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

[Deanimator]

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.

The other side demands that it works 100% of the time. When it doesn't, they'll demand REGISTRATION (which they already are).

When that doesn't work...

 

[Deanimator]

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?

Your strategy is obviously capitulation. Mine is total resistance.

The latter may fail. The former is GUARANTEED to fail. Of course if failure is the goal, then I suppose failure is "success"...

 

[Old Dog]

The other side demands that it works 100% of the time. When it doesn't, they'll demand REGISTRATION (which they already are).

When that doesn't work...

In a nutshell, when the anti-gun faction (who are already well aware that background checks are not infallible, and do not prevent homicides or mass shootings) have the data in and start publicizing the fact that UBCs aren't actually by gosh effective in limiting gun crime, the groundwork has already been laid for them to push for more draconian legislation -- complete registration, bans of semi-auto firearms, nationwide magazine capacity limits, then confiscation.

Yeah, if you're okay with UBCs, you really should be thinking about the opposition's next step. Because they're not going to stop when UBCs are nation-wide.

 

[Styx]

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.

You do realize that just about all those shootings involved legally purchased firearms purchased from a FFL right? Even in the Columbine High School massacre, those firearms were purchased from an FFL and given to the killers. In the inner cities, most of those young men who are killing each other aren't even old enough to legally own a handgun, and get there firearms illegally either from theft or straw purchasers who passed, you guessed it, a background check. How will a background check stop all these killings again? I see you've fallen for the antigunners's rhetoric.

And no offense, but you're being EXTREMELY naive if you believe they'll EVER allow "more guns in the street" via nationwide reciprocity, or "deadly silencers" by removing them from NFA. .. Even IF hell froze over and they did agree, they'd simply would renege at a later date...

They pushed NICs through with the promise that it would be fast and INSTANT. You tell me, what's does the bill that just passed the House say about NICs checks?

 

[Deanimator]

The other side are pathological liars, sociopaths and advocates for nuclear war against the people of the United States.

That should ALWAYS be remembered whenever some "pro-gun" person proposes a "compromise" with them.

 

[Walkalong]

They don't even want illegal aliens trying to buy guns reported to ICE.

Yep, and ask yourself why. It fits their agenda of course, we all know why, as well as their agenda for taking all guns away.

You have to say no and fight until you lose, instead of giving up before you are defeated. We won't get anything in return, no gun control measure will be rolled back. We might get some little add on we like, but it won't be a win in the gun control fight. We have won a lot of fights that looked bad, and we have to try to win this one. We have to educate at the local level and get more politicians elected who are pro gun or at least not rabidly anti who will vote for any kind of anti legislation that comes along.

You can say no and fight up to the last vote and still have politicians working on watering down/adding positives etc to the bill, that's part of fighting and saying no, change it enough and they often won't pass it because it isn't what they want, they punt and wait for the next opportunity.

You cannot bargain with these people, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstien etc, etc, they are fanatics. 40 years ago they would never say out loud they want them all, but we knew they did, now they have said it out loud and proud, that they would take them all away if they could, and if anyone thinks giving in on UBCs will change that they are not thinking straight. They'll just laugh at us and keep working at it.

Fight and educate. There is only one reason politicians want to disarm people, always has been, always will be, and the end results are always the same. You are fighting for your freedom folks. An unarmed populace is not free, Over the centuries rulers have always disarmed their subjects/soon to be subjects for the same reason. Control of those same people.

We have to fight it tooth and nail. Sure it looks bad on this one, but that is when winners fight the hardest.

 

[alfsauve]

I shouldn't be, as history has always shown this to be, but still I am amazed at the Kennedy/Chamberlain attitudes shown.

The staunch 2nd Amendment defenders will have to not only battle their foes, but do so with the millstone of appeasers around their necks.

 

[castile]

The only way this will pass is if it comes up after 2020 and Trump loses and we lose the senate and they left keeps the house. That is a lot of ifs. I thought we were going to lose AR15s in 94 and we did not and now there are more than ever before some25 years later.

 

[Styx]

The only way this will pass is if it comes up after 2020 and Trump loses and we lose the senate and they left keeps the house. That is a lot of ifs. I thought we were going to lose AR15s in 94 and we did not and now there are more than ever before some25 years later.

Only because of the sunset clause. If that had not been in place, IMHO, the AWB would still be law of the land. They won't make that mistake again. Plus, it's just a matter of time before the Dems have the presidency and Congress. The political pendulum routinely swings both ways every decade or so...

 

[AlexanderA]

My main problem with UBC's is the mandatory involvement of FFL's. This creates a paper trail (through Form 4473's) and increases costs (because FFL's will charge transfer fees). A UBC system can be created in which buyer and seller can access NICS directly, and without entering details about the gun itself. (After all, this is about checking the buyer, and not the gun.) Such a system, though, would have to be at the initiative of the gun community. The antigunners won't propose it. By stonewalling, as Deanimator would have us do, we preclude ourselves from having any input into the process. This is how you get really bad legislation.

Count the votes. If it looks like something is inevitably going to pass, get involved to make it less onerous. (The time is not yet ripe for this, but it might be after the 2020 election.)

Thus, the organizations representing the gun community (the NRA, etc.) have to be flexible. Unfortunately, they've gotten themselves boxed into a corner. Any sign of flexibility will get them into trouble with their constituency, and adversely affect their fundraising. Therefore, they're likely to persist in their hard line and thereby make complete legislative disaster more likely.

Just thinking about this makes me more and more depressed. The only upside is that I'm getting too old to really care much longer.

 

[Styx]

I shouldn't be, as history has always shown this to be, but still I am amazed at the Kennedy/Chamberlain attitudes shown.

The staunch 2nd Amendment defenders will have to not only battle their foes, but do so with the millstone of appeasers around their necks.

We're fighting a losing battle. The will be a short window of time when they save the votes, and they will take advantage. Not only do we have to battle our foes, we'll have to battle other gun owners who are willing to incrementally "compromise" our rights away. I mean, all one has to do is to look at states like CA, NY, etc as examples of what Democrats have in mind Nationally. They long since have had UBC, capacity limits, etc, yet they're continuously and incrementally getting more and more and more restrictive each and every year...

 

[10mm Mike]

Only because of the sunset clause. If that had not been in place, IMHO, the AWB would still be law of the land. They won't make that mistake again. Plus, it's just a matter of time before the Dems have the presidency and Congress. The political pendulum routinely swings both ways every decade or so...

I was just a kid when that went through so I'm not as familiar with it as others on this forum, but as it was explained to me by guys that were active in the gun community back then - the sunset clause is the only reason it passed in the first place.

Also, as the pendulum swings, so do the top priorities of whoever is in power. So, while guns are always on the list, they are not often at the top of the list. It's also worth mentioning that guns aren't even the top priority for either party right now and won't be for the foreseeable future. Not to say that we shouldn't be vigilant and let our guard down, but the likelihood of an antigun bill going through in the next few years is actually quite low... in spite of what some of the surrender happy members of this forum may think.

 

[GEM]

Mine is total resistance.

Define that strategy with particulars. Typing in capital letters is not a strategical plan or tactical message.

I'm getting a little bored with bloviating that sounds good and offers no specifics that might work.

So you are going to buy guns without a legally mandated check and hide them in your basement? Wow!

Unless there is a strategy to stop the creep of state laws (the most likely threat), you can see weapons and mag limits across major parts of the country. If your total resistance is to complain and hide them, so what.

Walkalong is correct that the reason to have arms is to preserve freedom from true tyrannical threats that can come from the right, the left, religious zealots, racists and who knows what else. That message is not presented well in the current gun debates.

Let's take an easy example.

I oppose UBCs because it is inconvenient. I might have to drive to another town.
Don't you have to do that already to buy a new gun from an FFL?

I oppose UBCs.
How to you propose to keep felons and those who are clearly demonstrated to be threats due to mental illness from just buying a gun at a gun store without some kind of check?
I dunno. They will just buy them illegally.
So it is better that they buy them at a store?
THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A REGISTRY TO MAKE IT WORK!
So it will work with a registry? Ok, let's have a registry. Thanks for the idea.

TOTAL RESISTANCE!

My point is that you'd better have good arguments as the preservation of freedom being impaired than most of the prose I've seen here.

Notice - I didn't make a big deal of self-defense. It is a great argument and part of Heller. However, it contains the fatal flaw of being partially supportive of weapons type bans. The 3,3,3;5 is enough;two shot shotgun crowd; never have to reload; you are a nut if you carry an extra mag; and other comments in SD arguments will and have been brought up to limit gun types and mags (not just Biden, but it occurs on forums all the time). It has been brought up in court where progun experts have been dismissed when supporting the higher cap guns as the judge cited the typical low shot number SD incidents as compared to the high round count rampage. Even common usage, supposedly Kavanaugh's golden precept, can be turned on this analysis.

Defense against tyranny is the counter to that line of thought.

 

[Styx]

I was just a kid when that went through so I'm not as familiar with it as others on this forum, but as it was explained to me by guys that were active in the gun community back then - the sunset clause is the only reason it passed in the first place.

Also, as the pendulum swings, so do the top priorities of whoever is in power. So, while guns are always on the list, they are not often at the top of the list. It's also worth mentioning that guns aren't even the top priority for either party right now and won't be for the foreseeable future. Not to say that we shouldn't be vigilant and let our guard down, but the likelihood of an antigun bill going through in the next few years is actually quite low... in spite of what some of the surrender happy members of this forum may think.

IMHO, guns rights aren't at the top of for Trump or Republicans in Congress; however, gun control is at the top of the list for Democrats and will be for any Democrat that gets the Nomination. Republicans only want to play defense when it comes to firearms, and Democrats are playing offensively..

 

[10mm Mike]

IMHO, guns rights aren't at the top of for Trump or Senate Republicans; however, gun control is at the top of the list for Democrats and will be for any Democrat that gets the Nomination.

We agree that its not top priority from Trump or the republicans, but disagree about top priority for the dems.

I submit they have all sorts of "social justice" agenda items ahead of guns. Attacking free speech, attacking capitalism, wealth redistribution via tax plan, "free" college, immigration, etc... They have alot of stuff on their agenda right now and while guns are certainly part of it, it is pretty far down the list right now. I will grant you that could change with another high profile shooting, but as of right now there are at least 5 big items ahead of guns on their agenda. Yes, there were some anti gun bills brought up already, but that is no surprise. It happens every year no matter who is in power, and it always comes from (mostly) the same people.

 

[Styx]

My point is that you'd better have good arguments as the preservation of freedom being impaired than most of the prose I've seen here.

Respectfully, do you really believe whatever argument we come up with, regaurdless of how logical, factual, and thought out it may be, will make one iota of a difference? What it boils down to is that we like guns and don't trust them, so we'll find a way to rationalize against all gun control and for all gun rights. They don't like guns, don't want them on the streets, don't want us owning them, so they'll make up facts, cherry pick statistic, and will also rationalize against gun rights in "favor of morr common sense gun control..."

IMHO, there's only one way to win this war, and it isn't through debating... We have to have more people/voters who like and own firearms. That is, to have more people that have something to lose... The NRA and gun groups should be focused and funding classes and programs that will expose more and more people to firearms. There should be outreach programs purposefully placed in Liberal areas to help children and parents learn about firearms so that we aren't just preaching to the choir... So on and so forth... There's a reason that most antigunners come from areas of the country where gun ownership is taboo and highly restricted...

 

[Styx]

We agree that its not top priority from Trump or the republicans, but disagree about top priority for the dems.

I submit they have all sorts of "social justice" agenda items ahead of guns. Attacking free speech, attacking capitalism, wealth redistribution via tax plan, "free" college, immigration, etc... They have alot of stuff on their agenda right now and while guns are certainly part of it, it is pretty far down the list right now. I will grant you that could change with another high profile shooting, but as of right now there are at least 5 big items ahead of guns on their agenda. Yes, there were some anti gun bills brought up already, but that is no surprise. It happens every year no matter who is in power, and it always comes from (mostly) the same people.

The things that you believe are their top priority are only their top priority because Trump has made it his top priority. They're top priority is to oppose everything Trump does and is for... When they have power, IMHO, guns will be somewhere in the top three of their list. If a shooting occurs earily after they've taken power, gun control will be #1 if it wasn't already.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Since Deanimator keeps dodging the question, might as well pose it to anyone who thinks they have something.

What is our solid argument against UBC that can actually convince the people who decide elections (you know, the ~80% of the population who is neither rapidly anti-gun or staunchly pro-2A) that UBC shouldn't become law? Because unless we have that, all we do is postpone the inevitable and most likely get ourselves saddled with something far worse than H.R.8 when the liberals have enough votes without any republicans or blue dogs.

I say again, the non-gunner, as well as portions of gun owners and all of the don't like crowd, don't give a rat's patoot if acquiring guns is a little more onerous. That argument gets us nowhere.

Slippery slope? Of course it has merits, but you have to convince the folks in the middle that what is sure to follow gateway legislation is really bad. And again, you're dealing with a public who largely believes that gun registration already exists, or who really don't care if it comes to fruition, maybe even think it's a good idea. So that one's pretty much dead, too.

The facts support our position, but that doesn't matter if we can't get an audience who cares enough to listen. It ain't about being right; it's about winning the hearts and minds of Mr. & Mrs. American voter who decide the balance of power every other year. The American people want public policy that ostensibly makes their kids safer and more likely to succeed in life. When it comes to legislation that they don't perceive as affecting them one way or another, they're gonna lean toward supporting things that seem like a good idea. When they see some snippet of a debate on gun control, with the anti's appealing to their emotion whilst some bonehead like Alex Jones spews the "not one more inch!" rhetoric, our side comes across as something between callous and bloodthirsty. Too many in our community give the antis both the brush and the paint to represent gun owners as selfish & uncaring.

I swear, many on this board and others exist in a vacuum, spend too much time preaching to the choir instead of actually paying attention to what's going on with the huge majority of the electorate.

 

[badkarmamib]

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

This thread proves that the answer is, "yes, we will lose", because we can't unify to fight/water-down/educate against it. I readily admit that I don't have all of the answers. The other side has volume and emotion on their side. We may have facts, but aren't sharing them with a group that a) will hear them and b) has the ability to affect the outcome. We preach to the choir, argue amongst ourselves, and complain when we lose, while the other side is both highly motivated and well organized. As long as this continues, yes, we will lose. Maybe not this year, maybe not this decade, but it WILL happen.

 

[Texas10mm]

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.

This is the goal of the Left. Not just the Second Amendment but a bunch of others too.

 

[AlexanderA]

I submit they have all sorts of "social justice" agenda items ahead of guns. Attacking free speech, attacking capitalism, wealth redistribution via tax plan, "free" college, immigration, etc... They have a lot of stuff on their agenda right now and while guns are certainly part of it, it is pretty far down the list right now. I will grant you that could change with another high profile shooting, but as of right now there are at least 5 big items ahead of guns on their agenda. Yes, there were some anti gun bills brought up already, but that is no surprise. It happens every year no matter who is in power, and it always comes from (mostly) the same people.

Banning guns (a new AWB) is actually simpler for the Democrats than the other big items on their agenda, such as Medicare for All and free college tuition, not to mention the "Green New Deal." There's a lot of internal dissension among them on the details of these other things, while they are more or less on the same page regarding guns. So I imagine gun control will be the "low hanging fruit" for the Democrats if they come to power.

 

[AlexanderA]

We have to have more people/voters who like and own firearms. That is, to have more people that have something to lose... The NRA and gun groups should be focused and funding classes and programs that will expose more and more people to firearms. There should be outreach programs purposefully placed in Liberal areas to help children and parents learn about firearms so that we aren't just preaching to the choir...

Too late for that. The turning point came when the NRA made itself into an arm of the Republican party, and identified with the right wing generally. That guaranteed that it (and gun advocates generally) would get no reception from liberals, city people, and others who are not part of the Republican coalition. Political polarization has killed us.

 

[jmorris]

They don't even want illegal aliens trying to buy guns reported to ICE.

Really? Hell, it was people that had email addresses that ended with .gov that were sending American guns into Mexico, they just got caught. Had they not it would have been “our” fault.

I am afraid that we will loose this battle and many others until we go the way of others that have gone through the cycle.

I think the zenith of America has already been reached.

 

[Walkalong]

I think the zenith of America has already been reached.

Unfortunately likely true, unless a total collapse comes from bad policies that cannot be funded indefinitely and we rise from the ashes. Free everything just doesn't work. Bad news is it takes a very long time to collapse, or should I say implode, and most of us won't see it, perhaps not our children, they'll just have to live through the downfall of a free America where we slowly drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

Then when we have run all the money out of of the USA and we cannot print money anymore, we'll just collapse when the dollar collapses. Everyone will be equally poor, oh what a wonderful world. Well, except our elite politicians who think they are better than the common folk they rule. And a few truly rich people they have allowed to stay rich because they need them.

All one has to do is look at countries around the world and history its self. The policies of open borders, no guns, free everything, will destroy any country, even one as great as the USA.

Think there are not poor people in Russia etc? Even with so much "free" stuff like education or health care etc, do you think they have a better standard of living than people here who work no matter what level of job? Don't fool your self. What makes a country great is the middle class, government cannot (Will not) do it. Sure, that leaves some people to have less, but those people will always be there, no matter what type of government we have. What they will have however, in a country of riches brought about by the freedom to make money and keep most of it, will be a greater standard of living than most people in countries where freedoms are limited, guns are outlawed or strictly controlled, and the ability/climate for a great middle class is non existent.

And I am tired of the people who say they are tired of people bashing Socialism and bringing it up as if it isn't an issue when so many of our politicians are now openly Socialist, not hiding it anymore. They are some of the ones at the head of the anti gun movement. Just like the I want to take all of your guns crowd, the Socialist crowd is getting bolder and more open about what they want and what type of legislation they will vote for.

Hillary: Ran on hate and wanted all of you guns. She lost, think they didn't notice?
Bernie: Ran/will run on free stuff, not shy about his anti gun stance.
Warren: Running on free stuff, not shy about her anti gun stance.
Others will follow suit.

No guns, free everything divided up by the government, healthcare controlled by the government, whether everyone gets it with the government deciding who pays what for the same coverage, or they just do it with different tax rates, is Socialism, pure and simple.

You cannot trust people with power, much less freaking politicians, as power corrupts, and is why the founding fathers wanted limited government and the right to bear arms. We should have had term limits on all politicians. They screwed up on that one.

We are losing both limited government and the right to bear arms in a big hurry.

UBCs don't have to happen, get your arguments ready and fight. If we lose that one, get ready for the next fight (And part of fighting can be trying to add things to the legislation the antis choke on, etc, but fight), as there will always be the next one, until we get rid of most of the antis in government, or we lose all gun rights.

And for those who think UBCs are a good idea, fine, vote for them, support politicians who want them, but don't come crying to me when the antis want the next thing you don't like.

And for those who bash the NRA and call them "right wing" "republican arm", etc, just remember, they support Democrats who are pro gun, so give them some to support. Simple as pie. Is the NRA perfect? far from it, but we can work on that as well. Life is a fight, get some.

 

[CoalTrain49]

UBC's sometimes lead to other bad laws that otherwise wouldn't exist. Here's one in WA. that targets anyone who is denied on a BC.

State law requires that I transmit the following information to the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs as a result of your firearm purchase or transfer denial within two days of the denial: (a) Identifying information of the applicant; (b) The date of the application and denial of the application; (c) Other information as prescribed by the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs. If you believe this denial is in error, and you do not exercise your right to appeal, you may be subject to criminal investigation by the Washington state patrol and/or a local law enforcement agency.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/House/1501-S.SL.pdf

You have to appeal or you get investigated.