Connect with us

‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not

2nd Amend.

‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.



Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.


  1. $13614178

    January 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Just more control for the communist government , I say < UP YOURS !

  2. RCR

    January 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    The person sharing the gun has a responsibility to make sure the person receiving the weapon is a responsible individual who will use the gun appropriately. Otherwise they could give the gun away and it may be used in a murder, etc. So then what? Isn’t the person who gave the gun away responsible?
    They should be and should be held as accountable as the person pulling the trigger. By so doing, the person who possessed the gun initially may think before sharing the gun, if he consequences are severe.

    • gwinf

      January 25, 2013 at 5:54 pm

      What if the gun is stolen?

    • Greg Smith

      January 26, 2013 at 9:27 am

      By your logic, (lack thereof) I should be responsible if I sell my car to a driver who gets drunk and has a wreck. What if a son passes a BC and receives his fathers hand-me-down gun and later goes beserk, killing many. Is the father responsible or the son? Your thought process has too many holes in it. By your logic, (lack thereof) the average citizen in this FREE country will have to prove his innocence before he can own a gun. Thats just wrong. Here, we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Don’t like it? There are plenty of totalitarian countrys you can move to.

  3. foxxybey

    January 25, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    The crooks won’t be on the list, so don’t need it, I agree with marineh2ominer, Semper Fi friend:

  4. Don

    January 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    We need to do a background on our president. There are far to many unanswered questions with this man.

  5. gwinf

    January 25, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    To get my concealed carry, I had to give a list of all the places I have lived since I was 18 along with the dates. Since I have been around a while, that was a rather daunting task. If I have to do that to get permission from the government to carry my gun concealed, why is it that the man who is supposedly running this country does not have to do the same. Where we he since he turned 18?

    • JohnHD

      January 26, 2013 at 1:08 pm

      This my friend is an awfully good question. But don’t expect an answer.

      • TexasOlTimer

        January 27, 2013 at 8:10 am

        I agree totally. However, those in Washington appear to feel that they are either above or outside the laws that govern the rest of us. Feinstein’s gun control bill exempts government officials. Obamacare exempts Congress. Why should the President be any different? A recent judge stated that because Obama is recognized as the President by our country and others, lives in the White House, has Secret Service security, etc., then he must lawfully be the President (invoking the fictional judge in “Miracle on 34th Street” about Santa). We now live in an alternate universe where the people are no longer in charge, we have no freedoms, up is down and right is wrong. Normal average everyday patriotic Americans are now “right-wing terrorists.”

        And I read recently that the FBI – the one that does our background checks (thank goodness I didn’t have to list addresses going back to age 18 to get a CHL – I’d still be writing!) – doesn’t have background checks to be in the FBI. In this upside down world, I assume that’s an accurate report.

        • Douglas W. Rodrigues

          January 29, 2013 at 12:37 am

          Barack Obama has pulled off the greatest FRAUD in the history of the United States. The Washington politicians are complicit in the fraud.

  6. ves

    January 25, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    They want to background check us … when is someone going to do a legitmate background check on THEM????
    I have a sneaky hunch that the majority of sitting elected government officials could no longer get a Legitmate Security Clearance!
    Start at the TOP because WE Already know HIS DOCUMENTS ARE FORGED!!

  7. Jaime Cancio

    January 25, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    The right to privacy trumps all the laws they would write…and makes them unconstitutional.

  8. James Maxwell

    January 25, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    Not only NO, but HELL NO. I do not trust any thing put for they the socialist democrat pig in
    Washington, DC. Politicans are coward who have lied, cheated and commited vile acts while
    in office. Now they expect us to “Trust” them and expect them to honor their oath of office now?
    Not lately numbnuts with rare exception there is not trust for lawyers who would sell their own
    mother down the river for a vote from the leftist pigs who hate America.

  9. JohnHD

    January 26, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    This is a hell of a requirement suggested by a man who has hidden his own background. Does he somehow think he is above such a requirement?

  10. forestman52

    January 26, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Don’t comply! If everyone refuses to comply nationwide there isn’t much the can do without risking the start of a civil war.

  11. Eddy Fudd

    January 26, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    He’s an “ILLEGAL ALIEN!” Make no mistake about it, and if this discussion continues to take place, he should be boarding a tramp steamer, out of New York, before 20 Feb 13. Just wait…

  12. TexasOlTimer

    January 27, 2013 at 9:01 am

    Have any of the gun control laws that have been passed worked?

    The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 covered only machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, as well as mufflers and silencers. It didn’t ban these but placed a tax on the transfer of such guns (taxing was within the legal ability of Congress). It also required the registration of NFA covered weapons. In 1968 the Supreme Court ruled that the registration requirement violated an individual’s 5th Amendment right and made the law unenforceable.

    In the Gun Control Act of 1968 (response to all the violence of the ’60s – JFK, RFK and MLK, riots, etc.) it prohibited interstate traffic in firearms and ammo, denied guns to felons, minors, drug addicts and the mentally ill, as well as the importation of surplus military weapons and guns and ammo not certified as sporting weapons or souvenirs. This was passed under Pres. Johnson.

    Then in the ’80s came the attempted assassination of Reagan and the wounding of his press secretary, Jim Brady. Reagan and Bush were both opposed to the Brady Handgun Bill but it was finally passed under Clinton. This bill did require background checks at the federal level but a court decision blocked this. However the provisions invalidated by the Court were, by law, to be phased out by November 1998 when the NICS was to be in place. The vast majority of law enforcement agencies continued the background checks on a voluntary basis.

    The common thread to these bills are reaction to specific violence (mobs in the 30s, riots and assassinations or attempts in the 60s, and attempted assassination in the 80s) as well as passage under Democrat Presidents (FDR, Johnson and Clinton). None addressed the prevention of violence by evil, deranged, or otherwise criminal individuals, just as the Executive Orders recently signed by Pres. Obama do nothing to prevent a tragedy such as happened at Sandy Hook.

    Did we have more violence by the mentally ill, minors or drug addicts prior to the passage of any of these bills than now? Have the laws in any state or city curbed this? If so, why does Chicago with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country have the highest murder rate? Why does Vermont with some of the least strict laws also have the third lowest crime rate? Why are the mass shootings happening in known “gun free zones” and not in gun stores?

    Felons and criminals have no fear of gun bans, background checks or any other regulation concerning guns. They can purchase them on the black market (see inner city gangs in many of the large cities). Those that are law abiding citizens that gave a gun to a mom or a shotgun to a grandson were not the ones that created the violence in any of these decades. The laws that have been passed do nothing to curb that. Like everything else the government does as a knee jerk reaction to emotion (or to come a step closer to an ideology) is pass a law curbing the freedoms of average Americans. The criminal, mentally ill or simply evil individual does as he pleases until caught by the police.

    • TexasJester

      January 27, 2013 at 11:31 am

      Criminals disobey the law – that’s why they are CRIMINALS. Sandy Hook was committed by an insane person, who murdered his own mother to get handguns, then ignored the “gun-free zone” signs, and committed his atrocities. Aurora shooter ignored the “gun-free zone” signs and brought weapons into the theatre to commit his atrocities – and he scoped out several theatres to find one that was posted “gun-free zone”. Columbine – 2 kids whacked out on psychotropic drugs stole their weapons from a relative, locked a guard out of the building, and committed their atrocities.

      Criminals he’ll-bent on causing death and destruction don’t care about gun laws or gun bans – and they LOVE “gun-free zone” signs! It means they can commit their atrocities unopposed! We need to eliminate gun bans and “gun free zones”, and arm more citizens – that way we will be safer, because the criminal never knows when they’ll have armed opposition.

      I once saw security cam video of an attempted gun store robbery – 2 armed guys came in, and 4 clerks and 3 customers – all conceal-carry – unloaded on these guys…. It did not end well for the criminals.. And how many gun shows get robbed?

      Just sayin..

      Lock n load, boys n girls – and keep the powder dry.. When they said the South shall rise again, I do believe it’s happening….

  13. crazyfreddie

    January 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm


  14. Douglas W. Rodrigues

    January 29, 2013 at 12:36 am

    How does one do a background check on a criminal who buys a gun brought in from Mexico?

  15. Oldman66

    January 29, 2013 at 9:02 am

    This so called President could pass a back ground check if his life depended on it.

Leave a Reply

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

More in 2nd Amend.



Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

To Top
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become a Patriot Outdoor News insider.

Send this to friend