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

[Tommygunn]

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.

While I understand the reasoning behind negotiating something like nationwide reciprocity to go along with U.B.C.s, the fact is UBCs are not going to do anything to stop the psychopaths who are shooting up schools and other places. It certainly will not stop the criminal element who use blackmarket and underground sources for guns.
It is a stop-gap which will only quench the antigunners' appetite for a short while.

>>>>>>>THEY WANT OUR GUNS, ALL OF THEM. <<<<<<<<<

 

[MachIVshooter]

the fact is UBCs are not going to do anything to stop the psychopaths who are shooting up schools and other places.

Of course they won't. Still not going to stop them from becoming a reality.

>>>>>>>THEY WANT OUR GUNS, ALL OF THEM. <<<<<<<<<

Yup. But they don't have nearly enough support from the American people to keep their offices if they vote in favor of confiscation, nor would such legislation pass constitutional muster. UBC, however, has overwhelming public support, and would absolutely survive any legal challenge. SCOTUS probably wouldn't even hear a case on it, and lower courts are going to uphold it.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

I'm the one who's not welcoming defeat with open arms.

Joe Kennedy wondered how we could live with Hitler.

Churchill wondered how we could destroy him and his regime utterly.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

While I understand the reasoning behind negotiating something like nationwide reciprocity to go along with U.B.C.s, the fact is UBCs are not going to do anything to stop the psychopaths who are shooting up schools and other places. It certainly will not stop the criminal element who use blackmarket and underground sources for guns.
It is a stop-gap which will only quench the antigunners' appetite for a short while.

>>>>>>>THEY WANT OUR GUNS, ALL OF THEM. <<<<<<<<<

Will it stop all of them? No... Nothing will.

But I do think it will make it more difficult for some of them.

 

[Ignition Override]

Don't the highly publicized gun debates on tv only appear after young people die in a mass tragedy? They use sympathy for the victims as a method to totally suppress any discussion where everybody can somehow be detached, totally rational. No actual exchange of information takes place, and statistical evidence is depicted as an extremely cruel lack of sympathy as the speaker is booed, or is shouted down.

This terrible timing helps portray very pro-gun (i.e. AR 15) people as indifferent to death, to the point that they can appear to be sociopaths.

Ridgerunner665: It would look like pro-gun people are trying to help if most of them agree to Univ. Background Checks.

But didn't a girl in CO, and a pizza shop worker supply the guns for the monsters at the Columbine High School massacre? They knew they were breaking serious laws.
A mother gave her totally messed-up son her AR-15 near Newtown.

At least two of the other guns used in mass school tragedies were stolen from family gun cabinets, stolen elsewhere, or with no criminal background, bought legally in a gun shop. Correct me if mistaken.

These general facts along with the well-known huge underground supply of illegal guns always seem to be ignored by the gun grabbers, do they not? How would more laws have prevented any of those tragedies?

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm the one who's not welcoming defeat with open arms.

Joe Kennedy wondered how we could live with Hitler.

Churchill wondered how we could destroy him and his regime utterly.

How do you fare in your debates when you don't use hyperbole and straw men? Because that's about all you bring to the table. So far not one constructive thing. How about answering the question I posed a few replies ago? How do you convince 1/3 of the population who don't much care about guns one way or another that UBC shouldn't be the law of the land? Because right now, they think it should, along with a huge percentage of gun owners and 100% of anti-gun folks.

There are 330 million souls in the USA. A loose estimate breakdown of stances on guns is something along the lines of:

rabid anti- 30m
don't like-100m
indifferent-120m
own guns-50m
very pro 2A-30m

The first 30m are a lost cause.never gonna vote with us, would rather we just die.

The "don't like" group can sometimes be brought a little bit our way and made to be more accepting of 2A, but rarely do they become pro gun, usually favor more gun control.

The big middle group is the prize. And most of that group, when polled, lands somewhere in the realm of guns are a right and should not be banned but should have restrictions. They're more easily made pro-2A than group #2, but they're part of group 3 for a reason. They support our right, but have no desire to own or use guns, and really don't care if acquiring guns is a bit less convenient. They also don't care enough to be bothered with any lengthy discourse on the subject, let alone tell their congress critters to vote pro gun.

The 50m in group 4 contains a surprising number of people who would be in group 2 or 3, but they happen to own a gun. This is where we get sideways on believing we have more influence than we do. Roughly 80 million gun owners in this country, but about two thirds of them are no help in the fight.

That leaves roughly 30m of us, around 1/10 of the population, who adamantly and vocally oppose gun control. Representative republic or not, the interests of 1/10 of the population are gonna take a back seat to the other 90%. Luckily we have 2A enshrined in the constitution, which gives us a disproportionate voice in the fight, but with SCOTUS ruling that certain restrictions are well within the constraints of the 2nd amendment, we have to accept that if the extreme majority support such a restriction, it's probably gonna happen. That's the way our system works, doesn't matter how we feel about it.

 

[Deanimator]

While I understand the reasoning behind negotiating something like nationwide reciprocity to go along with U.B.C.s, the fact is UBCs are not going to do anything to stop the psychopaths who are shooting up schools and other places. It certainly will not stop the criminal element who use blackmarket and underground sources for guns.
It is a stop-gap which will only quench the antigunners' appetite for a short while.

>>>>>>>THEY WANT OUR GUNS, ALL OF THEM. <<<<<<<<<

A VERY short while.

They will no more be satisfied with sham "universal background checks" than Hitler was with the Sudetenland.

 

[Deanimator]

How do you fare in your debates when you don't use hyperbole and straw men? Because that's about all you bring to the table. So far not one constructive thing. How about answering the question I posed a few replies ago? How do you convince 1/3 of the population who don't much care about guns one way or another that UBC shouldn't be the law of the land? Because right now, they think it should, along with a huge percentage of gun owners and 100% of anti-gun folks.

I do very well in debates because I don't let people with hidden agendas set the terms of debate.

First and foremost, I don't start from the premise that evil is destined to prevail. But then I don't WANT it to prevail.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

And what if the other side has NOTHING to offer in return... because they DON'T.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

And what if the other side has NOTHING to offer in return... because they DON'T.

Oh, I think they might, maybe ... If negotiations began and they had a chance to get UBC but they failed for being stubborn and stupid it would be a political mess for them.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I read through the text of one of them ... It had an exemption covering gifts and heirlooms between family... And with that I decided I'm not opposed to UBC's.

What would we really be giving up?

I've sold and traded a lot of guns in my lifetime, and I'd hate to think I sold one to someone who went and shot up a bunch of innocent people with it.

I no longer sell guns to individuals, haven't in several years, I do still sell one through the gunshop on consignment from time to time... Seems easier to me, just put it in there and wait for the call to go get my money...and whoever bought it passed the NICS.

I really don't see much lost there...

 

[Deanimator]

Oh, I think they might, maybe ... If negotiations began and they had a chance to get UBC but they failed for being stubborn and stupid it would be a political mess for them.

You are going to get NOTHING in return. They don't even want illegal aliens trying to buy guns reported to ICE.

And that of course leaves aside the fact that their word is UTTERLY worthless. Give them what they want today and they'll take what they want tomorrow. And you will have made it easier for them.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I do very well in debates because I don't let people with hidden agendas set the terms of debate.

First and foremost, I don't start from the premise that evil is destined to prevail. But then I don't WANT it to prevail.

Still refusing to answer the question whilst casting aspersions. Either offer something useful or admit that you don't have a decent argument and just want your way, reality be damned.

I'm all ears if you have something that would actually be useful in convincing the non-gunners to side with us and oppose UBC.....

 

[Deanimator]

I read through the text of one of them ... It had an exemption covering gifts and heirlooms between family... And with that I decided I'm not opposed to UBC's.

What would we really be giving up?

I've sold and traded a lot of guns in my lifetime, and I'd hate to think I sold one to someone who went and shot up a bunch of innocent people with it.

I no longer sell guns to individuals, haven't in several years, I do still sell one through the gunshop on consignment from time to time... Seems easier to me, just put it in there and wait for the call to go get my money...and whoever bought it passed the NICS.

I really don't see much lost there...

Because without REGISTRATION it's an utter nullity.

And when it fails to do what they claim and they demand REGISTRATION, will you give THAT to them too?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Because without REGISTRATION it's an utter nullity.

And when it fails to do what they claim and they demand REGISTRATION, will you give THAT to them too?

No.

I do not support AWB's, mag capacity restrictions, mirostamping, or any of that other silly nonsense... And will stand against it to the bitter end.

But a background check, which is already required for a majority of purchases, isn't the apocalypse.

 

[Deanimator]

Still refusing to answer the question whilst casting aspersions. Either offer something useful or admit that you don't have a decent argument and just want your way, reality be damned.

I'm all ears if you have something that would actually be useful in convincing the non-gunners to side with us and oppose UBC.....

I refuse to be suckered by a hundred plus year old grift, premised on me believing sociopaths and pathological liars.

Your entire premise is not only false, it's pernicious.

 

[Deanimator]

No

But isn't THAT "inevitable" too?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

But isn't THAT "inevitable" too?

No...I don't believe it is.

 

[Deanimator]

No.

I do not support AWB's, mag capacity restrictions, mirostamping, or any of that other silly nonsense... And still stand against it to the bitter end.

But a background check, which is already required for a majority of purchases, isn't the apocalypse.

A background check GUARANTEED to fail in its supposed goals. Its proponents will then demand REGISTRATION to "fix" it. Hell, they're already demanding registration NOW.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Your entire premise is not only false, it's pernicious.

Acknowledging the reality that an extreme majority of the populace supports UBC, that it's gonna happen sooner or later, and that it will survive constitutional challenges is a false premise? That's rich. I also don't see how accepting the reality of a situation is pernicious. But then, you accuse others of being delusional, yet you think we can prevent UBC from becoming law in the face of all that is. You offer not even an inkling of a thought about how we go about preventing it, but you're convinced we can and that an (undefined) course of action is the way to go. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, those of us who live in the real world are trying to figure out how to lose the least in a fight where we're gonna lose something. You can call that defeatist or whatever other denigrating adjective you care to throw at us.

Tell me, do you have kids? grand kids? Because it almost seems like you don't care what happens after you're gone, as long as you can stave it off for the rest of your lifetime.

Because without REGISTRATION it's an utter nullity.

And when it fails to do what they claim and they demand REGISTRATION, will you give THAT to them too?

Federal registries or databases are explicitly prohibited by Volker-McClure

 

[Deanimator]

No...I don't believe it is.

THEY do and they know that sham "universal background checks" are their stepping stone to REGISTRATION.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Background checks aren't a complete failure.... No, they're not 100%, but they do work more often than not.

To say they never work is just not true.

 

[Deanimator]

Acknowledging the reality that an extreme majority of the populace supports UBC, that it's gonna happen sooner or later, and that it will survive constitutional challenges is a false premise?

It's an utterly false premise. You're not even willing to fight their lies. Maybe you don't think they're lies...

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I've made more progress arguing with my wife, lol.

I've said about all I can say here that might be useful.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It's an utterly false premise. You're not even willing to fight their lies. Maybe you don't think they're lies...

I fight it every chance I get. I'm just not so obtuse as to believe that we can reach enough of the people with a useful argument to prevent it. We don't have that kind of podium, or that kind of argument. Again, 1/3 of the population will support it no matter how good our argument (still waiting on that from you..........), and another 1/3 are of the opinion that if it saves just one life, the inconvenience to people buying guns is a small price (for someone else) to pay. That whole 2/3 and then some are unconvinced of the slippery slope argument. I say again, you have about 10% of the population opposing legislation that the courts consider well within constitutional constraints.

If you have no real strategy to offer, your position is the political version of a toddler stamping his feet and screaming with his fingers in his ears while his parents tell him he's gonna eat his peas one way or another. Guess who's gonna be eating gun control peas when it's all said and done?