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

[BSA1]

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.

It is not hyperbole or straw man to point out that appeasement does not work, even in the short term.

Nor do we have to look very far in history for examples;

On September 30, 1930 British Prime Minister declared that “Peace for our time” after agreeing to cede the Sudetenland to Hitler. Chamberlain also separately drafted a non-aggression pact between Britain and Germany that Hitler signed.

Yet in March 1939, Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, and just one year later the Nazis crossed into Poland on September 1, 1939.

You ask “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?” I gave you one way that I consider to be very effective back on Post #65. Since you missed reading it or just rejected it I will repost it anyway;

“The future is with women. Remember the saying "If Momma ain't happy, no one is happy." Our society of deadbeat Dads, fewer marriages and long-term relationships has resulted in single Moms raising a family by themselves. Women recognize they are a high target for criminals and are vulnerable to domestic violence. As they learn the Police are powerless to protect they turn to guns to protect themselves and their children.

The NRA along with gun manufacturers recognize this and are aggressively reaching out to them. A key point about UBC's and waiting periods that should be made to women is having their gun still at the gun store for the background check to pass and waiting periods ("cooling off" for whom?) doesn't protect them when a violent ex is at their front door beating on it and threatening to kill her after the door is opened.

Women also have the most influence on what children learn. Educate Momma and she will pass that onto her children.”

As far as your comment that “Because right now, they think it should, along with a huge percentage of gun owners and 100% of anti-gun folks” I am not sure that that “huge percentage of gun owners” support UBC. With the large population that live in anti-gun States like California, Maryland, New Jersey it is not difficult to get survey results that support widespread support for anti-gun laws.

While the majority of THR members may support more gun control laws and are opposed to the NRA it doesn’t mean that is the general public attitude. My gun club puts on a free annual “Women on Target” event that is always completely filled up.

For me the choice is easy. Old Benjamin Franklin said it best many years ago;

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Maybe I will be remembered as a foolish man that stood up against more gun restrictions by my Grandchildren but I prefer that to be remembered as an appeaser like Neville Chamberlain.

 

[jmorris]

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,

That’s it, takes a long time for the cycle. It’s been a couple of lifetimes just to get to this point.

 

[Deanimator]

We have won a lot of fights that looked bad, and we have to try to win this one.

I was told with finality that Ohio would NEVER get shall issue concealed carry.

Then when we got shall issue concealed carry, I was told that we would NEVER get the most onerous "poison pill" provisions removed.

Then when that was done...

You get the picture.

Some people actually seem to WANT to lose. Of course for some of them, losing is winning. The name AHSA comes to mind...

 

[Deanimator]

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.)

I'm old enough to remember supporters of Ho Chi Minh chanting to levitate the Pentagon.

They had a lot better chance for success.

 

[BSA1]

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.

Losing a battle does not mean we have lost the war. Military history proves this time and time again.

Japan effectively destroy most of our Pacific fleet on December 7, 1941 with the theory the U.S. would negotiate a surrender.

Yet only six months we delivered what is generally considered the battle that changed the course of the war and was a major contribution leading to Japan's defeat. Even so Japan missed several opportunities to change the war for their favor.

WAAAAAAAAAAY to much has been made of the Democrats winning control of the House.

The President generally only has his first two years in office to enjoy having his party in complete control of Congress. Obama was elected in 2008 and the Republicans won back control of the House in 2010.

President Bush was an exception due to the Twin Towers attack on 9/11.

So the question should be will the next Democrat President use his political capital with a Democrat controlled Congress to ban guns or will there be a different goal such as Obama did with health care? Gun ownership is a major hot button issue that I believe would directly cause the Democrats to lose control of Congress in the mid-term elections. (And both parties want complete control of the Presidency and Congress).

 

[MachIVshooter]

It is not hyperbole or straw man to point out that appeasement does not work, even in the short term.

Nor do we have to look very far in history for examples;

On September 30, 1930 British Prime Minister declared that “Peace for our time” after agreeing to cede the Sudetenland to Hitler. Chamberlain also separately drafted a non-aggression pact between Britain and Germany that Hitler signed.

Yet in March 1939, Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, and just one year later the Nazis crossed into Poland on September 1, 1939.

We've tried that argument and countless others. They don't resonate with that "silent majority".

You ask “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?” I gave you one way that I consider to be very effective back on Post #65. Since you missed reading it or just rejected it I will repost it anyway;

“The future is with women. Remember the saying "If Momma ain't happy, no one is happy." Our society of deadbeat Dads, fewer marriages and long-term relationships has resulted in single Moms raising a family by themselves. Women recognize they are a high target for criminals and are vulnerable to domestic violence. As they learn the Police are powerless to protect they turn to guns to protect themselves and their children.

The NRA along with gun manufacturers recognize this and are aggressively reaching out to them. A key point about UBC's and waiting periods that should be made to women is having their gun still at the gun store for the background check to pass and waiting periods ("cooling off" for whom?) doesn't protect them when a violent ex is at their front door beating on it and threatening to kill her after the door is opened.

But UBC and waiting periods are not the same thing. Arguing against waiting periods is easy for exactly the reason you state, but these same women you want to reach out to are more likely to support UBC knowing that a violent ex or stalker whom they've pulled a restraining order against can't pass a BGC.

Knowing who you need to convince is the easy part. How to do it is the struggle, and you are not offering anything useful for accomplishing said goal.

As far as your comment that “Because right now, they think it should, along with a huge percentage of gun owners and 100% of anti-gun folks” I am not sure that that “huge percentage of gun owners” support UBC. With the large population that live in anti-gun States like California, Maryland, New Jersey it is not difficult to get survey results that support widespread support for anti-gun laws.

Then you're out of touch. Once more, of the ~80 million gun owners in this country, only about 1/3 are really 2A advocates. My mom owns a shotgun, so is among that gun owner statistic, and she would absolutely support UBC, no matter what I say. And she's sort of a captive audience as family. More gun owners than not fall into the category of having one, maybe even enjoying shooting them or using them for hunting, but definitely not in our camp when it comes to shall not be infringed.

While the majority of THR members may support more gun control laws and are opposed to the NRA it doesn’t mean that is the general public attitude. My gun club puts on a free annual “Women on Target” event that is always completely filled up.

That's definitely off-base. The overwhelming majority here certainly does not support more gun control. A good number of us, however, understand that the same tired old pro-gun arguments aren't reaching or striking a chord with that huge electorate I keep trying to make people aware of. Gun boards are an echo chamber of 2A advocacy, and patting one another on the back for making good points and fighting the good fight doesn't do a thing to prevent bad legislation.

 

[10mm Mike]

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.

So much truth here it almost hurts. Hope those of you that have already surrendered away everyone else's rights along with your own have bothered to read this.

 

[Deanimator]

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

Neither is abject collaboration.

1. Join and support one or more pro-gun organizations.
2. Communicate with friendly or vulnerable hostile legislators.
3. Support friendly legislators and candidates.
4. MOST importantly, NEVER let a lie go unchallenged. EVERY time I'm aware that cleveland.com posts lies in favor of racially invidious gun controls I make point by point rebuttals. I'm frequently censored, ESPECIALLY when I point out the White supremacist history of gun control in North America. I just keep posting, and shaming them until I get posted.
5. Engage in information warfare with the other side. Concede them NOTHING.

Of course some people consider "bend over and grab your ankles" a viable strategy. And it IS... if the other side and its fellow travelers can get you to do it. It's just not a viable strategy for gun owners who want to continue to BE gun owners.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

Well, you've pretty much let the cat out of the bag as far as the collaborationist side goes.

The Democrat party made ITSELF the party of racially invidious gun control FIRST (before the Civil War, actually). Yet somehow gun owners were supposed to vote for the people THREATENING TO NUKE us.

Somehow I don't think you believe that gay people should have voted for Republicans who opposed gay marriage and supported anti-sodomy laws.

 

[Deanimator]

But UBC and waiting periods are not the same thing.

Sham "universal background checks" are the yellow star and pink triangle. They're not an end in themselves. They're a MEANS to an end.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Sham "universal background checks" are the yellow star and pink triangle. They're not an end in themselves. They're a MEANS to an end.

You don't have to convince me. I want to know how you convince the non-gunner. But I know you're just going to keep throwing out insults & red herrings. You don't actually have a strategy for winning over the folks on the fence. The Democrats do, and it's very effective. If you actually want to prevent UBC, not just delay it a little longer, you're gonna have to dig deep, think hard and come up with something a lot better than contrived slippery slope arguments. Again, even if John Q. Public can be convinced that it's a slippery slope, you're operating under the flawed assumption he has a problem with that. In case you missed it the first time I said it, most people think that there is already a registry. Only about 1/5 of the population knows there isn't, and half of them are our enemies who absolutely want it.

You'd better learn to start seeing things from the perspective of and thinking like non-gunners and anti-gunners. If you can't do that, can't identify and empathize with them, you'll never succeed in bringing them over to our side. The antis will keep painting us as selfish and callous, and you'll keep reinforcing that impression.

 

[Deanimator]

You'd better learn to start seeing things from the perspective of and thinking like non-gunners and anti-gunners.

I do. It's why I don't fall for their grifts and those of their fellow travelers.

I can quote their own arguments back to them better than they can present them. It's called "paying attention".

 

[jmorris]

WAAAAAAAAAAY to much has been made of the Democrats winning control of the House.

That’s not it for me. I am more concerned with the party against “old white men” supporting one that is a socialist, enough so they had to cheat him out of a chance to run for POTUS in the last election. Also the guy with the most fund raising thus far for the next election, that’s a dramatic shift in the population’s “reality”.

In 1962 A Democrat said “We choose to go to the moon.”, now has shifted to the party that needs to rid the world of “farting cows” and get rid of air travel all together (except for them, just us “deplorable’s”).

 

[MachIVshooter]

I do. It's why I don't fall for their grifts and those of their fellow travelers.

I can quote their own arguments back to them better than they can present them. It's called "paying attention".

For such a successful, veteran debater, you sure are reluctant to share your fantastic arguments and insights with this group........

 

[10mm Mike]

You don't have to convince me. I want to know how you convince the non-gunner. But I know you're just going to keep throwing out insults & red herrings. You don't actually have a strategy for winning over the folks on the fence. The Democrats do, and it's very effective. If you actually want to prevent UBC, not just delay it a little longer, you're gonna have to dig deep, think hard and come up with something a lot better than contrived slippery slope arguments. Again, even if John Q. Public can be convinced that it's a slippery slope, you're operating under the flawed assumption he has a problem with that. In case you missed it the first time I said it, most people think that there is already a registry. Only about 1/5 of the population knows there isn't, and half of them are our enemies who absolutely want it.

You'd better learn to start seeing things from the perspective of and thinking like non-gunners and anti-gunners. If you can't do that, can't identify and empathize with them, you'll never succeed in bringing them over to our side. The antis will keep painting us as selfish and callous, and you'll keep reinforcing that impression.

I made this argument on a different thread but the discussion was the same:

Its simple. Its NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS if I decide to sell my own property, or buy someone else's property, or if we trade our property. Further, I don't need ANYONE'S PERMISSION, especially the governments, to make said transaction with another private citizen. It doesn't matter what that property is. Our right to privacy and to be left the hell alone supersedes any other concerns.

It's easy to expand on this idea and draw parallels to other trending issue, like weed (in places like Colorado and wherever else it is legal). How do you think those pot heads would react if they had to go to a local licensed pot store if they wanted to buy, sell, trade, or share some of their weed with their friends? Maybe that's already a law somewhere, is anyone naive enough to think that they really do that or would do that? What do you think their argument against such a thing would be? I bet it would be pretty similar to the "NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS" argument.

What about power tools? They can be dangerous ya know! Might need to stop by the local home depot and get someones permission before you buy that used power tool you found a great deal on. Safety first!

Selling an old computer or smart phone? Better drop by your local best buy so they can make sure you are responsible enough to handle it and scan the drives to make sure there isn't any kiddy porn on there. It's for the children ya know!

 

[MachIVshooter]

I made this argument on a different thread but the discussion was the same:

Its simple. Its NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS if I decide to sell my own property, or buy someone else's property, or if we trade our property. Further, I don't need ANYONE'S PERMISSION, especially the governments, to make said transaction with another private citizen. It doesn't matter what that property is. Our right to privacy and to be left the hell alone supersedes any other concerns.

It's easy to expand on this idea and draw parallels to other trending issue, like weed (in places like Colorado and wherever else it is legal). How do you think those pot heads would react if they had to go to a local licensed pot store if they wanted to buy, sell, trade, or share some of their weed with their friends? Maybe that's already a law somewhere, is anyone naive enough to think that they really do that or would do that? What do you think their argument against such a thing would be? I bet it would be pretty similar to the "NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS" argument.

What about power tools? They can be dangerous ya know! Might need to stop by the local home depot and get someones permission before you buy that used power tool you found a great deal on. Safety first!

Selling an old computer or smart phone? Better drop by your local best buy so they can make sure you are responsible enough to handle it and scan the drives to make sure there isn't any kiddy porn on there. It's for the children ya know!

It's a very valid argument, and can be used with limited success, but that success is dependent on the person you're communicating with being at least somewhat individual liberty minded. You have to remember that a lot of people do believe there should be more restrictions, more government involvement on the use & transfer of other things as well. Many folks would like to see recreational drones licensed & regulated, see more stringent requirements on licensing drivers, more censorship in digital media. These people are not convinced by individual liberty viewpoints.

Of the remainder who wouldn't want more intrusion, they largely still view firearms quite differently from other implements. Yes, firearms are just a tool, proper/good or improper/evil use dependent on the user. It's still an uphill battle trying to compare them favorably with objects like motor vehicles or power tools, which we all know can be dangerous and can be used as weapons, but which weren't designed & manufactured for the purpose of poking holes in living things to make them dead things. What do you retort with when you paint yourself into that corner drawing such parallels?

 

[berettaprofessor]

I woke up last night, middle of the night, wondering how HR8 (the UBC bill) would affect transport of guns in air travel. To be exact, when I notify TSA I'm flying with a checked firearm, how would HR8 be fulfilled? Just so we all know exactly what we're against, I've copied the "exceptions" from HR8 below.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;

“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;

“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;

“(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, including harm to self, family, household members, or others, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse;

“(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

I wasn't aware from reading this thread and others that HR8 does not preclude gifting my grandson with his already purchased Ruger Bearcat per HR8:2b . And it looks like HR8:2a allows air travel with a checked firearm just as before. And HR8:2d suggests that I can allow a friend, who is under threat of stalking, abuse, etc, to borrow a firearm (although I'm sure that I'd personally hate to be the test case for that part of the statute).

In my opinion, the exceptions of section 2A, 2B, and 2D counteract many of the arguments that would keep selected segments of the public from supporting it. Hunters can still fly with their hunting rifles, you can still gift guns to immediate family members, and you can likely loan a firearm to a potential abuse victim; all objections that I've heard raised against the bill. We're fighting against the Fudd's, the Metoo#'s, and suburban moms, all of who don't really care about government overreach and the 2nd.

Yes, I can't sell a gun to just any Bubba for money without a background check. Yes, I firmly believes that violates my 2A and other rights and I understand the danger that it is yet another step towards registration. A huge number of the public really doesn't care about those things, however, even if most of "us" do.

Bottom line: The writers and sponsors of this bill are not stupid. I won't stop resisting it where I can, but I'm not as sure as others here that this won't pass the Senate...nor that President Trump will so easily veto it. The only thing I can count on is that politicians of all stripes will follow their own assessment of the direction the wind is blowing, principles be darned.

 

[BSA1]

But UBC and waiting periods are not the same thing.

Well they are included together in H.R.8 that was passed last week. H.R. 8 extends the period for UBC to 10 days and H.R. 1112 extends it to 20 business days.

20 business days extends the time to over a calendar month.

Knowing who you need to convince is the easy part. How to do it is the struggle, and you are not offering anything useful for accomplishing said goal.

You accuse others of not reading and understanding what you are saying but you are doing the exact same thing to me. For the third time…

WOMEN ON TARGET is a effective educational event created by the NRA.

You apparently will not acknowledge this as it runs counter to your position.

Then you're out of touch. Once more, of the ~80 million gun owners in this country, only about 1/3 are really 2A advocates.

I am obviously out of touch with your beliefs but not out of touch with Kansas and most recently Oklahoma citizens beliefs about gun control.

Where are you coming up with these figures about who supports gun control?

A good number of us, however, understand that the same tired old pro-gun arguments aren't reaching or striking a chord with that huge electorate I keep trying to make people aware of.

And history shows that appeasement is not the answer.

Appeasement only serves to empower your opponents and encourages them to push harder for their objectives.

 

[10mm Mike]

It's a very valid argument, and can be used with limited success, but that success is dependent on the person you're communicating with being at least somewhat individual liberty minded. You have to remember that a lot of people do believe there should be more restrictions, more government involvement on the use & transfer of other things as well. Many folks would like to see recreational drones licensed & regulated, see more stringent requirements on licensing drivers, more censorship in digital media. These people are not convinced by individual liberty viewpoints.

Very true. However, in my experience, the people you describe here also just happen to be the very same hardcore anti gunners that will never change their minds no matter what. Most "normies" aren't like that and have some sort of hobby or special interest where this principle would apply and help them open their eyes, if not outright change their mind, should their area of interest get put in the cross hairs.

What do you retort with when you paint yourself into that corner drawing such parallels?

Private property is private property. Alcohol doesn't force one to drive drunk or act belligerent anymore than a gun or knife forces you to kill someone. If anything, guns (and swords, knives, etc... other "arms") are abit special in that they get extra protection. Not only do they get the same protections as described above, but they have been singled out specifically by the founding fathers to get EXTRA protection with the 2nd amendment, because tyrants will be tyrants and the only thing they understand is force.

Often the response is with the "need" argument: "I just don't think people NEED 30 round assault clips that can be fired from fully semi automatic assault weapons of war". And my response to that is freedom & liberty don't NEED a "need" justification. All that is required is the financial means and a desire. Otherwise we can play the "need" game until they are living in a cardboard box surviving on rice rations.

 

[GEM]

First - we are NOT going down the rabbit hole of anyone's version of cultural purity on immigration. You wonder why some folks don't particularly care for gun rights supporters - It's because that sort of correlated rhetoric.That will be deleted.

Several other things:

1. Deanimator, your resistance strategy is just business as usual in the gun debate. So much for the fire laden rhetoric.
2. About American opinion - decent opinion research shows that Americans usually support the right to have firearms, esp. for self-defense BUT they also support legalisms to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal and those who are a threat due to mental illness. The UBC has very powerful appeal for this principle and the inconvenience and THEY ARE COMING for us themes will not resonate. Understand that.

The gun world has accepted without uproar the NICS check system and this will be seen as the same.

3. Can we convince people? Again, this may annoy folks. I sense that some folks want to keep gun rights as an exclusive religious like belief of their slice of the demographics political world. But that is a bunker strategy that will fail. The defense against tyranny can be expanded and be convincing. Look at the following story:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/01/gun-rights-african-americans-1197153

These folks see the need and certainly are not and don't want to be (and can't be) part of the immigrant hating, basically conservative white male demographic that unfortunately major national gun rights organizations have catered to, with being joined at the hip with the GOP and obsequious praise of a President. Said Prez has little use for the cause (if you haven't noticed) and only uses it for votes.

The use of firearms by the Civil Rights movement is well known but not promoted much. Wonder why? The threat of tyranny can be used. In fact, the current turn of the GOP is an argument for owning guns to defend against tyranny in the minds of some liberals and minorities. It is a good argument and can be used. Social opinions can be changed. The country does move towards more freedom in general. Civil Rights, rights of women, gay rights, etc. have been expanded as folks moved towards freedom. Of course, the gun world's unpleasant subset may still rail against those rights - unfortunately. Principle being that long held social beliefs can be changed.

The principle of moral panic is behind the state gun bans and they will continue with each rampage. Unless, the gun world can show a countervailing good of firearms ownership with convincing argument and data, the right will be lost. The idea that freedom doesn't need a justification isn't going to work. Freedoms and liberties in the BOR have limitations, Frank Ettin has spoken to this before. Speech and religion are not without limits. I don't need to go over that.

If people feel that a 30 round mag or bump stock or fully auto gun poses a threat without a rationale that it is your 'freedom' to have one - you lost. That's an argument that is self evident only to you, just as if your Church says you can marry multiple 12 year olds.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Well they are included together in H.R.8 that was passed last week. H.R. 8 extends the period for UBC to 10 days and H.R. 1112 extends it to 20 business days.

20 business days extends the time to over a calendar month.

You aren't understanding the language at all. Those are not waiting periods; the former takes the current 3 days after no response and makes it 10 to transfer without a proceed determination, and the latter 25 day period is the amount of time for which a "proceed" determination on a NICS check remains valid.

 

[10mm Mike]

These folks see the need and certainly are not and don't want to be (and can't be) part of the immigrant hating, basically conservative white male demographic that unfortunately major national gun rights organizations have catered to, with being joined at the hip with the GOP and obsequious praise of a President. Said Prez has little use for the cause (if you haven't noticed) and only uses it for votes.

You'd do well to follow your own advise and keep your extended political views to yourself. This gross generalization is NOT well received.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Private property is private property. Alcohol doesn't force one to drive drunk or act belligerent anymore than a gun or knife forces you to kill someone. If anything, guns (and swords, knives, etc... other "arms") are abit special in that they get extra protection. Not only do they get the same protections as described above, but they have been singled out specifically by the founding fathers to get EXTRA protection with the 2nd amendment, because tyrants will be tyrants and the only thing they understand is force.

Often the response is with the "need" argument: "I just don't think people NEED 30 round assault clips that can be fired from fully semi automatic assault weapons of war". And my response to that is freedom & liberty don't NEED a "need" justification. All that is required is the financial means and a desire. Otherwise we can play the "need" game until they are living in a cardboard box surviving on rice rations.

Those arguments are absolutely valid and correct, but still don't convince many fence sitters, especially the ones who lean more toward restrictions & regulation. I know, I've been using those same points for a long, long time. That's the problem. Having the facts on our side just doesn't get us where we need to be and, as GEM pointed out in post #195, the gun rights movement has a lot of association with very undesirable individuals, groups and ideology. That is heavily used against us in the national forum, and very difficult to effectively counter.

 

[GEM]

10mm Mike - thanks for making my point. If what I said is not well received, then perhaps a realization of a problem with a section of gun rights supporters is needed.

 

[alsaqr]

i failed to find a link to H. R. 8 on this thread: May have overlooked same.

Some pro-gun organizations tell you what's in H. R. 8. They don't trust you to read the thing. Getting folks stirred up with half truths and lies keeps the money coming in. GOA had this to say about H. R. 8:

""The term “transfer” is nowhere defined, but it’s clear from the bill that handing your gun to a neighbor for as little as one second is a “transfer” unless you’re covered by one of the bill’s so-called exceptions.

So if you show off your new gun to your neighbor in your living room, and hand it to him to look at, you’re a criminal, and can go to prison for up to a year under federal level.

But as onerous as this provision is, the worst part consists of the Universal Gun Registry the bill would create.""

https://gunowners.org/alert020519/

There is no substitute for actually reading the proposed legislation. H. R, 8 is short, concise and easy to comprehend:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text