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

[Englishmn]

Im not scared of the socialist boogey men. That movement gets a lot of playtime on the news but it is never going anywhere and besides Gun control is pretty low on their agenda. Sanders was from VERMONT. He has no strong convictions about guns. It’s not a priority for him. Those socialists take a back seat to the corrupt establishment Democrats that are all bought out by Billionares and they are the ones funded and push the hardest for gun control... and they hate the socialists stirring the pot in their party. They rig their own primaries.

Money talks. Campaign donations. Anti Gun groups have deeeep pockets because billionaires don’t want average citizens armed for some reason. I don’t know why.

Armed citizens threaten the power monopoly of the state.

 

[Kaybee]

As intended.

 

[JeffG]

Nope, the Senate will kill it.

 

[bassjam]

Eventually yes, we will lose and UBC will be a thing. It'll likely happen next time the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

On the other hand, it's pathetic that Republicans controlled both houses for the past 2 years and couldn't do a damned thing to help gun owners.

 

[BSA1]

I have no problem with background checks at guns shows or stores that sell guns.

A "universal background check" system can be structured without registration. The idea is to satisfy the public demand for some kind of checks, without facilitating a future confiscation.

The problem is that the gun community, by and large, won't even discuss such a system. The strategy appears to be simple stonewalling. We should be taking the lead on UBC's and not sitting back and waiting to get raped.

What you are doing is agreeing that gun owners need the permission of the Big Daddy (the Feds) to be able to buy a gun.

So what happens when Big Daddy says no?

I reject the concept of that to exercise my 2A rights I need the permission of the Government first. Unfortunately many gun owners do not share my opinion.

So yes in a way I can see that at some point in time society is going to declare guns are unnecessary and unacceptable. Hope I am wrong or at least not in my lifetime.

And other countries that have been down the road with socialism and dictators will pass pro-gun laws and encourage gun ownership.

Did you not see what happened last November? Do you not watch the national polls on "moderate" gun control issues like UBC? Gun owners only account for 1/4 of the population, and not even half of us are opposed enough to even sign an online petition.

Some of you boys are going to get the drizzles if you don't come out of the rain.

Politics, politics, politics.

November election results were typical for what happens to the party in power during off presidential election years.

The House passing H.R. 8 is hardly a surprise. In fact it shows how anti-gun the Democrats really are. Hopefully gun owners will remember this vote come November, 2020.

National polls...you mean fake news do you?

I agree that gun owners are our own worst enemies. THR is reflective of some of the divided opinions.

 

[AlexanderA]

Something like 70,000 or so 4473 forms are lied on by criminals trying to buy a gun and nothing happens to about 99% of them.

The criminals weren't prosecuted but the sales were aborted. That's the whole purpose of the NICS system.

 

[AlexanderA]

This will be one of the Democrat's leading battle cries in the 2020 election.

I think that guns will be a big issue in the Democratic primaries but will be dropped like a hot potato for the general. The reason is that the Democrats have two paths for winning the White House: the "northern strategy" of winning back Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and/or the "sun belt" strategy of Florida and Arizona (plus Texas, if Beto is the nominee). They can't afford to enrage the numerous gun owners in any of these states.

 

[Sistema1927]

The criminals weren't prosecuted but the sales were aborted. That's the whole purpose of the NICS system.

Sure seems like a round about way to accomplish that purpose.

No background check has ever stopped a criminal from obtaining a weapon. None, never, nowhere. Never have, and never will. Nanny state, feel good laws that do no good.

 

[AlexanderA]

Eventually yes, we will lose and UBC will be a thing. It'll likely happen next time the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

We should be so lucky that UBC's are all they get. They're going to push hard to ban "assault weapons" (basically, all semiautomatics). We need to be developing a strategy to minimize the damage there, too.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

The criminals weren't prosecuted but the sales were aborted. That's the whole purpose of the NICS system.

To eventually make everyone look like a criminal and thus generally deny everyone from purchase?

 

[George Dickel]

The only way for UBC to work is gun registration at the federal level. If this becomes law eventually the anti-gun activists will point out that in incidents where a prohibited individual is caught with a gun the authorities won't be able to determine who sold it to the thug because there is no registration record. That will be the next step, total registration of all firearms.
The biggest fallacy of UBC is that thugs have been using friends/family with no criminal record to straw purchase guns at retailers. The same procedure will be used when buying from a private individual even with UBC.
Compromise is I give up something and you give up something, the anti-gun groups view compromise as you give up something and they give you nothing. The goal of the anti-gun faction from the very first is total banning of private ownership of firearms, this has been the bedrock of their movement. They used to say that quite loudly but have learned it causes them to lose support from the moderates so they keep quiet on that point and have adopted the tactic of these are only common sense restrictions that reasonable people agree with. Incrementalism is the game plan. Look up the parable of the frog and the scorpion. There is no compromise possible with these people!!

 

[Deanimator]

If you think we're gonna be able to fight off UBC for more than a few sessions, you'd better open your eyes. The left gained a lot of traction in 2018, and unless they screw up big time, they're in a position to not only hold what they got but increase their winnings. We have only two years of guaranteed conservative control in the senate and oval office. Maybe we'll hold one or both in 2020, maybe not, but eventually the pendulum always swings back. A quid pro quo may be tough now, but the mere idea will be completely laughable once the dems control both houses again. Maybe it'll be 2 years. Maybe 4. 8. Who knows, but it will happen.

You're laboring under the misapprehension that ANYTHING the other side says can be trusted.

You're not going to get anything by bargaining with them except a knife in the back. They're ALREADY talking about REGISTRATION and they haven't even gotten sham "universal" background checks yet.

Sham "universal" background checks are the Sudetenland. Those "bargains" NEVER work out... at least not for gun owners.

 

[AlexanderA]

The goal of the anti-gun faction from the very first is total banning of private ownership of firearms, this has been the bedrock of their movement. They used to say that quite loudly but have learned it causes them to lose support from the moderates so they keep quiet on that point and have adopted the tactic of these are only common sense restrictions that reasonable people agree with. Incrementalism is the game plan. Look up the parable of the frog and the scorpion. There is no compromise possible with these people!!

That's the goal of some people in the antigun movement. There are antigun absolutists just as there are pro-gun absolutists. I liken those who want total abolition of private gun ownership to those, on the other side, who want machine guns to be sold from vending machines in gas stations and 7-11's. Neither group is at all realistic and, frankly, they each have more than a few screws loose.

A total ban on guns would engender lawlessness far worse than that during alcohol Prohibition. Enacting a law is one thing, but enforcing it is another. Anyone who's halfway rational realizes this.

 

[MachIVshooter]

You're laboring under the misapprehension that ANYTHING the other side says can be trusted.

You're not going to get anything by bargaining with them except a knife in the back. They're ALREADY talking about REGISTRATION and they haven't even gotten sham "universal" background checks yet.

Sham "universal" background checks are the Sudetenland. Those "bargains" NEVER work out... at least not for gun owners.

I'm not talking about "we'll give you your UBC, but you have to pinky promise your votes on HPA later". I'm talking about HPA, national reciprocity being part of any legislation for UBC.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes this is going to happen.....and really to tell the truth it is going to be a pain in the kabootie but not the end of the world.

No, it's the BEGINNING of the end of the world.

It's the opening gambit for REGISTRATION, which has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

You're offering a crocodile your finger so he won't take your arm.

Good luck with that.

 

[George Dickel]

That's the goal of some people in the antigun movement. There are antigun absolutists just as there are pro-gun absolutists. I liken those who want total abolition of private gun ownership to those, on the other side, who want machine guns to be sold from vending machines in gas stations and 7-11's. Neither group is at all realistic and, frankly, they each have more than a few screws loose.

A total ban on guns would engender lawlessness far worse than that during alcohol Prohibition. Enacting a law is one thing, but enforcing it is another. Anyone who's halfway rational realizes this.

What you are ignoring is that the antigun absolutists control the antigun movement. Prohibition is apples and oranges, I have never heard of anybody who consumed alcohol during that era serving time for drinking booze, maybe a misdemeanor conviction and a fine but no jail time. You can bet that it will be a felony to be in possession of a firearm if they are banned and you will serve a long and nasty term in prison. You life will be ruined and your family will be destitute, that is more risk than most people will be willing to make. You are also assuming that that there are rational people in the antigun factions. Look at some of the people that were voted into the House in the last election, too many of them are absolutely freaking nuts and if this trend continues we'll look back on this time as the "good ole days".

 

[Deanimator]

A "universal background check" system can be structured without registration. We've discussed this here in detail before, so I won't belabor the point. Sure, such a system would not be 100% airtight, but nothing is 100% airtight. The idea is to satisfy the public demand for some kind of checks, without facilitating a future confiscation.

1. It CAN be "structured withouth registration", it's just an UTTER nullity WITHOUT registration.
2. The proponents KNOW it's an utter nullity. It's MEANT to fail, "requiring" REGISTRATION as a fix.
3. It's not .0001% airtight without REGISTRATION. The other side knows this going in.
4. The truth is the other side doesn't give a damn about sham "universal" background checks as an end in themselves. They're the Trojan horse for REGISTRATION. Your response? "Oooh, cool statue!"

The other side is playing three dimensional chess.

You're playing the old shell game... BADLY.

 

[Deanimator]

Oh wait. Here's one of the rubs. SALES. That's not what they're regulating. They want to regulate TRANSFERS.

You could conceivably drill TRANSFERS so far down that the clerk in the gun store can't let you handle the gun without first completing a background check. And given the chance the anti-gun crowd will do such.

The whole idea is to put a strangle hold on gun ownership. To make it onerous to even try to buy a gun and then to own it afterwards. They'll do it one step at a time. Little by little.

Precisely.

To ascribe one iota of non-malicious intent to the other side is the height of foolishness.

Their intent is for ONLY them and their mercenaries to have arms, and they'll achieve that by any means necessary.

 

[Ignition Override]

If you only have a few guns from private sales, what Would you register if such a sweeping national law were passed?

Without any records kept long-term (legal or not to keep), from FFL gun sales for a single gun in your home, you don’t “exist”.
Do you?

 

[Deanimator]

The criminals weren't prosecuted but the sales were aborted. That's the whole purpose of the NICS system.

And you REALLY think they didn't buy guns somewhere or somehow else?

 

[alsaqr]

Nope, the Senate will kill it.

IMO: It will die in the senate. McConnell will not bring UBC to the floor. McConnell is aware that it would probably pass.

 

[Deanimator]

IMO: It will die in the senate. McConnell will not bring UBC to the floor. McConnell is aware that it would probably pass.

More importantly, he knows that IF it passed, the Republicans would lose the Senate.

He needs to be reminded of that fact at EVERY opportunity.

 

[AlexanderA]

McConnell will not bring UBC to the floor. McConnell is aware that it would probably pass.

I don't think that it would pass even if it came to a vote in the Senate. There are even a few Democrats, such as Manchin and Tester, that would not vote for it.

This is currently just a marker, and both sides know it. They're positioning for the next election. What happens after that next election is anyone's guess.

And even if the Democrats win control of the Senate (the odds for which are no better than 50-50), it still won't pass because (a) the aforementioned Democrats, and (b) the 60-vote filibuster rule. (Of course, the controlling party could abolish the filibuster at the start of the session, but they won't do it. Even Bernie Sanders is on record as being against abolishing the filibuster. He, like others, is aware that what goes around comes around, and those that are on top today may not be on top tomorrow.) It takes a supermajority (i.e., a national consensus) to get anything through the Senate.

 

[Deanimator]

That's the goal of some people in the antigun movement.

That's the goal of the people who CREATED AND RUN the anti-gun movement. Without them, there wouldn't BE an anti-gun movement.

You're talking like those who say "The Japanese wanted to surrender in 1945", COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that NOBODY in Japan who wanted to end the war had one iota of POWER to do so. Chuck Schumer no more cares what some soccer mom in Duluth thinks than the Imperial Japanese Army high command thought about the opinions of some 15th deputy undersecretary for international agricultural affairs thought about ending the war.

The people who RUN the anti-gun movement want EVERYBODY disarmed but them and their mercenaries. And they're willing to KILL you and as many people as necessary to achieve that. Ask Congressman Swallwell, if you don't believe me.

Of course they've been threatening online to put me in a concentration camp or kill me for more than twenty years.

Wishful thinking about your enemies is a REALLY lousy survival strategy.

 

[Deanimator]

He, like others, is aware that what goes around comes around, and those that are on top today may not be on top tomorrow.)

If you think you're going to PERMANENTLY crush the other side, there's nothing TO "come around" and nobody to send it.