Leftist-Speak: ‘Universal Background Checks’ really means ‘Federal Database of Firearms and Owners’ which means ‘Shopping List for Confiscation’ which means ‘Un-Constitutional Federal Overreach’

Share this thought and add your own

A note for my friends who aren’t following this ‘discussion’ as it is (as usual) mishandled by the fawning Media: The idea of ‘universal background checks’ sounds fine to some, on its face; however it would require a national (federal) REGISTRY of all guns, and all gun owners.

JustInCase

And, let’s be honest about just how ‘universal’ this background check system would be, and not be:

  • It would NOT show who has a gun illegally (stolen/borrowed/smuggled/manufactured in an alley for a felon or crazy person…). Criminals will not line up to log their escapades into a database.
  • It would mandate that private citizens could not transfer a firearm to another person at a garage sale, loan to a coworker, or pass down to a younger relative without that person submitting to a federal vetting process. (You want to allocate your great-grampa’s old rifle to your son in your Last Will and Testament? If the government doesn’t approve of your son, he doesn’t get to take possession of the weapon and it may end up forever in escrow or worse yet — be confiscated.) This is what has been commonly referred to in the Media as the ‘Gun Show Loophole’ — currently, only federally-regulated firearms dealers have to do a background check on a customer before completing the sale; private individuals can (in most states) just bring in firearms they would like to sell or trade to anyone they see fit.
  • The Bill of Rights‘ motive of resisting tyranny — that is, preventing the subjugation of a people by force of authority not granted to them by the People — is negated if the government has a clear list of who to kill or imprison first. “A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” -Thomas Jefferson

The way to enforce such a mandate is to inflict penalties on those who do not follow the rules. Firearm owners do not want to risk fines, jail time, or the loss of their licensing priviledges so they will be compelled to comply. Criminials do not and will not care about a risk of fines, already ‘work very hard to avoid imprisonment’, and the least of their concerns would be whether they lose a license to possess what they likely haven’t obtained legally in the first place.

DkUwIG3sbJneWhen the 2nd Amendment was written, as an attempt to remind future leaders at the federal level that Individuals and states, not federal authority, would be the LAST LEVEL OF POWER THAT COULD NOT BE UNDONE — it was made clear that at the federal level, the right of self-defense SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Understand that in EVERY society that has implemented a national weapons registry has eventually used it as a simple checklist to confiscate those weapons (UK has done it, Australia has done it, Germany has done it, despots all around the world have done it right before seizing control of their own people and their property with military force, etc. — this is not ‘ancient’ history… it’s OUR history…).

LINK: “Statement from the National Rifle Association Regarding Toomey-Manchin Background Check Proposal” (NRAILA.org)

“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

LINK: “Homeland Security Actively Collecting Gun Owner Info, Collaborating With States” (DefendGunRights.com)
LINK: “The Math Doesn’t Add Up for Gun Control Advocates” (USNews.com)

President Obama wants us to believe that 90 percent of Americans support background checks – a dubious claim to be sure. But even if true, since when do liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights become subject to a popular vote?

Polls that throw around the 90 percent figure are suspect for many reasons. For starters, they claim that roughly 80 percent of Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association members support background checks. But after polling our members, we found that fewer than 5 percent support such restrictions — thus obliterating the credibility of these polls which purport to speak for our supporters.

Not only did a Quinnipiac poll say that, by a margin of 48 to 38 percent, Americans think background checks will lead to confiscation, a recent CBS News poll found that only 47 percent of Americans want stricter gun control. So if that’s true, how is it that twice that number supposedly want background checks expanded? The numbers just don’t add up.

The fact is, background checks are dangerous because:

  1. They force law-abiding citizens to prove their innocence to the government before exercising a constitutionally protected right – something that we wouldn’t tolerate with the First Amendment;
  2. They require the names of gun owners to be sent to the FBI, thus creating the framework for a national registration system – a cause for concern when politicians like Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and others have called for gun confiscation; and
  3. They use a database through which government bureaucrats unduly denied more than 150,000 military veterans their constitutional rights, without any due process whatsoever, based on things such as PTSD.


Proponents claim that background checks prevent thousands of people from buying guns every year. It’s a lie. In 2010, only 13 people were incarcerated for illegally trying to purchase a gun – meaning that the thousands of people with initial denials weren’t ultimately stopped from buying a gun on the street. It’s also a lie that 40 percent of gun purchases are done through private sales; The Washington Post gave Obama “Three Pinocchios” for this claim.

LINK: “Does Gun Control Really Work?” (Libertarian-Logic.com)

Laws are followed by the law-abiding, and those are the very people we shouldn’t feel uncomfortable with at all.

Criminals don’t follow the law, and that’s what makes me uncomfortable. So it follows that any legislation passed to control guns won’t have much effect since criminals don’t feel compelled to follow the law anyway.

LINK: “Senate Aide: Gun Law Wouldn’t Have Stopped Newtown Massacre” (WeeklyStandard.com)

“This amendment won’t ease the pain … but nobody here, not one of us in this great capital of ours in good conscious could sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again,” Manchin told the press at today’s announcement.

But aides on Capitol Hill admit that there is not a thing in the bill that would have prevented the killer, Adam Lanza, from killing 26 at the school in Newtown, Connecticut.

“There’s nothing in this legislation that addresses the fact pattern at Sandy Hook,” a senior Senate aide told me on the phone. The aide explains that the bill expands on the background-check system already in place, but that the system doesn’t work properly.

“They are expanding on a broken system that we know will fail,” says the aide. Under this law, I’m told, Adam Lanza would still have been able to steal the so-called assault weapon that his mother legally owned—and use it to shoot up the school.

LINK: “Sen. Lee: Backgound Checks Could Allow Holder to Create Gun Registry Using Regulations” (CNSNews.com)

“You see, the federal government has no business monitoring when or how often you go to church; what books and newspapers you read; who you vote for; your health conditions; what you eat for breakfast; and the details of your private life– including your lawful exercise of your rights protected by the Second Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

LINK: “Gun Control Doesn’t Mean What They Want You to Think It Means” (TheTruthAboutGuns.com)

The modern argument over the shape, style, accessories, ammunition capacity, and configuration of this firearm or that is merely a smokescreen to cover a very old agenda, Civilian Disarmament. Step number one in discussing the issue is to set the ground rules and reject the term “gun control” as both deliberately misleading and illegitimate. Refuse to accept that term.

If someone says “gun control” stop them right there and correct them. “You mean disarmament.” If they protest and claim gun control is not disarmament there are either a woefully naïve or a purposeful liar.

Share this thought and add your own

Comments

comments