A real objection to "Brady" background checks

The President has made quite a bit of political hay out of the idea that 90% of people theoretically support universal background checks for firearm purchases.   I am curious, however, what would happen if the question were posed another way:


"Knowing that criminals tend to steal their guns or buy them from people that don't care that felons are getting them, and that the government illegally retained Brady check data until a lawsuit forced them to (theoretically) destroy it in a timely manner, and that Chicago, New York City, and California have used gun registrations to confiscate firearms, do you favor a universal background check system that would do little to deter crime, but would enable government to create a firearm registry and confiscate firearms?"


I'm guessing the answer to that question would be a little bit less than 90% support, to put it mildly.  While I'm glad that a paroled felon is not free to go into any gun shop in the country and suddenly become an armed, paroled felon, something needs to be done to prevent the Brady check from becoming a de facto registry that does not depend on the government obeying the law.


My proposal; allow employers, churches, schools and the like to screen their workers using the Brady system, totally disconnecting that system from clear indication of firearms ownership.


Another thought; it's very interesting that the President wants universal background checks for buying a gun, but he's working to limit the freedom employers have in screening prospective employees for a criminal record.  It would seem that limiting freedom has a higher priority than safety in his mind.