Guns & Ammo Network

Collapse bottom bar
News Politics

NRA Members: Universal Background Checks “Not a Solution”

by G&A Online Editors   |  May 28th, 2013 11

Politicians use the term ‘Universal Background Checks’ like peer pressure, suggesting that reasonable people should support expanded checks. In reality, it’s an attempt to perpetuate another gun control myth.

Background checks don’t stop criminals from committing violent crimes. They certainly didn’t prevent recent mass shootings, where the guns were purchased with a background check. Criminals who will steal or murder to obtain guns, don’t care about laws—that’s why they’re criminals.

Enforcing universal checks during the age of government furloughs creates a laundry list of ambiguities. Who would police the new laws?

How would anyone confirm that a background check was completed for every single transaction? Guns that were bought or transferred under the new laws would still look and function the same as any one of the estimated 300 million guns bought or transferred under the current laws.

The only way to adequately enforce a universal background check system is by creating a registration database. You don’t have to read very far into the history books to notice that registration always leads to confiscation—take a look at Canada, Australia, and any number of European countries.

The editors at G&A took to the streets to find out what NRA members think about universal background checks.

  • gemini34

    “Background checks” really means registration. Leads to confiscation. In States where you get checked for a concealed carry license, I would bet that they keep the names of those approved so they know who has guns. That’s why “Constitutional Carry” doesn’t need their approval and they will not have a list of gun owners. But they won’t know how many you own. The Second Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution. It’s good to see that some of the newspapers are upset about Bozo spying on them. (Violation of the First Amendment). Now Washington is stepping on their toes. Maybe they will wake up.

    • Victor Rossi


      Think about what you have stated and bear in mind that your children and/or grandchildren may be attending a school where an unauthorized person may take an unauthorized assault-type weapon and shoot the place up. So now, where do you start in preventing such an instance? I am open to your intelligent response.

      • JiminGA

        The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And your answer to your own question is……..?

      • Dj

        You provided your own answer….unauthorized person, unauthorized gun….but, if facing an authorized trained staff member with an authorized gun, or better yet several trained staff members who are armed and capable of quick response. It is false security to have one uniformed or covered armed officer on duty at a school, as ususally that person is easily identifiable and therefore the first to go. It is much better to have armed and trained staff, then the intruder would not know who is armed.

        Luby’s Cafeteria shootings in Texas some years back: A customer was having Sunday dinner with her parents and decided to leave her handgun in the car…..her father was killed and she could not do anything about it.

      • Robert Sorensen

        But they are safe there since it is a gun free zone

    • darrell_b8

      You got that; that is the ‘intermediate goal'; then it’s on to, quoting Sen. Diane Feinstein…”Mr. and Mrs. America….’turn ‘em in'”. to that I say….”come and get ‘em”; and bring PLENTY of help!!

  • tonyH110

    WE HAVE background checks – most FFL dealers in most states, even at shows, would lose their license if they skipped. Its only a few private sales where guns are ‘passed on’ so to speak. Personally if a ‘private’ guy at show offered me, say a brand new Savage 110 FPS .338 Lapur Mag, at half the price – I’d still request we use an FFL to background check – if he walked away I’d suspect the gun might have a history I dont want to inherit!!

  • John Darby

    Background checks on all transfers will be imposable to enforce, or for officials to prove when the transfer took place without a registry. This push is the next step in the agenda to take your firearms. You can build a mountain one shovel full at a time and the Second Amendment is all about protecting the Third Amendment. Don’t you think?

  • Mike Davis

    USA has background checks for legitimate purchases. USA needs to enforce the laws on the Books and trace any weapon used in a crime to where the criminal purchased it and incarcerate the seller. Recently in NY a neighbor bought an AR15 for the man that killed the firemen in WNY. What is her penalty? it should be max under the law 5 years in Prison. Lets have the NRA follow the cases and report on the inadequate enforcement by the US attorney that occurs daily. If anyone sells a gun or buys one for a felon they should be put in jail.

    • Jerry Verdugo

      The problem seems to be “it’s never what they said it would be.” The do other things that makes it very expensive for law abiding citizens. The “intent” is justifiable, but the action always has a hidden agenda.

  • NicePiece

    Laws are there to aid
    sentencing when criminals are brought to justice after committing a crime
    against society. In all other cases unjust rules and regulations, such as those
    imposed on gun type ownership and magazine capacity, only serve to restrict the
    law-abiding. Since when has a 30+ round magazine inserted itself into an AR-15,
    then same gun deciding on its own accord to go on a shooting spree? And ownership of such an outfit does
    not automatically turn someone into a murderous lunatic. Finally, any negative gun
    law changes, including registration and extended background checks, no matter
    how good the intention may seem, will lead to the erosion of the Second Amendment.
    That’s will, not might.

back to top