• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Universal background check bill may be dead

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Looks like there are some serious doubts about the universal background check bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/senators-have-doubts-about-universal-background-ch/
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that out of about 80,000 people who failed background checks last year, just 66 were prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Why pass a new law when existing laws are not being enforced?

Senators are also asking how the universal background checks would affect giving firearms as a gift? Such as a father buying a firearm for his son or daughter.

What about leaving a firearm in a will? Can grandpaw leave that family heirloom single shot shotgun to the oldest grandson?

Then there are the resources needed to do the background checks.
 
Good thing. Only thing this leads to is universal registration and then eventually confiscation. No other reason to have "universal" anything. Exhibit 1: healthcare. Leave it to the states, the feds can't do anything more efficiently.
 
UBC would have zero enforcement.

How would they prove someone sold a gun after or before the bill for guns that were purchased from an FFL dealer prior to the law?

As for giving away, how would they prove that person wasn't an immediate family member?

"Yes officer, you see my cousin decided to marry that guy down in Mexico. They came back and moved in with me for a week while looking for a place to live together. As a wedding gift I gave him a firearm to defend the home with. Turns out a week later my cousin decided she didn't like him anymore. They went back to Mexico and had it annulled and now here we are. Where in Mexico? I don't know some place along the border I guess. Which cousin? She changed her name to Jaunita. She's somewhere still in Mexico now. Couldn't tell you where though anymore as she and I had a falling out."

Ask any one in the legal system to prove that statement above is not true and they'll laugh at you for wasting their time trying. In other words, any law that forces background check for private sales in completely unenforceable. If two people want to exchange a firearm privately there isn't a damn thing the government is going to do to be able to stop it or even regulate it if the two people don't want to government to do so. What this law really does is make it more of a pain in the ass to those people who follow the letter of the law always in the first place. Those are NOT the people who are going to be committing crimes. The very people not breaking the law are the ones the law is going to hurt.

Stupid legislation is fucking stupid.
 
This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead. How ridiculous.
 
zsdersw said:
How about our armed forces?

Texas or Indiana or Florida didn't fight in the war on terrorism, the United States did (and does).
Click to expand...

Seriously, you are going to use the military to counter my point. The constitution requires a national military, so please try again.
 
zsdersw said:
How about our armed forces?

Texas or Indiana or Florida didn't fight in the war on terrorism, the United States did (and does).
Click to expand...

LOL. By the way, how is that War on Terrorism™ going so far? Have we won yet? Is there any chance at all that the U.S. military will ever "win" it?
 
zsdersw said:
How about our armed forces?

Texas or Indiana or Florida didn't fight in the war on terrorism, the United States did (and does).
Click to expand...

In the case of the War on Terror, having states opt out would probably have been preferable.

The further government gets from those it represents, the less accountable it gets.
 
Juror No. 8 said:
LOL. By the way, how is that War on Terrorism™ going so far? Have we won yet? Is there any chance at all that the U.S. military will ever "win" it?
Click to expand...

You've completely missed the point.

The point is... there are times when we're fifty states with fifty agendas and there are times when we're one nation with one agenda and national needs. The military is an example of when it is best to have it "national"... as efforts against international and transnational enemies are best handled as one nation.

Biff's assertion that "the feds can't do anything more efficiently" is fundamentally incorrect for that very reason... among others. Yes, the feds can do some things more efficiently. That number of things is small, but it is not zero.

If the point still hasn't sunk in, remove War on Terror and put WW2 in. Did the United States (and allies) fight the Axis powers or did individual states?
 
Last edited:
thraashman said:
This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead. How ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Probably because a lot of them don't understand the ramifications for what UBCs mean as has been pointed out in this thread.

But the general idea "sounds good".
 
nehalem256 said:
Probably because a lot of them don't understand the ramifications for what UBCs mean as has been pointed out in this thread.

But the general idea "sounds good".
Click to expand...

Finally, someone that actually debated my point instead of rattling off something stupid. As far as UBC's it should be approached from multiple angles. Is it constitutional, I personally don't see it as violating the Constitution, though I am not a constitutional scholar and neither is anyone else on this forum. Will it work in preventing those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Do the people want it, which the answer would appear to be a resounding yes. Is the cost of implementing it prohibitive? Honestly I don't know on that one.

No idea should be implemented because it sounds good nor should it be rejected because someone doesn't like the feel of it. It should be honestly assessed. Of all the proposed gun control measures, this one seems to be the least invasive and the only one that might actually have a positive effect, so killing it would appear to be a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top