Do they have an ulterior motive for universal background checks?

[Vermiform]

From NRA website
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/privatesales.aspx?s=&st=&ps=


Do gun control supporters have an ulterior motive?
Is it reasonable to conclude that gun control supporters believe that subjecting all firearm sales to NICS is a necessary step in the direction of gun registration? And, if so, that they see registration as a prerequisite to the confiscation or some or all guns?
In 1976, the chairman of the National Council to Control Handguns—later renamed Handgun Control, Inc. and now known as the Brady Campaign—said:

The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.

The second problem is to get handguns registered.

And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal.[SUP]13
[/SUP]
Currently, the FBI is not permitted to retain records on persons who pass NICS checks. However, in 2009, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced legislation, co-sponsored by handgun and *assault weapon* ban advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), proposing that the FBI retain such records for 180 days.[SUP]14[/SUP] In 1995, Feinstein said about *assault weapons,* *If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.[SUP]15[/SUP] And in 2012, she said that she might introduce legislation requiring owners of *assault weapons* to turn them over to the government within the framework of a *buy-back.*[SUP]16[/SUP]

 

[oleheat]

Of course they do. Any form of gun control has an ultimate goal: Simply put, we have guns- and they don't want us to.

That is the truth.

But the truth is something anti-gun organizations and their allies have always run away from. Kind of like how they've mysteriously started calling themselves "gun safety groups".

Imagine that: The NRA- who offers more gun safety programs than ANYONE- is made out to be the bad guys in the media, and the ANTI-GUN groups are given a free pass with the dishonest "gun safety group" label.

The amount of deception used alone should tell us something.

 

[luv1979]

Of course they do. Any form of gun control has an ultimate goal: Simply put, we have guns- and they don't want us to.

Never have more accurate words been spoken of the "gun control crowd"

 

[JLouv]

I believe that they think universal background checks are another way of saying "national registration"

Just look at how many people, even here on this website, mistake the background check for "registration."

So in a nutshell....Yes. If they get their way with the NICS, eventually, they'll realize the mistake and push for more. It will be easier because the groundwork has already been established.

 

[Vermiform]

Kind of like how they've mysteriously started calling themselves "gun safety groups".

Yep, Tom Gresham was pointing that out last week. It never registered with me until he said something, now I grit my teeth every time I hear the phrase "Gun Safety Group".

 

[Kraut]

I think they are counting on the mental illness angle to bolster their chances at universal background checks. If they frame the argument as not against the gun, but as one of help for those who need it and prevention of more massacres carried out by those who are mentally unstable, then they will have a stronger argument to push for requiring background checks on all private sales - "What good is the database we've built to prevent these tragedies if it's not used to prevent the guns from getting in the wrong hands?" They won't be able to be seen as demonizing the gun anymore, just the acts of the mentally unstable or criminal- which "WE" have been calling for all along! "Guns don't kill people!" "Oh, we know that, it's the crazy people and the criminals, but they can't as easily if they can't get the guns, and now that we've 'registered' the crazy people along with the criminals, all the more reason to have universal checks. We've done our part, what about you?" My $.02.

 

[Vermiform]

I think they are counting on the mental illness angle to bolster their chances at universal background checks. If they frame the argument as not against the gun, but as one of help for those who need it and prevention of more massacres carried out by those who are mentally unstable, then they will have a stronger argument to push for requiring background checks on all private sales - "What good is the database we've built to prevent these tragedies if it's not used to prevent the guns from getting in the wrong hands?" They won't be able to be seen as demonizing the gun anymore, just the acts of the mentally unstable or criminal- which "WE" have been calling for all along! "Guns don't kill people!" "Oh, we know that, it's the crazy people and the criminals, but they can't as easily if they can't get the guns, and now that we've 'registered' the crazy people along with the criminals, all the more reason to have universal checks. We've done our part, what about you?" My $.02.

Agreed. It will also be very easy for them to sway politicians that are currently on the fence about it.

"Your next election is coming up. Do you want your opponents to be able to say YOU VOTED AGAINST BACKGROUND CHECKS to keep crazy people from getting guns?"

We have to shore up Landreu on this.

 

[Metryshooter]

Every angle they have is to ultimately disarm you and you might need to put on your tin foil to answer the the real question, and the is ...why?

 

[OneStory]

Definition of Infringe:
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

What about "infringe" don't people understand?

NO governmental limits on owning and carrying firearms!

 

[oleheat]

Every angle they have is to ultimately disarm you and you might need to put on your tin foil to answer the the real question, and the is ...why?

No tin foil Is needed. The guys who crafted the Amendment they despise above all others made it pretty clear.

 

[Carl]

At a minimum if background checks are required for all transfers/sales then they can shut down the entire market of selling and transfering all firearms by just not answering the phone when an FFL calls for a background check. This is the botteneck they want to put in place. We have a defacto gun control system in place right now on the purchase of new firearms from dealers by the government having the ability to shut down the new firearms market anytime they want. They just stop the background check system which they control. Doesn't everyone see this. A further limitation of requiring background checks for private party sales/transfers will put the government in a position to be able to freeze the possession of firearms in place with the current owners whenever they want under penalty of a felony for transfering a firearm without the legally required background check. What happens when you want to buy or sell a firearm and you can't get approval because the backgound check system is "down"? What happens when the non-firearms owner wants to buy a firearm and the background check system is "down" until further notice. They won't be able to legally buy a firearm. Another reason for a person that doesn't own a firearm to acquire what they want or need now.