As we know, the anti-gun forces keep their talking points ready to go so they can trot them out as the opportunity arises.  So why do they always go immediately to "Universal Background Checks"?  Do they really believe that bad guys are getting their weapons through "The Gun Show Loophole"?  Or do they fully realize that UBC's would lead to a National Registry (as advocated by Mike Kelly in yesterday's Bergen Record), which would be the first step toward the ultimate goal of complete confiscation?

It's always "Universal background checks".  But its also "high capacity magazine clips" and "military style assault weapons" and "stockpiling ammunition".  

Get used to it.

I thought it meant 'across the universe', to make sure the buyer isn't a prohibited person on whatever planet Schumer and Pelosi are from.   

42 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

As we know, the anti-gun forces keep their talking points ready to go so they can trot them out as the opportunity arises.  So why do they always go immediately to "Universal Background Checks"?  Do they really believe that bad guys are getting their weapons through "The Gun Show Loophole"?  Or do they fully realize that UBC's would lead to a National Registry (as advocated by Mike Kelly in yesterday's Bergen Record), which would be the first step toward the ultimate goal of complete confiscation?

Yes, of COURSE its what they want is MANDATORY registration of ALL firearms. They have said as much. In the UK for instance if you get caught with an unlicenced firearm, especially a banned one, you go to jail. That is what the Democrats and left WANT it is their GOAL, to confiscate and then KILL. Make no mistake about it. Your Liberal gun hating relatives/co workers/neighbours will be happy to turn you in. The Democrat party wants to be the boot stamping on your face---forever

I never understood the universal background check thing either. Why not just say they want to require a NICS check for all sales. Still don't like it but it doesn't sound as intrusive.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Once everything requires a check of some form it will be easier to advance the screws by changing the criteria of the check. No laws, no bills, a simple admit order changing what they look for to prohibit.  Not only is it a slippery slope, but with UBC it's a slope through a tunnel. 

They saw the No Fly List and said "hold my beer"

16 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I never understood the universal background check thing either. Why not just say they want to require a NICS check for all sales. Still don't like it but it doesn't sound as intrusive.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Bad, Bad, Bad !!!   Like Oregon.  Can't lend your buddy, son, daughter a shotgun to go hunting with.  Require a NICS to give them the gun and a NICS to get it back. 

1 hour ago, Ray Ray said:

It's always "Universal background checks".  But its also "high capacity magazine clips" and "military style assault weapons" and "stockpiling ammunition".  

Get used to it.

Yes, I understand why they hate those other evil sounding things, but the background checks are always the first thing they go to, because it sounds so reasonable.  Yet they are so insistent about it, often citing that statistic of unknown origin that 90% of people are in favor of it, that one has to think there is more to it.

If they really think it's important, how about this:  The government does a NICS check for sales at no cost to the gun owner, and after the check, there is no record of the transaction.  And of course, one can lend guns to friends, family, etc., for hunting, shooting, whatever, as long as they are in the presence of the owner, same as we do now?

I believe every time a politician violates the Constitution they should receive electro shok therapy....

31 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Yes, I understand why they hate those other evil sounding things, but the background checks are always the first thing they go to, because it sounds so reasonable.  Yet they are so insistent about it, often citing that statistic of unknown origin that 90% of people are in favor of it, that one has to think there is more to it.

If they really think it's important, how about this:  The government does a NICS check for sales at no cost to the gun owner, and after the check, there is no record of the transaction.  And of course, one can lend guns to friends, family, etc., for hunting, shooting, whatever, as long as they are in the presence of the owner, same as we do now?

Ain't gonna work.  That's not what they're looking for.  Again, look at Oregon.

Bad, Bad, Bad !!!   Like Oregon.  Can't lend your buddy, son, daughter a shotgun to go hunting with.  Require a NICS to give them the gun and a NICS to get it back. 

I said I don't agree. I'm on the side of no restrictions. Lock up criminals and the insane. Also only meant for sales.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

“They” know nothing.

18 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

“They” know nothing.

This is honestly the closest thing to it. A lot of these politicians talking about the "gun show loophole" are fossils that have been in office since the 80s when gun shows were a big deal. It's literally just a bunch of old people spouting nonsense that haven't heard of "the internet" on which there are tons of local and regional online forums and you don't have to wait for the gun show to come around. 

Maybe it's a good thing

How about every person in the USA get a background check.

If they fail, they have to leave.