[mountainlion]

With background checks we can catch every criminal and mentally ill person that even looks at a gun./s

[Dutch Boy]

It’s not about safety, it’s about control.

[ez]

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

[The Working Man]

How many times must it be said. It’s not for protecting the “children”, it’s for control of the populace. They know perfectly well that a Gang-banger won’t obey this law either.

[MachIV]

If Universal Background checks will result in mandatory registration of firearms even if it does so at the point-of-sale, doesn’t that really demand we ask if the current background checks through dealers are also functionally producing registration each time a gun is bought from a dearler?

I’ve read that after a check is completed the Feds are required by law to dispose of the records(background check records not the 4473).

[supercat]

Two fundamental problems with the "universal background check" which are often ignored:

1. They offer no mechanism by which to ensure that the only people whose rights would be denied would be those who have either been convicted of felony crimes, are presently under indictment for felony crimes and shown to be sufficiently dangerous as to justify restrictive bail conditions that include disarmament, or have been found criminally insane.
2. The promoters of such tests have sought to use them to deny the rights of people not on the basis of crimes they have committed, nor even crimes they are suspected to have committed, but instead for crimes which they might conceivably commit.

There would be nothing wrong with judges rubber-stamping restraining orders whose sole effect was to instruct the recipient that if they are found dead in some particular location where they have no particular right to be (e.g. the house of a person they are accused of stalking), police will assume they were killed in self-defense; recipients who wish to remain alive should thus stay clear of such areas. Note that even if the target of such a restraining order were completely innocent, it wouldn't harm them other than to expressly say that they cannot go safely into a place they have no inherent right to be anyhow. Unfortunately, Schumer et al. want to allow people to be disarmed using essentially the same standard of proof as would be required for the above restraining order (i.e. essentially none). That stands in absolute contradiction to the Constitutional requirement that people's rights may not be infringed without due process.

[Seaplaner]

Background checks?

Okay, let's start with the POTUS, VEEP, cabinet, and "kitchen" cabinet members, and Members of both congressional houses.

Among the items of info, a total, complete, comprehensive, unexpurgated, and official collegiate transcripts, and which must include the full name of the student, the nationality of the student, grades, theses, professors, and texts.

Also, what background check would be complete without a listing of all friends, acquaintances, and associates (especially if their names might rhyme with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn)?

Drug use? Let's require that it all be listed, including substance, frequency, and how obtained.

Background checks should start with those who we trust to represent us, and we trust to follow our Constitution, n'est ce pas?

.

[Carry_Okie]

Shouldn’t Congress and the White House be working to get mentally ill people and felons into the database so we can actually have a chance at preventing them from purchasing firearms?

As to the "mentally ill," such a finding should be in a court of law, preferably by jury.

[grobdriver]

a so-called “universal background check” system should be dismissed by any lawmaker who is serious about protecting constitutional freedom and improving public safety

The two or three up there, you mean?