This is why anti gun activists can't be trusted, common sense gun control is just gun control.

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
112,235
52,459
These are the new fronts of the anti gun extremists pushing for gun control...."universal" background checks, mental health info. in the database, and a gun registry.........this article points out in detail why all three things are just disguised gun control with nothing common sense about them.....

Three Gun Control Proposals Republicans Can Actually Support ... Unless You Read the Fine Print - The Truth About Guns


There have been others since, but they always seem to follow the same pattern. The problem most people see with such “universal background check” proposals is that they would pretty much make it illegal to share your love of shooting. Let me give you some illustrative examples.

  • You’re out on your buddy’s ranch and he wants to try your new gun. If you hand it to him, you have performed an illegal transfer making both of you felons.

  • You want to buy your buddy’s gun. The nearest gun store is not happy about having to do transfers for individuals rather than selling from their own stock, and in response they have hiked up the transfer fees they charge to 50% of the cost of the sale. Without any government restrictions on the price of transfers, every gun store in town does the same.

  • You live on a ranch 100 miles from the nearest gun store. You want to buy your buddy’s gun, but the trip to the gun store plus the transfer fee would cost more than the gun itself including gas and time invested.
Those are just some of the practical issues related to universal background check laws. The theoretical issues are even greater, since the Manchin-Toomey bill would have opened the flood gates for government entities to start compiling a master list of gun owners. Most gun owners agree that the first step towards confiscation is registration, as evidenced in California. If there were a way to perform a background check without a paper trail and without a fee, I doubt there would be any remaining significant opposition to the proposal.

Laws to Prevent Mentally Ill from Buying Guns (81% R, 79% D)

The first potentially fatal flaw is the fact that the definition of “mentally ill” isn’t exactly set in stone. To illustrate exactly how subjective that phrase can be, there’s an entry in the DSM (the bible of diagnostic psychology) that makes the use of caffeine a qualified mental disorder. So in theory, if you’ve had more than one cup of coffee this morning then you are “mentally ill” and owning a gun would be illegal.

Another problem is that the further stigmatization of mentally ill individuals would be a massive barrier to care for gun owners. If the consequence of going to see a psychiatrist could be that an ATF agent comes to your door to confiscate your guns, how many gun owners would actually seek treatment for their potential mental health issues? I’ll give you a hint: none.

Just look at the way pilots see doctors for proof of this concept. Pilots need a valid medical certificate to fly an airplane. If any one of a vast array of medical conditions pop up then their medical certificate could be revoked at any time. Even if they don’t have a problem the docs can still make the process painful and costly — one of my friends recently had a traumatic experience with the suicide of his friend, and the AME is making him go through thousands of dollars worth of psychiatric observation before even considering his medical. As a result, pilots regularly visit “under the counter” doctors for their medical conditions rather than seeking the most competent care in order to avoid any entanglement with the FAA. The results of such stigmatization can be deadly.

Federal Database to Track Gun Sales (55% R, 85% D)

The Canadian government has maintained a firearms registry for some time, but they recently decided to scrap it since it turned out to be less useful than the hard drives it was inscribed upon. The idea that an American version would be any more effective, especially given the reluctance of gun owners to voluntarily register their guns, is patently insane.

Even if such a registry were complete and useful, would it actually do anything to stop “gun violence” or bring down the murder rate? Research indicates that 80% of guns used in crime come from either a family member or a “street” illegal source. So, if the guns in the system are already illegal (or rather, a background check and tracing would have no impact on their availability), then how would attaching a name to the guns make them any less available? There’s an argument to be made that the ability to trace a gun back to its source would make participating gun owners and straw purchasers less likely to go along with the scheme, but that can already be accomplished by tracing the gun through gun store sales records and 4473 forms.

**************************

Also....you are riding with your friend, you have your gun. You need to enter a store with a no gun sign. If you take your gun off and leave it in his car, with him...are you now both felons?
 
It is quite clear from the history of leftist regimes and policy makers that the crusade to disarm the population is the first step to subjugating it, and culling the resistance.

No other interpretation is rational.

 

Forum List

Back
Top