I am for Universal Background Checks!

[2A_Tom]

Interestingly, no one who is pro-UBC has posted a reply.

I assume they know the "Gun Community" at large is against UBC and are avoiding confrontation, which is OK. I wish there was some way to hear the side of the 3 INGO, NRA members who are pro.

I understand low information voters who are not in the gun community and therefore not NRA members following the left's march toward less freedom. It is difficult to conceive of an informed person being pro. Of course there is also a number of gun owners who do not understand that Constitutional Carry would not make it easier for criminals to obtain/carry firearms.

 

[Expat]

Interestingly, no one who is pro-UBC has posted a reply.

I assume they know the "Gun Community" at large is against UBC and are avoiding confrontation, which is OK. I wish there was some way to hear the side of the 3 INGO, NRA members who are pro.

I understand low information voters who are not in the gun community and therefore not NRA members following the left's march toward less freedom. It is difficult to conceive of an informed person being pro. Of course there is also a number of gun owners who do not understand that Constitutional Carry would not make it easier for criminals to obtain/carry firearms.

Geraldo Rivera and two shill accounts?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Wonder how surprised we'd be at the number who are against constitutional carry too? Some people are just contrarians or those that just like to stir the pot a bit. Could be one or more of those in the poll are just that. But I wouldn't be all that surprised if we had more than we think that, if given a chance to pull the lever for a law that would institute UBCs, would do it. So many people believe a law that would effectively prohibit them from a certain behavior or, alternatively, encourage them to behave some new way would do the same to everyone else.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have a hard time detecting liars, because I do not expect you to lie to me. I can believe that many think that laws will constrain others by the same reasoning.

Some may believe that new laws are for the betterment of society as a whole, but many have a more pernicious bent toward CONTROL.

Only two laws are necessary.

 

[Expat]

I have a hard time detecting liars, because I do not expect you to lie to me. I can believe that many think that laws will constrain others by the same reasoning.

Some may believe that new laws are for the betterment of society as a whole, but many have a more pernicious bent toward CONTROL.

Only two laws are necessary.

On the first part, it sounds like you are saying some people are completely lacking in common sense and incapable of thinking logically but more than happy to impose their ideas on others...

Last part, amen.

 

[gregr]

Wonder how surprised we'd be at the number who are against constitutional carry too? Some people are just contrarians or those that just like to stir the pot a bit. Could be one or more of those in the poll are just that. But I wouldn't be all that surprised if we had more than we think that, if given a chance to pull the lever for a law that would institute UBCs, would do it. So many people believe a law that would effectively prohibit them from a certain behavior or, alternatively, encourage them to behave some new way would do the same to everyone else.

Yup. It just blows me away when I hear someone claim to be pro-gun, but then, for "reasonable gun restrictions", or against constitutional carry and all that. It doesn`t add up.

 

[Cldedhnds]

<<<<<

Cold Dead Hands, etc

NO!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

When I took Statistics, we were told to expect about 5% of people to be contrarian simply to be contrarian. That if you asked something like "do you think it's a good idea to hit yourself in the genitals with a ball peen hammer?" 5% would say yes just because. The last time I posted this was when a poll here showed 7% of INGO would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Additionally, some folks may not know the difference between UBC and the NICS check done at an FFL.

 

[Principal Skinr]

I've been thinking about the effectiveness of background checks, and probably the only thing they do is keep felons from directly purchasing new firearms. I can't help but wonder if that increases burglary and the market for stolen firearms, because I certainly don't see any evidence that it makes it any less likely for a felon wanting a firearm to get one. Of course, I've never seen any research on it, so I'm just surmising.

I think the most effective thing the background check does is to make a record of the firearm purchases of law abiding people.

 

[Jeepster48439]

I think the most effective thing the background check does is to make a record of the firearm purchases of law abiding people.

And the recordation of a gun sale to a law-abiding citizen is a good thing?

 

[Bill of Rights]

NRA Lifer, answer is no, I do not support UBCs. Never mind that they don't work for any purpose that stops crime, they are an unConstitutional violation of our rights.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gregr]

NRA Lifer, answer is no, I do not support UBCs. Never mind that they don't work for any purpose that stops crime, they are an unConstitutional violation of our rights.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rhino]

I've been thinking about the effectiveness of background checks, and probably the only thing they do is keep felons from directly purchasing new firearms. I can't help but wonder if that increases burglary and the market for stolen firearms, because I certainly don't see any evidence that it makes it any less likely for a felon wanting a firearm to get one. Of course, I've never seen any research on it, so I'm just surmising.

I think the most effective thing the background check does is to make a record of the firearm purchases of law abiding people.

Which is, of course, the primary purpose (unacknowledged) by proponents of the UBC. It's about registration of gun owners, not about stopping violent crime.

 

[SSGSAD]

Absofreakinglutely.................​"NO"

I am the NRA ..... Endowment Member .....

 

[Yamadog35]

NRA Life/Endowment member - NO!

 

[Riflemen14]

Nope never, ever to ubc bs. I am a NRA Life-Endowment member

 

[10mmfan]

well my fat fingers strike again. I am an NRA member. NO NO I DO NOT SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. Accidentally hit yes on poll.

 

[Bill of Rights]

well my fat fingers strike again. I am an NRA member. NO NO I DO NOT SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. Accidentally hit yes on poll.

Poll numbers corrected to account for this. Added one NRA Member No and removed one NRA Member Yes.

Noted here for transparency.

 

[actaeon277]

So we're at 4 percent yes

 

[Phase2]

Poll numbers corrected to account for this. Added one NRA Member No and removed one NRA Member Yes.

Noted here for transparency.

Can you change my vote to "bacon"?