "no fly list" data that blocked five airline flights by Sen Ted Kennedy (D-MA), otherwise the feds would prosecute felons who violated the law by filling out a 4473 checking "no" on the felony record box.

A guy at the gun club always had to file an appeal when he was kicked out on the instant check system every time he bought a gun: years ago on a routine traffic stop, his name came up as a federal felon fugitive and was arrested; turned out he had the same first and last name as a wanted federal felon, mistaken ID, so he was released, but he still had an arrest record that shows up on background check.

I hope everyone got and filled-out their NRA-ILA survey. The truth is out there.

Click to expand...

That survey is no different than what others here are accusing the CBS poll of....

Click to expand...

The CBS poll was surveying the opinions of NRA members?

No but a poll of NRA members will be skewed as they generally understand what universal checks would mean. Thus they would be against it.

CBS are skewed as they asked if you supported back ground checks. Which they take to mean supporting "universal background checks".

Which is roughly like having a poll if you agree with stopping terrorists, and using the yes answers to say people support torture and indefinite detention.

If they did the same poll and asked the same people if they supported a ban of the private sale of firearms, the numbers would likely not be 92%.

The bottom line for me is this, even if we did everything they asked, it would do nothing to deter crime. Most guns used by criminals are either stolen or straw purchased. If I registered all my guns and somebody stole them, who has them now?? Now all they can do is charge me for being a victim.

So it must help with mass shootings then. Mass shooters don't plan on living after their attack.

All these things do is hurt honest, law abiding people. They know it, we know it, and now it's time the rest know it.

Blackstone said:

Can I also ask what part of the Constitution would universal registration violate?

Click to expand...

How about, "...shall not be infringed"? Registration opens the door to confiscation. It is a an outgrowth of background checks, themselves a feel-good way to infringe on RKBA in that they purport to stop the "wrong people" from getting a firearm while in effect not stopping them at all and serving as an inconvenience to the law-abiding.

Background checks are a prerequisite for registration. They force a prohibited person who wants one to acquire his gun illegally, supporting illegal firearms trade. And they presume that a prospective buyer is a prohibited person until the results prove otherwise.

A better solution is to keep prohibited persons from being able to gain access to the general public, a place where firearms legally circulate legally. A determined violent felon who has access to free people will be able to obtain a gun, and presumably if he does that he plans to use it.

in·fringe

/inˈfrinj/

Verb

1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...42,d.dmQ&fp=e00aa8f2277c54a0&biw=1600&bih=766