Question of the Day: Why Oppose Background Checks if You Have Nothing To Hide?

Whoopi Goldberg and Stephen Colbert (courtesy youtube.com)

In the video below, comedienne and unapologetic gun owner Whoopi Goldberg invites the feds to “come and check all my stuff.” They can “come and find out what I’m doing, where I bought stuff, because I want you to know that I’m not trying to do anything odd with my guns.” Odd? What does that even mean? And yet . . .

this is the exact same attitude I encountered in the Land of Hope and Glory, as I watched the U.K. become the most surveilled nation on planet earth. “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of,” was the logic there.

I’ve also heard that opinion expressed by some gun owners re: “universal background checks.” Why not have the feds make sure you don’t have a criminal background before you buy a gun? Any gun. From anyone.

comments

  1. avatar William Matthews says:

    I have things to hide.

    1. avatar Shotgun Sam says:

      My boat sunk out yonder. Damn shame.

      Come and check if you like.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      It’s never a questions of, “Is Big Brother watching?”

      The question that must always be on your mind is, “What is he looking for?”

    1. avatar William Matthews says:

      Yep.

      1. avatar John says:

        Yep 1000 times!

        Let them in the door to look at your guns and they’ll see your very old piano with ivory keys, or that tchotchke that your grandfather had that is actually a newly illegal pre-columbian artifact, or a copy of that book that was just banned. Off to jail with you.

        Whatever the problem is, more Government is NOT the solution.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Anyone rcvd the Census goons “American Community Survey”. 30pages of invasive question the feds what to gather data. # cars, #toilets, #this/that/everything. Bite me.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          OMG… is it that time again? GRRRR

          And no, I’ve NEVER answered anything on any “survey” or census in 71 years. Nothing. To hell with them.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          My mom got the “long form” census thing once. Any time it asked for a number of things like toilets, she just wrote “Yes”. Toilets? Yes. Cars? Yes. Baths? Yes. TVs? Yes. Oh, and Gender? Yes.

          I was actually surprised she didn’t get thumped on for it, but maybe when you’re past 65 they just shake their heads and figure it’s senility.

  2. avatar Steve says:

    My usual response is to ask if they would be willing to accept universal background checks for all alcohol purchases.

    Since the number of people killed by drunk drivers is roughly equal to the number of firearm homicides its an apt comparison. Just think of the lives we could save if no one with a DUI conviction could buy booze again, and if you don’t have any DUI convictions in your history why should it bother you to submit to a background check everytime you want to buy a bottle of Jack.

    Alot of the problem with anti-gunners is they can’t empathize with our position (well at least the open minded ones you can convince). By bring up the idea of background checks for alcohol purchases I’ve been able to get a few anti-gunners to see the issue from our point of view.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Excellent way to reason about the question. Now, take it to the next level: U-DWI-Checks. Bartenders should run a check each time they serve alcohol to a customer. Hosts should take their guests to a licensed liquor store or bar for a check before they can re-fill the guest’s glass.

      If voters wouldn’t put-up with DWI-Checks at licensed liquor stores why would they entertain the notion of DWI-Checks by bartenders or hosts?

      I think that we PotG are doing a poor job of conveying our arguments against UBC. We howl about running a UBC at a gun-show; and, about a UBC at a garage sale. But these would be relatively minor intrusions compared to the loans we routinely make.

      No matter how many exceptions the Anti’s graciously promise to include in their UBC bills we will all – eventually – become felons for some outside-the-exemptions loan. Why should we submit to a law that turns us into felons for perfectly innocent activities?

      Ask our fellow voters if they would submit to a law that made them felons for turning the keys to their cars over to the parking valet (without running a DMV check on the teenager’s DL). Ask voters if they would submit to a law that required a NICS check when buying gasoline (it ensure that they are not arsonists).

    2. avatar Parnell says:

      It’s funny but your example reminds me of the reaction of most drivers when they get stopped in one of the sobriety checks the police run. I can speak for myself in that I get pissed when I’m delayed anywhere from 20-45 minutes in one of these scams. While we’re all sitting in the parking lot they direct into you hear the usually profane reaction among the waiting drivers. Then after all the wait you get asked some inane question like “What time is it sir?” My answer is usually “It’s X minutes since you pulled me over.” This usually results in the “If it saves one life…” I usually laugh and answer “right”.

  3. avatar mike oregon says:

    “Shall not be infringed” is pretty straight forward. For myself I’d be okay with background checks if that was all the antii-freedom types wanted, but there is always a next with them.

  4. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    This is the easiest question I’ve ever been asked, because their unconstitutional and should be illegal and they don’t prevent anyone from being hurt the more on nut job that just shot up Las Vegas past multiple FBI nics background checks. And what did that do absolutely nothing.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Even disregarding the clear unconstitutionality, the answer is still just that easy. They cost lots of money and accomplish exactly nothing.

      1. avatar Rob "NazyCegroWithAGun" Williams says:

        right on bro

      2. avatar Rob "NazyCegroWithAGun" Williams says:

        No seriously though, you seem to think having those guns prevents the govenment from transforming the US into a totalitarian state, as if thats their fantasy. In fact our long strong democratic tradition coupled with the government and corporate sectors knowledge that our mixed/capitalist economic system makes them significantly richer and more powerful than they could ever be trying to compel drones in a dictatorship to work/comply are two obvious and salient reasons our system will continue much as it is whether you have your guns or not… and the enormous advantage the US military would have against a bunch you yahoos is unimaginable, worse even than the rebels in the Terminator movies, your guns will not make any difference… the only thing you could do is what desperate folks in Palestine and Iraq and countless other victims of indirect and direct US military terror and imperialism do namely run suicide bombing missions… so Id advise you to sell your guns and learn to build cheap easy bombs on the fly out of readily available material…

        1. avatar Chadwick says:

          Wrong country… We don’t have a democracy where three rapist compete with a single 10 year old girl to decide what defines consent. We have a constitutional republic and it is only as strong as those two things.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Head out of the sand, now, the majority of US military would be on our side, the majority of the rest would sit it out, the biggest challenge would be hunting down the traitors and killing them and their families.

      3. avatar Rob "NazyCegroWithAGun" Williams says:

        Chadwick your post is incomprehensible, maybe get a tutor to help you craft a coherent post when you aint drunk : )

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Rob, your ignorance is showing. We do not live in a democracy.

  5. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Why Oppose Background Checks if You Have Nothing To Hide?”

    I don’t oppose them, nor do I support them, I just go along with the program…at this point, it is what it is until things change…

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      Unfortunately your attitude is part of the problem.

      Silence is a form of consent.

      By sitting idly by and just “doing what your told” or “going with the flow” you are merely aiding and abetting the criminals (read: government).

      1. avatar WI Patriot says:

        “Silence is a form of consent”, that the biggest bunch of bullshit to date…
        And I’m not “doing what I’m told”, I’m abiding by the laws that are currently in place until such a time they change…

        You’re what’s wrong with all of this…all your bitching and moaning, gets NOTHING done, and make all other RESPONSIBLE gun owners look like buffoons…

        You’re a fool of MAJOR proportion if you think your tantrums are going to change anything…

        1. avatar Hunter427 says:

          Sheep go along, right to slaughter

        2. avatar Rob "NazyCegroWithAGun" Williams says:

          I cant think of any reason NOT to check if a potential deadly tool purchaser has been arrested in the past for being especially violent and/or is on probation for such and/or has warrants for such… someone above mocked this because the police would harass you once they started searching your house(?!), but this is a records check, a simple records check that would prevent some obvious bad guys from buying deadly tools right?

          Larry you said the mass shooter at the country concert would have passed such a records check as if this is evidence that records checks are useless, but in fact of course it is only evidence that that mass shooter would have passed a records check, it tells us nothing about how many obvious bad guys would be weeded out by such checks, your remark is so blatantly illogical is just silly… maybe get Moe and Curly to walk you through how to draw logical conclusions from evidence : )

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Are you *really* that stupid, or just acting out in mommy’s basement?

        4. avatar jwm says:

          Rob. There’s no such thing as a deadly tool. Or weapon.

          People are deadly. They did a marvelous job of killing long before the gun came into the picture.

  6. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Because with the data basing that is happening in the world today, the danger of true fascism and government over reach is higher than ever. I hope that these snowflakes who are whining about fascism now will ever get to see the real deal.

  7. avatar Noishkel says:

    The entire argument for ‘universe background checks’ is a talking point pushed by the same kind of purposely ignorant hoplophobes that don’t understand the problems with violence in the US to begin with. Which is why Stephen Colbert still has a job. Focusing on the latest moral outrage of whatever instead of an actual examination of how exactly the 10K or so a year fatal shootings occur. Which is half suicide half direct related murders usually against other criminals.

    And this is exactly why those two problems will NEVER be solved. Because both of those situations hinges on the abject failure of the Democratic Party. First in completely abandoning actual mental heath needs that don’t involve a gun ban or neo-marxist identity politics (Just blame everything on whitey!) and then specially ignoring the hows and the whys of all of those shootings given that they’re mostly minority on minority crime in democrat run cities. And no, not that a red state can’t have a crime problem. But by a function of statistics it’s mostly a blue state problem.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      “Mental health” is an incredibly complex thing, and most people with mental or emotional health problems are not any more apt to go out harming others than anyone else in the population. The idea that the violence problem will be eliminated by locking up the “mentally ill” is ridiculous. And suicide is not a gun problem in any case. With the new phase of the “war on drugs,” just watch the suicide rate climb as ordinary people are forced to suffer the tortures of the damned because they can’t get anything to relieve their pain.

      Now, the demoncrats are most certainly responsible for a great many of our problems, they’ve had an awful lot of help from the repucraps and every other kind of non-voluntary political people – whatever they call themselves.

      In either case, the problem is some people controlling other people, not who has guns. Goldberg is a hypocrite and liar. She’s a socialist, and has no problem with some people forcing other people to do whatever she believes in. We have to remember that owning a gun does not make a person automatically a friend of liberty, by any means.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        “Mental health” is an incredibly complex thing”

        Yeah well no sh*t Sherlock. News flash: I’m not sitting here trying to write the most ‘inclusive’ statement to hit all the talking points you want said. I’m trying to not waste excessive amounts of time in making my statement retreading over the obvious. Of course mental health is too complex to be distilled down to just one single title, but suicides are a function of a mental health issue. It’s kind of like the transgender issue. Yeah, it’s functionally a mental health issue, but at the same time the research on it shows a lot of weird hard wired neurological repose issues for people with it not on hormones. But a lot of people want to look at it through their own political lenses and apply their own biases towards what is in reality just a really really rare issue.

        …repucraps…

        Yes, because it is so helpful to you to wipe your own partisan BS on this post. Thanks for that. Yes, the GOP isn’t exactly the best friend the 2A has, but at least they’re not actively going after the gun rights as a corner stone of their campaign of their platform. I’ll pick and choose my allies as I wish, not as you wish I would. I’m done, get bent.

        1. avatar The Punisher says:

          Quite the overreaction there…

          It doesn’t matter what stripe they what they call themselves or their party. If they are pro-state then they are in favor of forcing people to do something. Sure the right and left differ on a few things, guns marginally being one of them…but funnily enough I don’t see any Repubs jumping up and down trying to get any pro-gun legislation passed and they seemed awfully willing to fold on the bump stock ban as it was going around…some “ally”.

          The bigger point Mama was making is that if anyone is exerting coercion and force on anyone for any reason then they are wrong. Just because they may like *some* guns or claim to be all for *some* right doesn’t mean anything if they are in favor of using force on people for some other pet causes…

          No need to get all bent out of shape.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Did you stub your toe or something? Grouchy, grouchy. Sorry to annoy you.

          The problem is that almost everyone seems to think that they can/should “control” other people, as in so much of the “mental health” drama. Leaving them to the care of their families or charities they might appeal to would be a very good idea. Or maybe… just leave them alone!

          As for choosing allies… Of course… you choose for you, every time… and I’ll do the same. The problem is the large number of people who choose political options, and thus enable the power holders to control your life and mine, no matter what we think of it or how much we complain.

          Whenever some people are given power over other people, against their will, tyranny is the inevitable result. The entire history of the world proves that one completely.

          Don’t tell me that rebublicrats have any less interest than the democraps have to exercise exclusive power over each and every one of us. Being less rabid about some aspects of gun ownership doesn’t change that one bit.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        The moment you bring “control” into mental health issues you’re going the wrong direction: trying to control anyone is counter to their good mental health.

        That said, a robust voluntary system for the mentally ill would likely help things measurably — not as much as anyone would like, but some. And it would also cut down on a lot of other problems.

        Arguably it would be of use to having a”well-regulated militia”, since those with mental health issues tend to be substandard to what they would be if healthy.

    2. avatar Rob "NazyCegroWithAGun" Williams says:

      Firstly thanks for teaching me a new word (the first new thing thang any of yous donks have taught the erudite one : D) Im a hoplophobe, having a fired a small handgun twice, made my ears ring, went so of target I have no idea where it hit, made me feel scared and awful, wont ever be shooting anything ever again (except FPS fantasy : ) )

    3. avatar Rob "NazyCegroWithAGun" Williams says:

      Dont worry Im not looking to take you boys hobby away and try to infringe your 2a rights but I wouldnt mind if guns magically didnt exist.

      Guns are yucky. I think of them as power drills, but the drill bits go rocketing through space. Hideous to imagine the horror show violence inflicted by speeding metal on fragile human bodies… and so yicky when you boys cant find a better hobby and go frolicking in the woods looking to put a speeding drill bit in a beautiful animal and take away all it has and all it was ever going to have *weeping*… and then you pose with the cadaver as if its something fun to be proud of…

      I just cant relate to you guys, different mentalities, different worlds… my hobbys by the way frolicking in the woods (minus the horror show), reading serious books, playing chess, ripping you guys a new one : )

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        “…I just cant relate to you guys, ”

        We noticed. So, why is it again that you spend so much time trolling here? And why should we care what you think or like to do?

        Freedom of speech, sure. Freedom to ignore? Absolutely.

  8. avatar Stereodude says:

    What other constitutionally protected right do we take away from people? Once out of jail/prison/completing their sentence do felons lose their 1st amendment rights? How about 5th? 4th? Are background checks even constitutional?

    As per the nothing to hide argument… Everyone has something to hide even if they don’t know it. The various federal, state, and local criminal and regulatory codes in the US are so complex and convoluted it’s impossible to be 100% compliant with all of them. The “Nothing to hide” pretends we live in an idyllic utopia where officials never abuse their power to persecute those people they don’t like. Since we all know that’s not the case there’s no reason to make it easier for the gov’t to abuse it’s power.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Taking away other people’s constitutional rights is quite popular. Look at the laws concerning “sex offenders”: they rip so many rights it’s obscene (enough so that in some places such offenders feel they’re better off in prison) — including religion and due process.

      1. avatar Rob "NazyCegroWithAGun" Williams says:

        EXCELLENT point, I agree NRA and convicted pedophiles are naturally allies, well said, fight fer yer right to party boys!!

  9. avatar Defens says:

    Several points:
    1. Our entire system of jurisprudence is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The 4th amendment secures us from unreasonable searches and seizures, unreasonable being interpreted to mean without at least probable cause – background checks MANDATE a search into your background, for the “probably cause” of wanting to commit a lawful act of commerce. The 5th amendment protects us from self-incrimination – known felons are protected from the requirement of submitting to a background check for this very reason; should normal citizens have any less protection?

    2. You never know when the definition of “if you aren’t doing anything wrong” will change. How about the Californians who dutifully registered their SKS rifles, only to have the government later seek them out because, “Ooops! We made a mistake; we didn’t have the authority to authorize possession of those evil, decades old, carbine.” which leads me to,

    3. We ALL have something to hide – whether we even know it or not, any citizen could probably be prosecuted for breaking some arcane law at any given time. Look at all the politicians – duly elected officials – who probably could not pass a background check. Liberal mayors seem to be fairly egregious examples of this group.

  10. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Why have privacy at all? This is the crux of their argument. It shouldn’t be a surprising position coming from people that have blind faith in unelected bureaucrats running the country.

  11. avatar pieslapper says:

    Then they would have no problems with background checks before abortions right?

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Go to the basics: background checks before sex.

  12. avatar Gman says:

    Background checks are unconstitutional.
    Background checks serve no purpose at all; other than to harass citizens.
    Background checks do not stop anyone who wants a gun from getting one.
    96-98.5% of all initial denials are reversed.
    If we really want to stop criminals from getting guns then don’t let them out of prison. Why would we want someone we don’t trust with a gun among us in the first place?
    How did we ever survive 222 years without them?

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Funny coming from Ms. Johnson…it is well known “she” is a partaker of the illegal herb. Sooooooo…if she has EVER undergone a background check and lied “she” is a criminal. BTW we have UBC in Illinois. Not in neighboring Indiana. Guess which state is awash in “guncrime” and murder?!?

  14. avatar joetast says:

    Whoopi Goldberg. she vote for Clinton? I thought she was one of them ” I’m moving to Canada if Trump gets elected ” …

  15. avatar Warlocc says:

    The problem is, the concept of a background check before a gun purchase isn’t an unreasonable thing to most people. “Before we give you a gun, we should check to see if you’re known to rob banks.” Just like “Before I hire you at this shoe store, I should check if you’re known to steal shoes.”

    It makes sense to the average person. Unfortunately, the average person doesn’t stop to consider how flawed the data is, how incomplete it is, and in some cases, how it’s flat out wrong. Anyone remember the toddler that had the same name as a terrorist on the no fly list?

    I suspect if background checks actually had relevant, correct data and didn’t include any kind of national gun registry, most gun owners could get behind the idea.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “The problem is, the concept of a background check before a gun purchase isn’t an unreasonable thing to most people. “Before we give you a gun, we should check to see if you’re known to rob banks.””

      And *this* is how you turn that crap right back at them :

      If they want background checks, I DEMAND internet ISP logs be made public, with *zero* exceptions.

      Your neighbors should have a right to know if someone near you has an interest in kiddie-porn, Islamist literature like that e-mag ‘Inspire’ (remember “Build a bomb in the kitchen of your mom?) or any other perversion.

      After all, if they aren’t doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

      RIGHT?

      *That* is how to attack crap like that…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Warlocc, let’s not forget that we already have background checks, have had them for over 30 years at unknown cost to taxpayers, gunowners and dealers, and they have accomplished absolutely nothing, which could have been predicted. Once they proved useless, the excuse (prepared from day one due to the obvious fact they would fail) suddenly “discovered” is that they are not universal. Once universal, we *FINALLY* have the holy grail, a firearms registry, which was the goal all along. We can start preparing the forces for door-to-door confiscation.
      If you disagree, please forward theories of any other possible result.

      1. avatar Warlocc says:

        You don’t have to sell me, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. I live in MA, I know how bad they are.

  16. avatar W says:

    How disingenuous or disconnected. Goldberg is a very wealthy, very connected, very prominent member of the elite. When someone mis-transcribes a serial number on some rusty old crime scene snubbie, absolutely no one is going to kick in her front door in the middle of the night, looking for an illegal firearms transaction. If some new law means some old thing is no longer legal, her address will be the absolute last one visited. If she doesn’t understand this, then she is duller than dull.

  17. avatar Shire-man says:

    They’re useless and stupid. Why should I have to tolerate useless stupidity?

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    Really I don’t have a problem with the background check in-and-of itself.

    My problem is with the not-so subtle suggestion that I am doing something wrong and hence require the check, that whole Constitution bit, the records that are generated and the fact that while costing a fair chunk of money backgrounding people is basically useless.

  19. avatar Icabod says:

    Washington State has had universal background checks since 2014. The text of the law showed numerous rules a person could inadvertently break them. As example loaning someone a gun at the range was a “transfer.” Police said they wouldn’t enforce the law to that level.
    After two years, the first charge has been brought. Man was killed with a gun. Questioned, another man said he’d sold the gun. No background check and the killer was 19 and under aged. Police decided that as the guy said he sold the gun, why not charge him? There are a few problems. First the gun is gone. Likely tossed into the ocean. Second the guy is gone. Third, the supporters of the law claimed “50 illegal gun transfers were stopped by the law.” This was along with the 3,948 people caught by checks at gun shops. That’s about 2%. Now you ask ” How many of these 50 criminals were arrested?” Answer “0.” Never mind taken to court.
    As with the thousands of other local, state, and federal gun laws, they aren’t effective if they aren’t prosecuted.

  20. avatar Son of Alan says:

    Brady background check for new sales, don’t have a huge issue with it, the camel’s nose is under the tent already. I do have an issue with the private sales, because now we are talking a registry. This would give the anti-gunners a huge hard-on if they could account for 90-95% of the gun stocks. I also believe if someone wanted to sell something on the private market, you should be able to visit a website and get a yea or nay answer on an individual. Keep the documentation for 10 year period, that you checked. It is the same if you are shipping something to an out of state FFL, you can verify that he exist and does business at this address. This also should not have a fee. The biggest unintended consequence of background checks in California is $35 fee, everybody wants you to take that loss as the seller, so I never sell anything. So they are making ‘Super Owners’ due to their laws. Oh, and don’t forget about the ammo hoarders now, new laws will have people keeping 10,000 – 100,000 rounds on hand now.

  21. Why would you object to submitting to a background check before making a public utterance or entering a place of worship, if you have nothing to hide?

  22. avatar Snatchums says:

    Why don’t you want me to search your vehicle if you have nothing to hide?

    Because fuck you, that’s why.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Best. Response. Ever.

    2. avatar Matt(Tx) says:

      Dang it Snatchums, you beat me to it.

      BFYTW! Best reply to the trolls.

  23. avatar todd says:

    Why oppose voter ID checks if you have nothing to hide? (start the countdown until the libs’ heads explode)

    1. avatar Nigel the Expat says:

      ^ That. Right there.

  24. avatar Dave says:

    I have no problem with universal background checks.

    It would certainly make a small, but significant, effect on the amount of guns getting into the hands of felons.

    Of course, all the folks here will come up with myriad excuses of why it won’t help at all. Fanatics will do that. But the evidence is overwhelming.

    The problem of course is that the antigunners will never stop. We could cut the death toll by 75% and they would still be coming after our guns just the same as always.

    1. avatar Professor 'Didn't Quite Make it' says:

      Do you support a 100% national registry of guns? UBCs don’t work without a registry.

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      You dismiss all opposing views out of hand and demonize their proponents as fanatics, without even addressing those views or providing a scrap of the “overwhelming evidence”, and you don’t see the irony? Pssst…..you’re the fanatic.

      The fact is that we already know where criminals get their guns and it’s not from licensed dealers. Most criminals are already prohibited possessors who are already breaking the law to obtain guns. Adding new laws on top of that won’t affect them one bit.

      New laws will only make lawful purchases more difficult, expensive, and less common. Stifling good Americans’ ability to exercise their 2A rights is what universal background checks are all about. Crime fighting is just a smokescreen.

    3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      “It would certainly make a small, but significant, effect on the amount of guns getting into the hands of felons.”

      Got any proof of that? A “small” effect? I don’t even think it is that good. People who want to buy/steal guns to harm others don’t care about the “law” or these stupid checks. They have other sources.

      And are all “felons” the source of the violence? The only source? If so, why not a UBC for the purchase of matches, gasoline, baseball bats, plumbing supplies….

      Why just guns?

    4. avatar Occam's Laser says:

      “It would certainly make a small, but significant, effect on the amount of guns getting into the hands of
      felons.”
      Really, Dave? Really?
      Try 3.5 people per year for NICS:
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/bruce-w-krafft/the-problem-with-universal-background-checks-part-1/
      Don’t we have better uses for those resources?

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It would certainly have ABSOLUTELY ZERO effect on felons getting guns.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        That depends on what you mean by “effect”. It would probably mean that dozens of felons would have to travel an extra half mile to get a gun or two. It certainly wouldn’t stop any.

  25. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    I’m against universal background checks because universal background checks don’t mean universal background checks. What they really mean is banning private sales of firearms.

    You see, the only people with access to the FBI’s NICS database to initiate a background check are those holding federal firearms licenses (FFLs). Mandating universal background checks means mandating that all saled go through FFLs, meaning firearms dealers. That precludes all sales between private individuals, like you and your buddy.

    Why does this matter? Because the federal government controls who gets an FFL, who keeps their license, what security and reporting and operating practices they must abide by. Basically, they can throttle the entire firearms industry because they control who’s allowed to sell them. Everyone else is by definition a criminal.

    They can drive up prices and make supply scarce by driving sellers out of the market. The purpose is to make gun ownership more expensive by making the gun business more onerous. Fewer guns begets fewer gunowners and, eventually, fewer 2A supporters to vote against them.

    The proof? If the liberals REALLY cared about safety and really believed that background checks could provide it, then they would allow everyone to access the NICS system. Instead, they refuse. They blocked that idea in the 1990s with the Brady Bill and blocked in again after Sandy Hook. They block it vecause they don’t believe in any of it. They just want to deceive the public into going along with their de facto private sales ban, all in the phony name of universal background checks.

    1. avatar joetast says:

      About twenty years ago I could call my county sheriff’s Dept. Ask them to run the numbers on a gun I was looking to buy privately” I don’t have FFL license. I tried that recently and they wanted for me to bring the gun in,. ,,,,, Yeah right

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Sounds like time to vote for a non-incumbent candidate for sheriff.
        If that’s his idea of public service, throw him out.

  26. avatar Seizure doc says:

    When I go to my friendly ACME gun seller I have to fill out a form and wait for it to clear. If I want a long gun I can get it immediately and if I want a short gun (handgun) I have to wait 3 days. I have never seen a gun sold any other way.
    Is there any gun seller who operates legally who does not do this ? Is this not a background check ? What exactly do the anti gun people want with universal background checks ? Please explain. I have only been involved in shooting sports for one year so I am sure there is plenty I don’t yet know. However, I just do not get what “universal background checks” would add.
    A respectful request to the POTG for wisdom. No wise guys saying “you’ve come to the wrong place.” Also, no “as soon as you think you’ve got it figured out, you’re wrong”.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Yes, doc, the form you fill out to buy a gun, any gun, from a dealer is the same everywhere. Only some places still impose a “waiting period” on handguns, however. There is no such thing here in Wyoming. And you can carry it any way you wish here too, as long as you are prepared to accept the personal responsibility of doing so.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      The difference between “universal background checks” and the Federal NICS check is this: That check that a FFL dealer makes when you buy a gun from him would be expanded to ANY INSTANCE where a gun changes hands! Washington State voters passed a bill that requires a background check if you buy a gun from a friend, neighbor, or anyone.

      But – it doesn’t stop there. If I am in my house, and hand a gun to my buddy – technically he’d need to undergo a background check. After he looks at it for five minutes, and hands it back I would need another background check. Teaching a few friends how to shoot at the range? Multiple background checks needed, every time someone trades guns to shoot. Inherit a gun from your Dad, cousin, uncle? Background checks.

      This has had a huge chilling effect in our state on opportunities to learn – since instructors aren’t willing to be charged with first a misdemeanor, and then a felony on subsequent violations, for bringing some guns to a range or classroom for students to borrow.

      Without background checks, it even became illegal for you to hand your hunting partner your shotgun, while you cross under a barbed wire fence!

      That’s one of the reasons for the fierce opposition – the intrusion on normal shooting activities is just crazy.

      The other reason for opposition is this – when an FFL does a background check, they link you with a specific gun and serial number. It doesn’t have to be that way, but that’s how NICS works. In theory, the government is not supposed to maintain any record of that transaction or a registry of gun owners and the guns they own. Laws have been passed mandating the destruction of those records, in fact. Does anybody really believe that all those transactions aren’t being recorded “somewhere?”

      For that reason, a great many astute individuals buy their guns from private parties. These aren’t murdering, foul criminals who couldn’t pass a background check – it’s normal upright citizens who don’t want to have their guns registered. Which is, of course, the dream of any antigunner – knowing where they are so the can eventually confiscate them. So, many of us see UBC as the first step in the path to “Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in,” in the words of the delightful Sen. Diane Feinstein.

      1. Why crawl under a barbed-wire fence when you can climb over with a Safe-T-Stepper (http://www.safe-t-stepper.com/)?

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Obviously a product intended to encourage trespassing.

        2. Which makes as much sense as saying semi-autos are obviously intended to encourage mass-murders.

          My Safe-T-Stepper is intended to avoid ripped clothing and flesh – with landowner permission, of course.

      2. avatar Seizure doc says:

        Thanks Defens. There does seem to be overlap between current checks and proposed UBCs. I have no illusions as to the end goal with either and no confidence that a legal gun purchase I make is not recorded somewhere. The only way the govt does not have the gps coordinates of my house and every firearm I own legally is if I am a democrat politician. As you might guess, I am not that.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The difference is that UBC accomplishes nothing without a universal registry of every gun in America. Specifically forbidden in the BC law right now, yet most folks who think about it believe registries are being illegally prepared at taxpayer expense every day. The entire goal of UBC is to finally get that registry. And a registry is good for exactly nothing except confiscation.

      Also, any UBC law would prove absolutely unenforceable, I sold that gun years (or decades) before the law was in effect.

  27. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Why oppose background checks if I have nothing to hide?

    Four simple reasons:
    (1) Government can declare anything, by fiat, to be a felony.
    (2) Government can under-resource any background check system.
    (3) Background checks do not prevent violent crime.
    (4) It is patently offensive and obscene if I must receive government permission before acquiring or possessing personal property.

    And before anyone poo-poos “felony by fiat”, consider this situation which could literally happen to just about anyone:
    You are walking on a nature trail: you see a turkey feather on the ground, pick it up, and take it home. As it turns out that turkey feather is actually an eagle feather and possessing an eagle feather is a felony. If fedzilla finds it in your home and prosecutes you, congratulations: you are a “prohibited person” and cannot purchase, own, borrow, or possess firearms!

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      The list and example are a concise response.

      Thank you.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      I know someone who got caught in that mess. Fortunately he had a friend who actually had federal paperwork allowing him to collect feathers. The friend filled out a form indicating that the feather had been caught on clothing and only discovered later, at which point he ‘collected’ it. The feds bought the accidental “acquisition” and let it go.

      The same guy covered for the pastor at my church at the time when an eagle decided to perch on his windmill tower and a couple of feathers fell on the property. If the pastor had picked up the feathers himself or just left them on the property, he would have become a felon, but since someone authorized to collect feathers took them off the property he was fine. When a federal wildlife officer was asked what would have happened if the pastor hadn’t known they were eagle feathers and had just let them lay, the answer was that he would have been in unlawful possession and arrested.

      Maybe the moral is that if you ever find an eagle feather, quickly place it on the property of a liberal politician and then report it.

    3. avatar Roymond says:

      My buddy looking over my shoulder reminded me of another one:

      You’re walking through the park at night. Two 14-year-olds successfully ambush you and knock you unconscious. Being girls and thinking you’re hot, they pull your pants down and go for a little ‘ride’.

      Result, under law? You just became a rapist, a felon.

  28. avatar oliver says:

    Why oppose random body cavity searches if you have nothing to hide?

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      AT the airport?

  29. avatar Ray from Bama says:

    Presumption of innocence maybe?

  30. avatar Ralph says:

    The background check is irrelevant. What’s important to the .gov is the 4473. The 4473. Wake up. You’ve been hornswoggled. Nobody in government gives a damn about background checks, just the 4473.

    That’s why private sellers are not allowed to use the NICS system, even though it’s set up for anyone to use. With private sellers, there’s no way to enforce any record keeping requirement, so there’s no lasting paper trail.

    And we all know how the G loves them some paper trails.

  31. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Having nothing to hide is very different from showing all you’ve got.

    The government has no business in my business except as defined in the Fourth Amendment. If .gov has reasonable cause and under a specific affedavit to search then we can discuss who sees what, when, where, and how much.

  32. The problem with “background checks” is that, as others have indicated in this thread, there are so many different kinds. The least of these is the NICS check – which is less troublesome because the NRA was involved in creating the system. Everything else is worse to some degree…….

    That said, two more points:

    1) Given that Heller makes it clear that felons and the severely mentally ill may be denied firearms, a generally rapid check such as NICS is almost certainly constitutional – at least according to SCOTUS. What isn’t is all the garbage that frequently gets added in, such as waiting periods.

    2) If the other side is so interested in expanding background checks, why don’t they open the NICS to private sellers? I think many of us would use it when selling to strangers. The fact that they have never even suggested such action, even though it would prevent lawful gun owners from unknowingly selling to prohibited persons, speaks volumes about their true motives………..

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “why don’t they open the NICS to private sellers?”

      Exactly. The G doesn’t care about background checks. It cares about having a record of every sale (the 4473), and it wants that record retained and maintained by people over whom it has the power of the purse (the FFLs).

  33. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    Question of the Day: Why Oppose Background Checks if You Have Nothing To Hide?

    Let’s rephrase that question:

    Why Oppose a property search without a warrant if You Have Nothing To Hide?
    Why Oppose a body cavity search if You Have Nothing To Hide?

    What say you whoopi??

    On second thought, whoopi and body cavity search makes me ill…forget that one.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Ted Danson liked it.

  34. avatar Twoboxer says:

    I’m perfectly willing to allow the same background checks for firearms (a constitutional right) as there are for voter registration and voting (NOT a constitutional right).

  35. avatar chris says:

    I’m not opposed to background checks per se, I understand them and I’m ok with it. I’m opposed to the fact that there’s a 10-day waiting period here in california when most background checks only take about an hour to complete. That whole ‘cooling off period’ concept is a load of horseshit, it’s just an excuse because I already own more than one pistol.

    “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of” is what the police say when you decline their offer to search you. Um, yeah I have nothing to be afraid of but I also have nothing to prove to you, I already know that I’m a law-abiding citizen and my clean record shows that.

    1. avatar John says:

      You should be opposed to them, though.

      It’s just another example of “may your chains lay lightly upon you”. People who are law abiding and peacable have no problem passing a background check. Those who wish others harm have no problem getting a firearm. Background checks are a wasteful burden on the innocent that provides absolutely no benefit of any kind.

    2. avatar John says:

      You should be opposed to them, though.

      It’s just another example of “may your chains lay lightly upon you”. People who are law abiding and peacable have no problem passing a background check. Those who wish others harm have no problem getting a firearm. Background checks are a wasteful burden on the innocent that provides absolutely no benefit of any kind.

      Note having trouble posting this. I left the @ out of my email addy the first time and now its claiming a duplicate post.

    3. avatar John says:

      You should be opposed to them, though.

      It’s just another example of “may your chains rest lightly upon you…”.

      People who are law abiding and peacable have no problem passing a background check. Those who wish others harm have no problem getting a firearm. Background checks are a wasteful burden on the innocent that provides absolutely no benefit of any kind.

      Note having trouble posting this. I left the @ out of my email addy the first time and now its claiming a duplicate post.

  36. avatar John Boch says:

    So then Whoopi would not be opposed to background checks to get IDs before voting, right? After all, if people have nothing to hide…

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      She should embrace background checks before anyone buys any of her stuff.

    2. avatar chris says:

      Who gives a rat’s ass what Whoopi Goldberg thinks, she’s 60 years old and never made a good movie in her life. If she really gave a goddamn, she would have never agreed to be in movies with gun violence, but she has because at the end of the day she wants money and attention.

  37. avatar Accur81 says:

    Why do I oppose background checks?
    1. You have to pay for them. Every. Single. One.
    2. There are tens of thousands of mistakes in the system.
    3. A false positive has already cost me lots of time and money. My criminal record consists of a speeding ticket in 1997 and another in 1999.
    4. The list of prohibited persons expands without reason- like the “No Fly” list.
    5. It’s another thing that makes it harder to get a gun, without offering anything easier to get a gun.
    6. Should I be denied, I can’t directly face my accuser, nor will I be compensated for my time doing so.
    7. They are ineffective. A gangbanger’s girlfriend can legally buy a gun and give it to her gangbanger boyfriend and report it “stolen.” (Something that’s also done a lot with rental cars)
    8. Does the government do background checks on the massive shipments of guns and ammo we send to other countries? Did Obama do background checks when he shipped guns to Mexico?
    9. Should the system go down, I am considered guilty until proven innocent.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      “A gangbanger’s girlfriend can legally buy a gun and give it to her gangbanger boyfriend and report it ‘stolen.’”

      Well what you described is a straw purchase which is illegal but unenforceable. Unless you have a mind-reading device, which doesn’t exist, you can’t really tell that it is one or not.

  38. avatar fteter says:

    My reaction to somebody coming over to check my guns a la Whoopi’s suggestion: So glad you guys are here. I just discovered that all my guns were stolen. You can help me file the police report.

  39. avatar Jbw says:

    If you’re not guilty then you don’t need an attorney just tell the cops the truth and everything will be fine. Sure it will. A friend of mine did that and was convicted of felony income tax evasion. Don’t talk to the cops, FBI or anyone like that without a lawyer. There are a million “if you have nothing to hide, then let us …..” Background checks are the first step to register all guns. The atf was supposed to destroy all the 4473s but they don’t.

  40. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    That mouthy creature, Whoopi Goldberg, has got a lot of balls, she’s an admitted former prostitute (no doubt convictions expunged) and a chronic pot smoker who has bragged about blowing blunts at home and likely in the chauffeured limo (armed driver/former-retired law enforcement) that picks her up each morning carts her smelly ass to the ABC’s Midtown Manhattan studio (which has NYPD outside and armed security inside) then deposits her at her door in the mid-afternoon at her multi-million dollar mansion in toney Llewellyn Park, a walled upscale enclave (designed and founded by Thomas Edison) in West Orange N.J. which has it’s own 24/7/365 armed security detail, guard booths, and regular patrols. “F” her and the rest of The Shrews especially that gargoyle Joy Behar.

  41. avatar Joe R. says:

    If your scared, say your scared.

    Why would the gov’t want to check my background, if it wasn’t scared, and trying to protect itself.

    Cause it can’t protect you, and it ain’t even trying. I fing guarantee it.

  42. avatar Stereodude says:

    I’m guessing Whoopi doesn’t support stop and frisk though. I mean if you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the issue with it?

  43. avatar Elmer J. Fudd says:

    Whoopi, nothing to hide.

    Hey Whoopi, do you use marijuana? Do you openly admit it? Like to see her answer to ATF 4473 11e.

    Love how Bill Maher on his show constantly talks about smoking marijuana. Like to see his answer to ATF 4473 11e.

    Only way they obtained their guns is if they answered no to 11e. If they lied, they falsely represented themselves on ATF Form 4473. Possible felony?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email