"88 percent of all Americans support UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS"

[Asaltweapon]

Oh you conspiracy theorists slay me.

Next you'll be claiming that getting "so called" targeted ads for hemorrhoids or something are selected for you by things you Google

Seriously, it would take three letter agency resources to track people's interests with any real accuracy! No private company could do that. Certainly not a political action committee. They're all volunteer based. No real money behind them.

Our phones, transactions and a lot of cameras track each and every one of us, it’s not just Google. Don’t believe me? Go do something stupid and see how long it takes them to find you.

 

[namedpipes]

Our phones, transactions and a lot of cameras track each and every one of us, it’s not just Google. Don’t believe me? Go do something stupid and see how long it takes them to find you.

Worry wart! I've done tons of stupid things and I'm still not in jail!

Phones are just conveniences. You paid for your phone. How could it be used by someone else to spy on you?

Sounds like... Disinformation...

 

[namedpipes]

Have UBC along with the agreement it will cover all states with no renewal. Can only be taken away for an actual violent felony and not the BS ones they come up with. Use blockchain for firearm sales.

Or, eliminate gun laws entirely and if an individual offends somehow, prosecute him and if the judge deems it necessary, strip that individual of his right to bear arms as part of his sentence.

Go back to allowing businesses and individuals to buy or sell firearms as they see fit.

Bar prosecutors from persecuting those that defend themselves using firearms or other weapons. Bar criminals from civilly suing their victims that fight back.

Educate young people in the safe and appropriate use of firearms for support, hunting and defense.

That's common sense gun control I could agree with.

 

[Uzi2]

Worry wart! I've done tons of stupid things and I'm still not in jail!

Phones are just conveniences. You paid for your phone. How could it be used by someone else to spy on you?

Sounds like... Disinformation...

Because you as an individual can buy the Geo tracking data that tracks the whereabouts of anyone's phone 24/7.

Thats how the company that provided the data to 2000 Mules (election fraud) did it. They purchased 4,000,000 minutes of cell phone geo tracking data from the phone companies and used it to track the ballot box stuffers on their routes.

The government and law enforcement have access to this data (with a court order because they are government) and use it daily to track people they are interested in or actively investigating. See Link below.

https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/documentary-2000-mules.431702/page-5#post-7896732

 

[namedpipes]

Because you as an individual can buy the Geo tracking data that tracks the whereabouts of anyone's phone 24/7.

Thats how the company that provided the data to 2000 Mules (election fraud) did it. They purchased 4,000,000 minutes of cell phone geo tracking data from the phone companies and used it to track the ballot box stuffers on their routes.

The government and law enforcement have access to this data (with a court order because they are government) and use it daily to track people they are interested in or actively investigating. See Link below.

https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/documentary-2000-mules.431702/page-5#post-7896732

I remain convinced that computers and instant, ubiquitous communications are what caused the collapse of our civilization. Take those away and our world would be a much better place.

 

[Uzi2]

I remain convinced that computers and instant, ubiquitous communications are what caused the collapse of our civilization. Take those away and our world would be a much better place.

That may be be so, but that ability when used honestly and correctly can be beneficial. I don't use most technology out there either but am damned glad when it puts people who actively undermined the election process in prison, where they belong.

 

[Asaltweapon]

That may be be so, but that ability when used honestly and correctly can be beneficial. I don't use most technology out there either but am damned glad when it puts people who actively undermined the election process in prison, where they belong.

I’m not sure we will see them in any court house never mind a jail cell.

 

[rscalzo]

You can see the internal inconsistencies within the poll’s own answers:

Requiring background checks on all gun sales, 73% strongly support.
Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks, 64% strongly support.

Since background checks on private sales is a subset of background checks on all guns sales, how can you strongly support “universal” background checks but not strongly support background checks on private sales (which 9% of the poll responders did). It just shows the poll responders had no idea what they were responding to.

ETA Not to mention that right at the end they show that they have under represented gun household in the poll. 38% of the respondents lived in a household with a gun while the latest statics on gun ownership in the US report 42-44% of households have at least one gun.

So the criminal element and those intent on committing a crime will conduct a background check?

 

[AHM]

I’m not sure we will see them in any court house never mind a jail cell.

Jail, schmail.

I'll cope if they're buried in unmarked graves out in the damned desert past Terlingua.
Well, and also their bosses.
And their bosses.

 

[Cipher]

I doubt the authenticity of the poll but there are an alarming amount of Americans who take their rights for granted. Many follow the sensationalist media apparatus and all the anti gun propaganda elsewhere. Above 80%? Doubt it. But the number in reality is probably still too high for comfort.

 

[cathouse01]

I wonder what the response would be if they asked the question in a manner that made it clear what “universal background checks” really means.

“Are you in favor of requiring that any transfer of a gun, even the temporary loan of a gun, has to be processed through a FFL dealer for a fee?"

I'm willing to bet that over 90% of the respondents (including gun owners) have no idea what “universal background checks” actually entails.

Not to mention that universal background checks are virtually unenforceable. Unless one of the two parties involved in a “no background check” sale self reports to the authorities (not too likely) how will they know that an “illegal” transfer has occurred? If the recipient of the gun commits a crime with it, they may or may not rat out the seller, but even if they do, the seller can just claim they never owned the gun. Even if the seller bought it from an FFL, so that there is a 4473 with his name on it, he could always claim it was stolen or, if the gun was purchased before the universal background check became law (and there will be over 400 million such guns), he could just claim he sold it (just can’t remember to who, it was some time ago) before the law came into effect.

Universal background checks are the top of the slippery slope to universal gun registration. Since the shear unenforceability of it will lead them to say we need universal gun registration to be able to track all the transfers to make sure they are going through background checks. They'll say with registration, if someone has a gun not registered to them not only will they be breaking the law, but we can go back to the previous registered owner and get them for doing a no background check transfer (since they’ll add reregistering the gun to the new owner as part of the FFL’s background check).

 

[drgrant]

I wonder what the response would be if they asked the question in a manner that made it clear what “universal background checks” really means.

“Are you in favor of requiring that any transfer of a gun, even the temporary loan of a gun, has to be processed through a FFL dealer for a fee?"

I'm willing to bet that over 90% of the respondents (including gun owners) have no idea what “universal background checks” actually entails.

Not to mention that universal background checks are virtually unenforceable. Unless one of the two parties involved in a “no background check” sale self reports to the authorities (not too likely) how will they know that an “illegal” transfer has occurred? If the recipient of the gun commits a crime with it, they may or may not rat out the seller, but even if they do, the seller can just claim they never owned the gun. Even if the seller bought it from an FFL, so that there is a 4473 with his name on it, he could always claim it was stolen or, if the gun was purchased before the universal background check became law (and there will be over 400 million such guns), he could just claim he sold it (just can’t remember to who, it was some time ago) before the law came into effect.

Universal background checks are the top of the slippery slope to universal gun registration. Since the shear unenforceability of it will lead them to say we need universal gun registration to be able to track all the transfers to make sure they are going through background checks. They'll say with registration, if someone has a gun not registered to them not only will they be breaking the law, but we can go back to the previous registered owner and get them for doing a no background check transfer (since they’ll add reregistering the gun to the new owner as part of the FFL’s background check).

UBC is just mindless obstructionsism into demonizing guns and making it so "joe averageperson" gets scared/sta ys away from gun ownership. See also, MA license system, if the LTC required thing didn't exist we"d have an easy 30% more gun owners in mass.

 

[cathouse01]

UBC is just mindless obstructionsism into demonizing guns and making it so "joe averageperson" gets scared/sta ys away from gun ownership. See also, MA license system, if the LTC required thing didn't exist we"d have an easy 30% more gun owners in mass.

Agreed that UBC, like most gun laws, is actually aimed at legal gun owners, since they are the only ones who would obey it. Anything to make it harder for the law abiding to own guns, while doing nothing to stop the criminal.

My real point was that most people don’t have a clue as to what it entails, so a survey asking “Are you in favor of Universal Background Checks” is meaningless.

 

[BTSDOG]

88 percent in new poll support background checks on all gun sales

An overwhelming majority of Americans questioned in a poll conducted one day after the mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas supports background checks on all gun sales. The survey from Mo…

thehill.com

Seriously where are these polls being given? How come I never come across it and have a chance to join the count?

yup, just like everybody voted for Sleepy Joe too..........

 

[AHM]

UBC is just mindless obstructionsism into demonizing guns and making it so "joe averageperson" gets scared/sta ys away from gun ownership. See also, MA license system, if the LTC required thing didn't exist we"d have an easy 30% more gun owners in mass.

And even that doesn't count:

• Inactive FUDDs who don't even know their "lifetime license" was canceled decades ago.
• Widows with their late husband's roscoe in their night table.
• Peaceable urbanites who have a little sumpthin' in their pocket as they go about their business.

How many DB's result every year from youts trying to mug somebody with street smarts
who doesn't just put an end to it, but doesn't invite The Man into their life afterwards?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

UBC is just mindless obstructionsism into demonizing guns and making it so "joe averageperson" gets scared/sta ys away from gun ownership. See also, MA license system, if the LTC required thing didn't exist we"d have an easy 30% more gun owners in mass.

Some times I really think that the only reason why the left supports gun control is so that it cuts out the lower classes from being armed. No guns no revolution while the lower classes get pushed around by the wealthy left wingers and the people who feel that they are 'the elite' and worthy.

For us on here, a new law, a new fee, we grumble and pay it. But for someone barely above minimum wage who wants to own a handgun? They're priced out of the market. The gun may be $500, but add in license fees, classes, transfer fees, etc etc. It's $20, it's $20 there. Pretty soon that $500 handgun is going to cost several thousand to own. If your wealthy no biggie. If not then sucks to be you. In the end the wealthy can push around the little guy as much as they want. I'm honestly shocked that people who vote democrat today don't see this since democrats tend to be the party of the wealthy elite.

This is exactly the kind of Sullivan gun laws that need to be sunset and erased from history.

 

[Dadstoys]

I wonder what the response would be if they asked the question in a manner that made it clear what “universal background checks” really means.

“Are you in favor of requiring that any transfer of a gun, even the temporary loan of a gun, has to be processed through a FFL dealer for a fee?"

I'm willing to bet that over 90% of the respondents (including gun owners) have no idea what “universal background checks” actually entails.

Not to mention that universal background checks are virtually unenforceable. Unless one of the two parties involved in a “no background check” sale self reports to the authorities (not too likely) how will they know that an “illegal” transfer has occurred? If the recipient of the gun commits a crime with it, they may or may not rat out the seller, but even if they do, the seller can just claim they never owned the gun. Even if the seller bought it from an FFL, so that there is a 4473 with his name on it, he could always claim it was stolen or, if the gun was purchased before the universal background check became law (and there will be over 400 million such guns), he could just claim he sold it (just can’t remember to who, it was some time ago) before the law came into effect.

Universal background checks are the top of the slippery slope to universal gun registration. Since the shear unenforceability of it will lead them to say we need universal gun registration to be able to track all the transfers to make sure they are going through background checks. They'll say with registration, if someone has a gun not registered to them not only will they be breaking the law, but we can go back to the previous registered owner and get them for doing a no background check transfer (since they’ll add reregistering the gun to the new owner as part of the FFL’s background check).

A simpler version is do you want a federal gun registry ?
That's always been the aim.

 

[JDL]

The way the poll question is asked or written will support the desired outcome.

 

[fshalor]

Let’s see the level of free-state support for not being able to hand down your Winchester to your in-state son without going to a dealer and paying the dealer $40 to transfer it and having to fill out a 4473.

That will be $400 and a $1000 required quarterly psyche eval not covered by health insurance in the next 6-8 weeks.

 

[Kevin_NH]

That will be $400 and a $1000 required quarterly psyche eval not covered by health insurance in the next 6-8 weeks.

Or it'll be like the old ordinance for LTC's LTC from North Providence -- required a psychological test at URI which the university stated had never existed.

 

[fshalor]

Why not start in Chicago with the YBMs? Jack.

They are banned from owning guns.

Heck what percentage of the total 30k order firearms deaths a year are caused by people who have guns who are already banned (either as PP, or due age or lack of localized permitting or aren't the owners of the object). (that percentage was around 85% estimated in 2017)

No magical new law to make illegal things more illegal will prevent illegal things from happening.

Hint: the only way that will play out is with confiscating. Hintx2 confiscating 300-600 million known firearms (there's no registry? Right??!?) Is impossible.

 

[fshalor]

Our phones, transactions and a lot of cameras track each and every one of us, it’s not just Google. Don’t believe me? Go do something stupid and see how long it takes them to find you.

Also. @Broccoli Iglesias should be aware that most credit card agencies acquire metadata which categorizes the type of purchase at any box store and even small shops.

Heck, the small bandshop I helped with tech years ago has all that categorization ready.

Your CC knows if you start randomly buying reeds, and if you were a brass player in a simple SQL search. Or if you suddenly buy a new GF some chine mallets or snag guitar strings out of the blue.


Take that to the super market. If you snag the same food month after month after month, you will drop under radar. If you suddenly start buying triple the normal beef or gluten free bread or stock up on rice. You get in the bucket of anomalies.

 

[cathouse01]

Some times I really think that the only reason why the left supports gun control is so that it cuts out the lower classes from being armed. No guns no revolution while the lower classes get pushed around by the wealthy left wingers and the people who feel that they are 'the elite' and worthy.

For us on here, a new law, a new fee, we grumble and pay it. But for someone barely above minimum wage who wants to own a handgun? They're priced out of the market. The gun may be $500, but add in license fees, classes, transfer fees, etc etc. It's $20, it's $20 there. Pretty soon that $500 handgun is going to cost several thousand to own. If your wealthy no biggie. If not then sucks to be you. In the end the wealthy can push around the little guy as much as they want. I'm honestly shocked that people who vote democrat today don't see this since democrats tend to be the party of the wealthy elite.

This is exactly the kind of Sullivan gun laws that need to be sunset and erased from history.

It’s called "Disparate Impact”, when policies, practices, rules or other systems that appear to be neutral result in a disproportionate impact on a protected group. And it is probably the one argument against arbitrary licensing policies that the left has to listen to, since they are such big proponents of the concept. However, their response will not be to make it easier for the poor to arm themselves, but to make it equally difficult for the middle class and upper middle class. As long as the elites' armed guards can remain armed, they really don’t care about the rest of us.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

A psych eval wouldn’t have picked up our Texas shooter if he was determined to beat it.

Criminals can just lie their way through it.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Why not start in Chicago with the YBMs? Jack.

They are banned from owning guns.
Heck what percentage of the total 30k order firearms deaths a year are caused by people who have guns who are already banned (either as PP, or due age or lack of localized permitting or aren't the owners of the object). (that percentage was around 85% estimated in 2017)

It's easier to legally buy a gun as a Chicago resident than as a Boston resident. It's even a bit easier to get an "unrestricted" LTC in Chicago.

...most credit card agencies acquire metadata which categorizes the type of purchase at any box store and even small shops.
Heck, the small bandshop I helped with tech years ago has all that categorization ready.
Your CC knows if you start randomly buying reeds...

It is still rather rare for regular (not B2B) transactions to transmit "Level Three" itemized receipt data to credit card processors.

The exceptions are firms like Staples and Office Max who do a ton of business and government orders; many government agencies "purchasing cards" mandate Level Three data be forwarded (putatively because this catches/prevents fraud such as buying gift cards on the government dime).

Take that to the super market. If you snag the same food month after month after month, you will drop under radar. If you suddenly start buying triple the normal beef or gluten free bread or stock up on rice. You get in the bucket of anomalies.

This is why you load two carts, then send the wife through the express line with the booze/beef/buns/bulk, a wad of cash, and no loyalty card.

 

[GM-GUY]

I’m really hopeful someone already mentioned this - it’s NOT about UBC, it’s about a REGISTRY of every gun sold, to whom with perpetual updates.

Registration brings Confiscation

 

[AHM]

I’m really hopeful someone already mentioned this - it’s NOT about UBC, it’s about a REGISTRY of every gun sold, to whom with perpetual updates.

Registration brings Confiscation

Why purse-fight over micro-analysis?

It's the one-way ratchet - their "common-sense laws"
only ever go in one direction.

 

[Fixxah]

They need to define "Americans". Jack.

They are not biologists Jack.

 

[aeromarine]

I could get behind UBC's but I'd want the following:

1. Remove the limitation of FFL monopolies on UBC's- open the database to private individuals so we can sell a gun and do a check against the buyer with a go/nogo, no waits and at no cost.
2. Provide protections for sales that process on a go that should have been a nogo but pushed incorrectly.
3. Make the system voluntary
4. Remove laws regarding interstate sales- if I want to sell a handgun to someone in VT FTF and I'm from ME, so be it.

But lets not think for a second UBC's are going to stop these mass shootings, this shooter passed two BC's at a retail ffl.

You're on to something here. I think you're off to a good start!

Perhaps we might consider giving in on a few issues if steps were taken to acknowledge and affirm our 2A rights. Start with a Gun Owners Bill of Rights (yes, I know, we already have that in the Constituion, but let's reaffirm that those rights in a contemporary law that can not be disputed). I

I like your suggestions. A couple of additional elements for such a law might include:

1) All license applications must be handled on a "shall issue" unless there is a clearly manifest flaw in the applicants character or mental health. No more "may issue" on the basis of "if we like you", and no more having to demonstrate a "need" to exercise your 2A rights.

2) Total licensing and processing fees can be no more than those to acquire a standard driver's license. Higher fees should be illegal, just as it is to impose a Poll Tax on voters.

3) National reciprocity of gun licenses, the same as driver licenses.

Can anyone suggest other things they would like to see included in legislation in exchange for giving in and compromising on UBCs or age 21 changes to existing laws?

If we agree to compromise, we should at least get something for it!

A sticking point for UBC's in Massachusetts is that would create a defacto prohibition on all AR and AK transfers within the state. If UBCs go into effect, any chance Beacon Hill would be willing to create a work around for that problem? Likely only a very slim chance. of that ever happening. So, if you want an AR and haven't yet bought it, now may be the time to pull the trigger.

 

[240Geezer]

How bout not one more inch.
No. Just no.