Why do conservatives fear background checks for guns?

[Beartracks]

I mean, really, I've heard this before: If they don't have anything to hide, then they've got nothing to worry about.

Right?



====================

[dogman]

1. $ale$

Money is all they need.

[DirkGently]

26. Might slow sales to Mexican cartels & sociopaths.

That's all there is to it.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Because it's an intelligent, mostly Democrat Idea .

[randome]

3. What are you looking for? Logic? That's amusing.

They aren't reacting to the proposal any more than a plant reacts to sunlight. It's political tropism, that's all. They were against this at one time in the past and so they are against it now.

'Fear'? 'Thinking'? Not part of the equation for them. 'Inertia' is a better description.

[Fumesucker]

17. Inertia, with Republicans?

Hell they can turn on dime and give you nine cents change.

Upperdown vote changes to Permanent Filibuster with the rap of a gavel.

[krispos42]

4. I don't think they do...

...however, there is the issue of being on the "terrorist watchlist" and being unable to buy a gun.

Maybe that's it.

Of course, it also could be Obama Derangement Syndrome kicking in, too. Obama is for it, therefore...



The fastest way to guarantee that adorable kittens are turned into a conservative fashion fad (as an overcoat) is for Obama to say he loves cute kittens. If Obama said he loved steak, overnight the number of vegetarians would double.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Paranoia. What it to stop us from raising the standards

so that at some point in the future nobody can ever pass the check?

[ChirpChirp]

10. This

Your are probablyhitting on something right there

[marshall]

37. They see it as a foot in the door of more and more control

They see it in their minds as essentially the same way pro-choice folks see such things as the born alive infant protection act--a Trojan horse to get even tougher legislation passed.

[Zoeisright]

42. That would be ideal.

[appleannie1]

6. They don't "think" they repeat what they are told.

[ZombieHorde]

7. They don't like it because of private sales.

Private sales become a pain in the ass if you have to do a background check. This is often known as "the gun-show loophole."

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. I agree that's one of the common objections.

I don't think it holds water, though. There's no reason the check has to be anything cumbersome. Modern high-speed internet connectivity to a secure database that provides only a "yes or no" response...easy-peasy.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I agree. That argument was better before so many had internet on their phone. nt

[Igel]

28. Here's how some gun sales work.

You're at the range shooting. A guy's selling a gun. You want to buy it and have the money. Now, you'd just buy it.

New way: First you go back to one guy's house, hoping he has high-speed Internet. You get his information--maybe DL #, perhaps SSN, perhaps other identifying information. You relay this and hope that the database is correct.

Then, having received permission from the Federal government to engage in a sale that doesn't even cross a county line, you can complete the sale. There's nobody to make sure you complete the sale. No paper trail that you did or didn't complete the sale. No paperwork required at all, apart from the background check, actually.

So it won't happen. It's unenforceable in the general case. Instead, it'll be enforced only when there's a problem.

However, when it's found that that the law isn't doing what it's supposed to do and it's unenforceable, ways will be found to make it enforceable. That's the way a lot of bad law is written: Best intentions, but, dang it, people don't do as they're expected so the laws have to become more and more anal retentive, detailed, and, well, intrusive. For example: Requiring a licensed dealer to handle the sale in order to avoid having the last owner of (government) record be considered some sort of accessory. Like that would work.

But consider this: You want anybody selling a gun in private to be able to log in and check over the Internet to find if somebody's been convicted anywhere in the US, has a record of mental health disorders, restraining orders, etc., etc. If a random private gun seller can do this, why can't employers? Girl friends? Co-workers? Employees, checking up on bosses?

Even if it's only a "yes" or "no," you know the criteria for the yes or no. An employer has just done a kind of instant background check, with information that often isn't legal for employers to know about. And the potential employee hasn't signed a waiver. It's freely available to everybody, no questions asked.

People like making an analogy with cars. I've never lived or did business in a state where a car could only be sold after a background check or to somebody with a license. MD, NJ, NY, DE, OR, CA, AZ, TX. Or where you had to go through a dealer. Perhaps an inspection before the sale is finalized (to protect the buyer), perhaps a notary's seal (to protect both parties).

[AndyTiedye]

33. The System Can Require that the Buyer Give Permission

The system can be set up so the buyer has to give permission for the seller to do the background check.
That would be equivalent to what is done for pre-employment background checks and the like,
and should prevent the system from being used without the consent of the party being checked.

A system that did all this at point-of-sale could easily be implemented on a smartphone.

Ideally the app should be free and open-source, so that it can be vetted for any possible vulnerabilities,
and so as not to place any financial burden on someone who is selling their guns.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Couldn't tell you.

I'm a pro-2nd-Amendment liberal (socialist, in fact...), and I strongly support extending the background check requirement to all gun sales and other transfers of ownership like gifts and inheritances. It won't eliminate criminal possession of firearms...but it might cut it down a bit.

[Beartracks]

20. Criminals, as someone pointed out in another thread...

... (i.e. those acquiring guns illegally) are not the ones responsible for most of the mass-killings like Newtown, Aurora, Columbine. The guns wielded by those killers were all purchased legally.

===================

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. And then there's the subject of registering guns....

Why would a law-abiding citizen be opposed to the possibility of having my stolen gun returned to me?

It's like they're saying, "Oh, sure, I'm a law abiding citizen today, but at some point in the future I just might decide to go on a killing spree."

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Twice, once in NY & CA, registration lists has been turned into a confiscation list. N/T

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. Link

Link or STFU.

[Daninmo]

38. LIST

The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to changing definitions of “assault weapons”, many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen
to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and ‘registered’ owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. As usual with the NRA and it lunatic fringe acolytes...

the truth is a little different than propaganda.

In the wake of the Stockton school yard shootings, California based the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989, the first AWB in the nation. The law allowed legal owners of certain assault weapons to either register, render inoperable, surrender, or dispose of out-of-state their assault rifles. They had nearly two years, until March 31, 1992 to comply with the new law.

The deadline came and the deadline went.

In the meantime, Republican Dan Lundgren became the Attorney General in California, and Lundgren decided that the March 31 deadline was really just a recommendation by a majority of the California General Assembly. Lundgren assumed that he, as Attorney General, had the authority of create a "grace period" during which people who were currently in violation of the law could step forward and register their weapon. This unilateral action, where the Attorney General doesn't just reinterpret the law, but rewrites the law, was challenged in court.

In the mean time, word gets out that there's a "grace period" in California, so even though assault rifles can't be legally bought and sold there, we still have highways, right? And they lead to place like Nevada where there is no assault weapons ban, right?

Right.

People start crossing the border, buying assault rifles, sneaking them back home, and then stepping forward to say, "Hey, look at this brand new assault rifle that I found in my attic and didn't at all just buy last week at a Reno gun dealer." Right. Lundren's action, in addition to be flagrantly unconstitutional, basically created a massive loophole in the AWB.

Did I mention that Dan Lundgren is a Republican. But you knew that, right?

And so five years later, Lundgren is out of office and his successor complies with the court ruling that says a deadline is a deadline. If you didn't register your firearm by March 31, 1992, you are in violation of the law. And if you sneaked a gun across the border to take advantage of the loophole, you're REALLY in violation of the law. And so a bunch of people who thumbed their noses at the laws of the state and the will of the people ended up screwing themselves.

Boo fucking Hoo.

And the people who complied? Those who did it right the first time around and registered before the deadline? Assuming that they continued being law-abiding citizens, they still have their rifles.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. They don't fear background checks.

The NRA helped design the NICS system. They support it.

The Bush no-fly list is a different matter.

[Hoyt]

29. NRA helped only because they had no choice. They didn't do it for society.

[annabanana]

15. Because so many of them suspect they wouldn't qualify. .n/t

[LeftInTX]

16. For the same reason that they fear flouride in water

They fought it here for years and years.

(Taxes weren't the issue. It was government chemicals in the water.)

[GreenStormCloud]

21. The 1950s called. They want their issues back.

I haven't heard that one in over fifty years.

[LeftInTX]

25. San Antonio finally voted for flouride in 2000

We've got some real nut jobs when it comes to water here in town.

[rrneck]

19. Politics. nt

[The Straight Story]

22. Why do people fear drug tests for UE and welfare?

If you are not a drug user than there should be no problem.

Maybe some folks don't think it should be up to a bunch of old white guys in suits to decide what they can buy.

Some like those old guys making decisions for others though. Maybe because they don't trust each other and only trust them.

[DirkGently]

24. That is no kind of analogy at all.

There is a reason to deny people with criminal backgrounds access to guns, and people with criminal backgrounds want access to guns.

There is no reason to deny public assistance on the basis of drug use, and, as it turns out, people using public assistance aren't particularly frequent drug users.

[neverforget]

31. I know! I can't wait until we have absolute freedom so I can buy

that .50 cal machine gun I've always wanted. Until then, I have to settle for only a .50 cal sniper rifle. God life sucks! My freedom to own anything I want has been infringed! Someone thinks I can't own this? Who the hell do they think they are? Why did they pass the National Firearms Act? It infringes on my freedom!!!!!!!

[The Straight Story]

32. That's the one used in Newton and other shootings right????

Oh maybe not. Please tell us which ones they were used in.

[neverforget]

34. You were bemoaning laws regulating guns so I pointed out what is already

regulated.

[The Straight Story]

36. And yet so many own them already

Not the machine gun in the first pic.

I sold reloading dies for some time and the 50 cal was our biggest seller (for obvious reasons - cheaper to reload than to buy).

We already have a ton of regulations and those did not stop the few out of the many.

The problem is not the guns, it is some people - identifying why is hard work. Drugs, alcohol, etc play into it all.

Millions own guns and don't harm others with them. Why do some people do so? If it were the guns everyone with one would be shooting people.

[sarisataka]

39. You can get one

Best prices I could find for an M2 were $25,995 for the gun, tripod included; ammo going at $465 for a belt of 100, but quantities are limited.

If you can afford that, NFA fees are not a hindrance.

[xoom]

23. Not sure? If any of them have a cpl/ccw then they really have no need to worry.

You must pass a background check to get it, so you would pass it for any purchase.

Its the ones who cant pass that have problems.

[Lil Missy]

27. Because they don't want to lose sales from mentally ill and criminals. n/t

[libdem4life]

30. Auto insurance has a no-fail check on legal incidents, at least DUIs and such. Can be done for

guns, as well. At least I don't know why not. I'm pretty sure they recheck every year before your new policy is rated. A DUI or a ticket...kiss your low rates goodbye for a long time. Under 26...you pay in high rates for all the crazy ass teenage drivers. An infraction, and good luck with any insurance, at least affordable, until it falls off your record.

I support gun liability insurance.

[cbrer]

35. Vast Oversimplification

At least 1/2 of my conservative associates consider better, more comprehensive background checks a good move in terms of preserving the integrity of a sport they engage in, as well as legitimate home protection.

But I note by your "smilie" that the OP may be a joke, so I'm not sure which way to go with this.

[Beartracks]

45. Half-joking, or half-sarcastic.

I recall that, for example, the expansion of cameras in our society always gets privacy advocates concerned about, well... privacy, while law-'n-order types chide them with, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't need to worry." (Same with the Bush-era online spying stuff, as someone mentioned down-thread.)

So I was just sort of turning that around onto the gun nuts, but, no, not in a serious manner. Just to generate some discussion.

Anyhow, usually if I mention "conservatives" in a post I am ham-handedly painting with a broad brush as if ALL conservatives share the viewpoints of their noisier, less thoughtful brethren, but I really only mean the noisy, thoughtless ones. So I apologize to your associates, and I'm glad to know that they support a lot of the new initiatives.



================

[doc03]

40. I asked a gun dealer why he opposed a background check for

private sales. He is big in the NRA in this area he sponsors a dinner every year for the NRA. His answer, it can't be done, it won't work and my 2nd amendment rights. I said you would make money on it when a private seller had to come to you for a background check. Same answer, it can't be done, it won't work and my 2nd amendment rights. All they know is the NRA tells them to be against it. Why? I suppose some people wouldn't be able to buy guns therefore there would be less gun sales and the arms manufacturers would lose money.

[Zoeisright]

41. Yeah, they're always whining that

if you have nothing to hide, why are you afraid of Bush spying on you?

[DainBramaged]

44. Do you honestly think a majorty will pass?

[meow2u3]

46. Most of them can't pass a background check

One of the following will show up: a criminal record, (undiagnosed/untreated) psychosis, or drug use.