Yes. First it is a step towards registration.
Second, it is an infringment on the right to keep and bear arms.
Third, what studies that have been done show that it has no effect on crime.
Fourth, people who are planning on using a gun for illegitmate purposes aren't going to be significantly hindered by background checks.
Fifth, true and false, right and wrong, are what they are. They are not determined by whether an idea is held by a majority or a minority.
Here is one
of many explanations as to why background checks are a bad idea. LINK
"Although an expanded background check requirement is ostensibly a response to last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, it would not have stopped the gunman in that attack, who used firearms legally purchased by his mother. Even if he had tried to buy guns, it seems he would have passed a background check because he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record.
That is typically the case in mass shootings, observes Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox. And if they could not pass a background check, Fox says, "mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.
Meanwhile, to make sure that every gun buyer undergoes a background check, the government would need to know where all the guns are at any given time. Although Obama did not mention that little detail last week, The Washington Post reported earlier this month that the administration was "seriously considering" creating a system that would "track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database."
Call it what you will, it is simply registration and registration inevitably paves the way for confiscation and so yes, I am opposed to it.