Quote:
Originally Posted by TWITCHY
Well, I had written a long and concise post, but I timed-out and it was deleted. I will post the short version, now and follow-up. As I respect the experiences and opinions, here, I would like to know your thoughts on universal background checks. In short, should we (gun owners) be okay with or support UBC? What reasons should we oppose them? Thanks.
|
First, UBC doesn't "fix" anything. Anyone who thinks that such a thing is going to keep Tyrone Shoelaces from selling Hi-Points or Kel-Tecs out of the trunk of their car in The City or out of their crack house is deluded. It's important to understand that, in current dialogue, the word "loophole" is defined by aspiring tyrants as "something in law that you get to use that I disapprove of that makes it look to others as if you're engaging in deceitful behavior (e.g., tax "loophole" otherwise known as authorized deduction already in the tax code).
Thus, the myth of the "gunshow loophole." Dealers who pay for & operate booths at a gunshow must still conduct background checks & it's done telephonically, quite easily. To do otherwise completely risks the termination of their business & possible fine and imprisonment. (And if you think the ATF doesn't hawk gunshows I've got some land to sell you...) This leads to my primary objection to UBC.
UBC takes one of the core tenets of being a free person walking the planet and throws it away, that of
being able to purchase, own, control and dispose of Private Property. There is almost no other thing that defines freedom as the ability to own private property. One of the aspects of that ownership is the ability to dispose of it, in a simple transaction based on terms agreed upon by 2 free men. UBC turns that on its head and says you must get permission first, and if you must get permission then the property isn't truly yours, nor are you free. You are also then not free to arm your trusted neighbor should the need arise during times of high threat to the community, unless they be one of the "generous exemptions granted by your betters"
* such as a relative.
Make your own decision about what's important; just thought I'd offer that.
* I also predict that such laws will get crafted to include sworn & retired law-enforcement personnel, since the drafters of these laws like to get LE on board - just as with carry laws - by making them a special different class of person who also doesn't have to play by the rules everyone else does.