Are we going to lose the battle on background checks for every gun purchase?

GEM said:

The state threat is the biggest one - quite correct on that, unless there is a Senatorial blow out.

Click to expand...

A Democratic Senate blowout is not in the cards. Even the most rosy Democratic projections get them up to, at most, 53 Senate seats. Given that Manchin, Tester, and Sinema will probably vote against them on guns, that means that they would need a vice presidential tie breaker to even muster a bare majority. So, given the filibuster, a gun bill isn't happening even if the Democrats make a clean sweep in 2020.

The only exception to that statement would be if there was a national tragedy so terrible that a significant number of Republicans joined the antigun bandwagon.

AlexanderA said:

A Democratic Senate blowout is not in the cards. Even the most rosy Democratic projections get them up to, at most, 53 Senate seats. Given that Manchin, Tester, and Sinema will probably vote against them on guns, that means that they would need a vice presidential tie breaker to even muster a bare majority. So, given the filibuster, a gun bill isn't happening even if the Democrats make a clean sweep in 2020.

The only exception to that statement would be if there was a national tragedy so terrible that a significant number of Republicans joined the antigun bandwagon.

Click to expand...

Just FYI on NPR this morning they were discussing the probability of removing the filibuster for bills, and which Democrat candidates for President supported such an idea.

BSA1 said:

Why is my Kansas drivers license recognized in all other 49 States?

It is because all 50 States have agreed to the same driving laws.

Click to expand...

It's because of several interstate compacts. The Federal Government had nothing to do with it. It's the same for your marriage license, but not professional licenses or hunting and fishing licenses.

Deanimator said:

You're not going to minimize anything. You're greasing the skids for far worse. You're not going to get anything from the other side but a kick in the crotch. It's ALL they have to offer.

Click to expand...

OK. You just do what you're doing, stand there saying "no! no! no! no! no! No gun control ever!" and see what happens. When the dust settles and draconian bills from a dem legislature get signed into law by a dem president, remember that there was a time when we might have had a say in it. Maybe you'll find solace in having "held your ground", but I personally wouldn't find that comforting knowing that having been proactive would have rendered a much better situation. What you're doing is tantamount to refusing to pay some small fee or charge you disagree with on principle; eventually the late fees, the collection fees, the hit to your credit score have to be reconciled, and it winds up costing you a whole lot more.

You'd do well to turn some of your idealism into realism. We're not in a good position to fend off UBC. When I say we can minimize the impact if we participate in the conversation, I mean exactly that; once some form of UBC becomes law, the anti gun crowd no longer has that particular item with strong public support to which they can quietly attach other bits. It will be a lot harder for them to get other measures through if that's already done. Do you want a new AWB? Because kicking the can down the road on this one is how that happens.

MachIVshooter said:

You just do what you're doing, stand there saying "no! no! no! no! no! No gun control ever!" and see what happens.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is what I keep hearing, too. I would like to see the pro-gun side engage the anti's in an open debate. Like you said, there isn't the fight against HPA and CCW reciprocity. So, we suggest it as part of the deal. When the anti's start screaming about having to give something up, i.e. compromise (like they did in the House "hearing", and we know they will), we can say, "Now, who's being unreasonable?" I have said it before. Sticking your fingers in your ears, and yelling, "Not one more inch!", will just lead to, "Well,not another inch!", when they take it anyway. Saying, "You shall not pass!", is defense. It is high time we go on the offense, and start actually bringing something to the table, more than just a line in the sand. Anti's laugh as they hop over that line.

MachIVshooter said:

OK. You just do what you're doing, stand there saying "no! no! no! no! no! No gun control ever!" and see what happens. When the dust settles and draconian bills from a dem legislature get signed into law by a dem president, remember that there was a time when we might have had a say in it. Maybe you'll find solace in having "held your ground", but I personally wouldn't find that comforting knowing that having been proactive would have rendered a much better situation. What you're doing is tantamount to refusing to pay some small fee or charge you disagree with on principle; eventually the late fees, the collection fees, the hit to your credit score have to be reconciled, and it winds up costing you a whole lot more.

You'd do well to turn some of your idealism into realism. We're not in a good position to fend off UBC. When I say we can minimize the impact if we participate in the conversation, I mean exactly that; once some form of UBC becomes law, the anti gun crowd no longer has that particular item with strong public support to which they can quietly attach other bits. It will be a lot harder for them to get other measures through if that's already done. Do you want a new AWB? Because kicking the can down the road on this one is how that happens.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with these statements. I don't want ANY PART of UBC, but if we as conservative minded gun owners got unified and demanded a bill with a ubc, complete abolishment of the Hughes ammendment, and removing sbr and suppressors from the nfa, lock nfa fees as they are, and update NICS to handle the volume. Demand NO recording of info (4473), and make a 14 day provision for any uncleared checks to be an automatic yes for purchase, well maybe we could hit the antis with the same hammer they chase us around with.
They would never go for it, cause it guts their best arguments to harrass us and takes the impetus from the push for registration. Just my .02, anything else that might work would probably be a lot more messy to the USA.

Sadlt, "we" don't get to craft legislation. The legislators on "our" side have limited tools to amend or edit legislation once it is drafted. The poepl drafting these bills do not do so for our benefit, but as tools to exercise more control over us. So, the bills have to be dealt with in a largely binary manner. Which reflects the unfortunately polarized political/information environment we so rightfully abhore.

But, the thing is what it is. No matter how much we'd rather it weren't, or were something else entire.

So, all this proposed legislation will be set up not to "work" but to control. In "our" perfect world, everytime some anti put forth one of these bills, a legislator from our side would work to have a "poison pill" (like repeal of NFA or the like) amended to it. But, that takes "political capital" and dozens of these things are put forth in every legislative session (and reintroduced in the next, and the one after that, and so on--they always have at least one bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment in every session). So, not every bad-for-us bill can be amended up.

Sadly, polling is hugely skewed. The US population is not uniform in the slightest, 50% live in just 30 Counties of the ±3000 US Counties. So, in the unlikely event of an actually representative survey or poll, it would still be biased towards the megacities and their somewhat reflexive anti stances.

Can our side defeat UBCs? Maybe. We'd have to really all pull together and bend the politicos to our combined will.
But, even the legislators on "our" side realize the toothlessness of proposed UBCs. Which makes it hard to invest a lot of political) effort in defeating that sort of thing. That is unless we can move the emphasis off the "gun" and back on the root of this, the "control."

We will be loosing our 2nd amendment rights just as we have lost other rights. Get caught with $20K cash in an airport sometime and you will see what I mean. Other rights under the bill of rights have been attack and bastardized as well.

We are one election away from loosing much more than many suspect. Say goodbye to our Constitutional Republic. As far as so called "gun rights" look at where most European countries are today and get used to the worst of it.

MachIVshooter said:

OK. You just do what you're doing, stand there saying "no! no! no! no! no! No gun control ever!" and see what happens. When the dust settles and draconian bills from a dem legislature get signed into law by a dem president, remember that there was a time when we might have had a say in it. Maybe you'll find solace in having "held your ground", but I personally wouldn't find that comforting knowing that having been proactive would have rendered a much better situation. What you're doing is tantamount to refusing to pay some small fee or charge you disagree with on principle; eventually the late fees, the collection fees, the hit to your credit score have to be reconciled, and it winds up costing you a whole lot more.

You'd do well to turn some of your idealism into realism. We're not in a good position to fend off UBC. When I say we can minimize the impact if we participate in the conversation, I mean exactly that; once some form of UBC becomes law, the anti gun crowd no longer has that particular item with strong public support to which they can quietly attach other bits. It will be a lot harder for them to get other measures through if that's already done. Do you want a new AWB? Because kicking the can down the road on this one is how that happens.

Click to expand...

The only "say" the other side is EVER going to give you is servile capitulation. THAT is realism.

They no more care what gun owners think than ISIS cares what Yazidi women in a slave market think.

This idea that the other side can be trusted or bargained with in "good faith" is the most pathetic of delusions.

I may not win, but my goal isn't to make things easy for the sociopaths on the other side.

OMG ''It's gonna happen!''

Shall we gather. Oh great Buhdda of Firearms of Days Already Gone, I thank thee for thou hast relieved me of my responsibility to call, email, write letters to my elected Reps.

Deanimator said:

This idea that the other side can be trusted or bargained with in "good faith" is the most pathetic of delusions.

Click to expand...

Who said that?

MachIVshooter said:

The fact that UBC won't do a thing to prevent crime doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

^^^ I tend to agree. What it MAY do, is keep a gun out of the hands of someone who is mentally incompetent. It MAY keep a [private party from unknowingly selling a gun to someone who is prohibited. Those numbers at very best, will be minimal. It's basically a "feel good" thing for folks who think they have to do something. The fact that gun friendly states like Minnesota are doing it shows that the tide has turned. For many folks like me, who don't buy/sell many firearms FTF, it really won't affect.

It MAY discourage someone from loaning a friend a gun to defend herself with from said incompetent or criminal, too.

Deanimator said:

This idea that the other side can be trusted or bargained with in "good faith" is the most pathetic of delusions.

Click to expand...

You still don't understand my position. I'm tired of explaining it. Rest assured that trust and good faith don't factor in at all.

MachIVshooter said:

You still don't understand my position. I'm tired of explaining it. Rest assured that trust and good faith don't factor in at all.

Click to expand...

I understand your position better than you do, since I've been hearing it for fifty years.

If not trust and good faith, perhaps deception?

danez71 said:

Who said that?

Click to expand...

The alternative is that people are suggesting "bargains" which they KNOW will never be adhered to and which have the life expectancy of an eight year old on a hot summer day, looking into a half empty gas can with a match.

badkarmamib said:

I would like to see the pro-gun side engage the anti's in an open debate.

Click to expand...

They no longer debate.

They just demand and threaten.

Walkalong said:

I have to agree with the no more approach, but we also have to be cognizant of legislation that may have enough votes we can't stop it, and maybe lesson the blow a little.

But I am definitely in the no more camp and sometimes get impatient with people who, out of fear, preach we have to compromise. Fear never wins anything. It's a favorite argument of the wolves in sheep's clothing as well, we have to compromise, we have to compromise, we can't win, we can't win... Bull crap, we have won a lot over the last decade or so.

So hell no, all the while working to soften a blow that might happen, if that makes any sense. But the working position has to be heck no, we have guns laws that are not being enforced, and this new one will, once again, only affect the law abiding gun enthusiast, so no, lets look at proven ways to deter criminals, not more gun control that will have no affect.

Click to expand...

And as the history of gun control shows, it'll be used against some groups and not others.

I guarantee these laws will be used against people in East Cleveland, not Pepper PIke.

In the short term, IMHO our gun rights are safe (bump stocks notwithstanding) However, in the long term, between the younger generation being brainwashed in the schools and the illegal aliens entering AND voting, we have a struggle on our hands.

That is why I recently became an SAF Life member and I'm on the installment plan for a GOA life member. I am already an NRA Endowment member, donate to them regularly and purchased my dad an NRA life membership as well.

Donate, support, volunteer!

SharpDog said:

In the short term, IMHO our gun rights are safe (bump stocks notwithstanding) However, in the long term, between the younger generation being brainwashed in the schools and the illegal aliens entering AND voting, we have a struggle on our hands.

That is why I recently became an SAF Life member and I'm on the installment plan for a GOA life member. I am already an NRA Endowment member, donate to them regularly and purchased my dad an NRA life membership as well.

Donate, support, volunteer!

Click to expand...

This is why you have to slap down the lies of the other side, EVERY time you hear them. People are being LIED to and lacking an opposing message, believing the lies.

Deanimator said:

I understand your position better than you do, since I've been hearing it for fifty years.

If not trust and good faith, perhaps deception?

Click to expand...

That's not arrogant at all

If you've been around the gun debate that long, the one thing you should know better than me is that what we want and what we can actually get are seldom the same thing. You should also have learned by now that sometimes it's better to stomach an unpleasant thing right now than wait for what comes later.

None of us around here want UBC. Some of us simply realize it would be better to have a version that we had some say in than whatever gets shoved down our throats later. It's lose-lose; you wanna lose little or lose big? We're gonna get stuck with UBC in the not very distant future. I'd rather it be a very watered down version that applies only to permanent transfers (sales) with nothing else attached to the bill than wait for the next liberal trifecta to saddle us with one that applies to any physical transfer of a firearm and has a list of new prohibiting criteria or any number of other things they think they can sneak through on legislation that is appealing to John Q. Public in title.

Deanimator said:

This is why you have to slap down the lies of the other side, EVERY time you hear them. People are being LIED to and lacking an opposing message, believing the lies.

Click to expand...

We have neither the voice nor the audience to counter some things. Also, as GEM pointed out, not one reply in this thread is even a remotely convincing argument for the non-gunner that UBC is more bad than good. So tell us, how do you plan to get 100 million people who don't care about guns one way or the other to believe that UBC isn't worth it? Because if you can't swing at least that many people our way, the congresscritters who represent them aren't going to vote our way, either.

The Majority of Americans believe in the individual right to bear arms, but that majority also believes in limits on both the type of weapon and access to firearms.

MachIVshooter said:

That's not arrogant at all yh

Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's an accurate assessment born of long observation.

You're "message", such as it is, appears to be, "We're doomed. Better cut the best deal we can with those who want to destroy us. " Joseph Kennedy had the same message in 1940.

Your doomsaying has more of the air of yearning than lament.

Universal background checks are coming soon whether we like it or not... And if I'm being honest with myself, I think maybe its time. We're gonna lose everything in the end if we don't do something to slow down the idiots out there shooting up schools, malls, and workplaces.

BUT..... As has been said, we should negotiate it so we get something in return....such as better nationwide reciprocity, take suppressors out of the NFA, etc.

Deanimator said:

Your doomsaying has more of the air of yearning than lament.

Click to expand...

It comes from having been there. We had UBC and mag capacity restrictions shoved down our throats 6 years ago here in CO after the theatre shooting. And you know what? It's better that it happened then than what we'd get now with the left having a more solid, more liberal majority in the house & senate, and a super-liberal boulderite for a governor.

Back then, they had a slim majority and needed a couple of blue dogs to get their legislation through. 2 of the 4 bills were trashed completely, the UBC bill was amended to allow a wider range of family members and to allow temporary transfers without the need for checks, and the mag limit was raised from 10 to 15. Were we happy about either? Of course not. 3 legislators lost their seats over it, and we've been fighting for repeal ever since. But if they hadn't gone through then, they'd be happening right now, and I am 100% positive they'd both be far more encroaching. This time, even if there were recall elections, 2 or 3 seats would not cost them the majority.

You've lived through '68 GCA, through the 94 ban, as well as a number of other smaller federal measures and watched more and more states fall. Yet you're the one acting like an idealistic 20 year old who thinks if we just dig our heels in we can stop it all. Guess what? We dug our own hole on UBC by parroting the whole mental health angle for the last decade. What do you think the average American sees as the best approach to stop unstable individuals from owning guns? I promise locking up anyone who's ever said a scary thing and violating all of their constitutional rights while we taxpayers foot the bill for their stay is not what folks have in mind.