[avacado]

"The likely Republican... has broken with the NRA in favoring a requirement for background checks at gun shows."

Serious question: Why is a background check a bad thing?

I'm a Texan, a gun owner, and love our new Castle Law, but I would like to see the argument, and to be enlightened, as to why background checks are bad?

[SJackson]

I'm a Texan, a gun owner, and love our new Castle Law, but I would like to see the argument, and to be enlightened, as to why background checks are bad?

The Wilmette case didn't relate to castle law, the shooting was justified, rather a violation of the towns ban on handgun. The charges were dropped, likely to prevent a conviction and subsequent appeal.

The gun show thing is a straw man, background checks are done on most show sales. Rather legislation would apply background checks to all private transactions, the few at shows included of course. Presumably if you gave your son a firearm, you'd both be obligated to go through the check process. It's one more burden and expense for gunowners.

[VeniVidiVici]

I'm a Texan, a gun owner, and love our new Castle Law, but I would like to see the argument, and to be enlightened, as to why background checks are bad?

Background checks are already required when you buy a gun from a dealer. Almost all Democrats, and some Republicans, also want a background check when you sell a gun privately. This includes whether at a gun show or the parking lot at Wal-Mart. The "gun show loophole" just makes a better soundbite.

[Beagle8U]

“Serious question: Why is a background check a bad thing?”

The problem comes when the anti-gun RATS define what a “gun show” is.

To them it is a way to ban all private sales of guns so they can regulate licensed dealers out of business.

I think they wanted to define a gun show as ...anytime two or more people view a gun that is for sale.

That ends private gun sales because if you show one of your shotguns to a buddy that might want to buy it, it is a gun show and there fore you would have to run a background check on him.

Because you're not a licensed dealer, you have no access to the background check data-bank. You can never sell a private gun that you own.

See how simple it is to ban guns?

[ctdonath2]

Serious question: Why is a background check a bad thing?

Because it's not something a private seller can do. The alleged "gun show loophole" is just folks like you selling what they've got ... do YOU want to be legally obligated to perform a NICS check (you have any idea how to do one?) just because you're selling an old bolt-action .22LR to someone whom you have no reason to suspect?

I sold a Glock 19 to a buddy. Should I _REALLY_ have to run a friggin' background check on someone I know?

[meandog]

I'm a Texan, a gun owner, and love our new Castle Law, but I would like to see the argument, and to be enlightened, as to why background checks are bad?

A gun owner and staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, I'd like to know the same thing here in Virginia when it comes to auctions and gun show loopholes. Why don't auctions/gun shows have to abide by the same laws with instant check as gun stores do?

[Condor51]

*** "The likely Republican... has broken with the NRA in favoring a requirement for background checks at gun shows."

Serious question: Why is a background check a bad thing? ***

---

Serious answer ....

First of all there is no "loophole". All guns purchased from a Dealer at a Gun Show already go through the background check system.

What they are attempting to do with this fancy language 'Gun Show Loophole Law ' is ban the sale, or transfer, of firearms between private parties - period.

This means me buying my next door neighbor's .357 or me giving a family member, say my Son In Law, or MY WIFE, one of my guns (or all upon my death).

They want these 'checks' so there's a record of every gun transfered. And they'll push to make the check results kept permanently. It's defacto gun registration. And every where there has been gun registration the next step has been confiscation.

That's why it's a bad thing.

[Clump]

Background checks are bad because; the system in place does little to nothing to actually reduce or prevent crime (even according to federal studies done to examine the effects of the Brady law); it sets in place a system that can easily be used as a way to prevent ever increasing classes of people (determined by the U.S Congress) from owning firearms (don't be surprised when a traffic ticket conviction from 1992 can be used as grounds for disqualification); it creates another underground market (and therefore gang turf) for criminals to prosper from the sale of guns to known criminals, just like drug laws do; it treats the 2nd Amendment like a privilege rather than a right (by creating hoops to jump through) analogous to conducting background checks before we walk into church to exercise our right to the "free exercise of religion"; it further erodes the Constitutional right by legitimizing serious government regulation of what is supposed to be a fundamental right; it is also defacto registration that could be used by a hostile administration bent on harassing gun shops (thereby depriving citizens the opportunity to acquire arms) or even gun owners themselves; NUMBER 1 PROBLEM THOUGH- little by little they will whittle the number of gun owners down by incremental measures like this, and when the "armed" populace has been sufficiently disarmed, they WILL come for them. It is the only thing standing between them and unbridled governmental power.

We cannot allow fundamental rights to be regulated such that we go from being governed to being ruled. The best government is the one that has a healthy fear of its subjects. The worst government is the one that subjects are fearful of, and are helpless to do anything about.

Sorry if this seams paranoid, but the only way to achieve tyranny is by incremental (reasonable) regulation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that is so important to restraining an ever increasingly unrestrained government.

I have been quite secure under Bush, but I am very concerned about where we could go in an Obama administration. He is the reason rights must be deemed fundamental. That way they can't be disregarded when the public elects a nut to the WH.

No, I don't think he will win. But the very possibility of it is enough to make me resist government regulation in this area.

The question should not be "why we are against background checks?", but what good will it do to implement them? Also, what harm can come from regulating such an important right? Why limit the right when the benefits are negligible to nonexistent? All big picture stuff. Freedom and the Republic as we know it is just too important to take a chance with. I would rather deal with the occasional nuts that invariably come out in society than deal with being treated like a nut for wanting to have the means to protect my family from such a nut.