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

[10mm Mike]

the gun rights movement has a lot of association with very undesirable individuals, groups and ideology. That is heavily used against us on the national forum, and very difficult to effectively counter.

Really? Name 3.

Look, I don't doubt that there are some nasty individuals that also happen to be pro gun, but GEM's post, as well as that narrative in general serves only to deliberately misrepresent a large group of individuals using identity politics. That way they can pull the, "I don't have to listen to what you have to say, you're a nazi!".

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.

Is it? Then how about we point out specific instances of such, represent their beliefs accurately, and act accordingly to change their minds or remove them from the movement instead of just calling every conservative white man an immigrant hating racist.

I follow several conservative commentators, among them Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. Some people may not like their extended politics, but they are both staunch 2nd amendment supporters and routinely get called nazi's and racists (which is really great since Shapiro is a practicing orthodox jew) with the same type of broad generalizations used here. They are factually NOT racists or nazi's. It is not my fault, the GOP's fault, or the NRA's fault that there are no leftwing, strong pro 2A , counterparts either in the media or in politics.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Really? Name 3.

Any number of white supremacy groups, for one. The wing nut conspiracy theorist "black helicopter" crowd. Anarchist groups. Various cults.

Basically, the antis have done a very good job of using the ownership of guns and dislike of liberals that these groups have in common with most benign gun owners and selling it to the public that we're all racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, xenophobic conservative white men. Far from true, but that's what they show, and that's what people see. Guilt by association, if A is B then B is A fallacy. Bogus, but effective.

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.

That's been a problem for a long time. Just like a poor reading of the bill or taking what was said by some outfit as gospel, BSA1 believed HR8 or HR1112 had waiting period provisions.

 

[paulsj]

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.

There is no solid argument against UBC.

 

[Deanimator]

1. Deanimator, your resistance strategy is just business as usual in the gun debate. So much for the fire laden rhetoric.

You asked me a question and I answered it.

If the answer was not to your liking, that's on YOU. I don't lose sleep when anti-gunners whine and stomp their feet when I say, "NO, I REFUSE" either.

 

[Deanimator]

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

No, I refuse to argue from your [at best] defeatist point of view.

But then I DON'T want to see an absolute governmental monopoly on the mans of armed force.

 

[Deanimator]

There is no solid argument against UBC.

...other than it's a stalking horse for REGISTRATION which has NO purpose apart from CONFISCATION.

Other than THAT, it's great...

 

[Deanimator]

The use of firearms by the Civil Rights movement is well known but not promoted much. Wonder why?

I promote it every chance I get. I frequently get censored on cleveland.com for doing so. Why? Because it's not about guns. It's about control, usually of Black and brown people, and frequently Jews.

I've previously related the story of the Holocaust cheerleading anti-gunner I encountered working as a cleaner in a Lakewood, Ohio McDonalds. He was no outlier.

Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman... or a Nazi.

 

[CapnMac]

There is no solid argument against UBC.

If you mean in the sense that this is meant as a cudgel to further control over the gun-owning public, then yes, entirely correct. HR 8 is political capital invested to further a cause that liberty must needs be curtailed and given to our "betters."

If you mean in the logical sense, no, there are a number of quite valid, logical avenues to debate UBC as a concept, and as a law. Which, naturally, presupposes that said debate were following rules of logic rather than political grandstanding.

But, forensically, the fatal flaw in a UBC is that it is founded on a presumption that background checks have any effect on crime. This is demonstrably false, and has been so for the last 50 years, when GCA '68 first mandated them. Numerous examples exist of criminals who "passed" the "background check" going on to commit crimes.

Further, we could get to the minutiae of the process, which is only a polling of information versus a "blacklist" and not a background
investigation at all.

There is a legitimate debate argument in that the resources to conduct the putative volume of UBC does not exist. Which has a corollary argument in that the resources required would decrease the presence of LE to act in limitation of crime. Ergo, UBC are likely to increase crimes, not prevent them.

Lastly, the simplest and most cogent point of debate is that: You cannot reduce crime by making more actions illegal.

But, this is political, not logical; it's about limiting liberty, so that said liberty might be a chattel to be doled out at a "better's" whim or allow. The simplest (and sadly, most vitriolic) argument, politically, against UBC are that they are a theft of Liberty.

 

[Walkalong]

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.



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.

But they don't want illegals reported to ICE if they try to buy a gun? Ay caramba!

 

[Walkalong]

You don't have to convince me. I want to know how you convince the non-gunner.

An important point, and one a lot of people smarter than me are working on.

 

[paulsj]

...other than it's a stalking horse for REGISTRATION which has NO purpose apart from CONFISCATION.

Other than THAT, it's great...

I have hard time visualising the confiscation process. Is that even possible?

 

[Englishmn]

Yes, armed squad goes door to door.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/nationalspecial/police-begin-seizing-guns-of-civilians.html

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

There is no solid argument against UBC.

At a federal level? Using HR 8 as our reference point? Sure there is. It isn’t based in interstate commerce and is thus reserved to the states. The government is usurping power specifically enumerated for others.

And don’t give me this bullcrap about how it “doesn’t really affect me”. It will sooner or later because the government camel will have his nose in your tent-if they can push you around on this, then they can push you around on anything else they want. We get the government we deserve.

 

[paulsj]

The article deals with disaster relief post hurricane Katrina. It is not about firearm confiscation.

 

[MachIVshooter]

No, I refuse to argue from your [at best] defeatist point of view.

I said nothing of arguing from my point of view, which you still don't really understand anyway. I asked you what your clever argument was.

It's pretty clear you have nothing besides beating the same old "not one more inch!", "Shall not be infringed!" drum. Guess what? All those people in the middle have heard it, ad nauseum. It's not novel, it's not pithy, and it doesn't resonate with non-gunners. If it worked, we wouldn't be on defense yet again.

 

[BSA1]

Just like a poor reading of the bill or taking what was said by some outfit as gospel, BSA1 believed HR8 or HR1112 had waiting period provisions.

COOL! A word play argument along with a backhanded personal insult. I have not had a good one of these since I retired from being a Governmint Secret Agent. I accept your challenge Sir.

En garde!

First definitions are in order;

delay

noun

de·lay | \ di-ˈlā , dē-\

Definition of delay

(Entry 1 of 3)

1a : the act of postponing, hindering, or causing something to occur more slowly than normal : the state of being delayed

//get started without delay

b : an instance of being delayed

//apologized for the delay

//a rain delay

2 : the time during which something is delayed

//waited out a delay of 30 minutes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delay

wait

verb

\ ˈwāt \

Definition of wait

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1 : to stay in place in expectation of : await waited the result of the advertisement— W. M. Thackeray wait your turn

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wait

Synonyms for wait

Synonyms: Noun

delay, detainment, detention, holdback, holding pattern, holdup

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wait#synonyms

So for my purposes of English common language definitions delay and wait are synonyms.

Now to my sources:

“H.R. 1112 authorizes delays in background checks of up to 20 business days.

An initial 10-day waiting period would be required before processing the sale of a gun. If the background check is not completed during that time period, the buyer must file a petition with the federal government and wait another 10 days before the transaction may go through.”

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...n-control-bills-in-congress-white-house-says/

“A second bill (H.R. 1112), expected to be taken up Thursday, would extend the period federal authorities have to complete a background check before a gun sale can go through. Under current law, if a check isn't finalized in three business days, the transaction can automatically proceed.”

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/27/698512397/house-passes-most-significant-gun-bill-in-2-decades

I would like to continue our duel but alas I must return to work tomorrow which unfortunately starts earlier than usual. So I will close simply by saying I don't not accept your strategy of appeasement.

 

[CoalTrain49]

But they don't want illegals reported to ICE if they try to buy a gun? Ay caramba!

I've never been denied but the entire process is based on records. Erroneous denials and proceeds happen all the time because records are not kept up to date. A guy gets a restraining order but the record is never updated or deleted. Stuff like that. Even the FBI says they are only about 90% accurate in their determinations. It's all contingent on court records and how proactive the courts are in updating records.

A mass shooting happened here because a tribal court didn't update it's records to NCIC about a tribal member who should have been a restricted person. He purchased several pistols from Cabelas, one of which was used by his son to do the shooting. NICS didn't catch it because of court records not being transmitted. Huge fail just like some other mass shootings we've seen. One in a Texas church comes to mind.

My problem with a UBC is restricted people fall thru the cracks and people that shouldn't get hung up. It normally takes me 3 days to get a proceed. Sometimes I never get one but my dealer knows me and he does the transfer anyway if it goes over 4 days. We belong to the same private range. If you like the no fly list you'll love a UBC. It wouldn't surprise me that a UBC denial might land you on a no fly list. Being detained or even arrested during a routine traffic stop seems entirely possible to me in this state because a denial is going to come up (if I have one) when LE runs my plates. All because I failed a UBC.

Walkalong, this law that I linked will catch an undocumented person but won't necessarily mean the person will be deported. If it happened in the city nearest me they wouldn't even contact ICE.

 

[Deanimator]

I said nothing of arguing from my point of view, which you still don't really understand anyway. I asked you what your clever argument was.

It's pretty clear you have nothing besides beating the same old "not one more inch!", "Shall not be infringed!" drum. Guess what? All those people in the middle have heard it, ad nauseum. It's not novel, it's not pithy, and it doesn't resonate with non-gunners. If it worked, we wouldn't be on defense yet again.

I understand your "argument". I reject its premises from first principles. Were I not to do so, I might just as well join Brady.

 

[Deanimator]

I have hard time visualising the confiscation process. Is that even possible?

Ask a Brit.

Ask somebody who lived through Katrina.

 

[MachIVshooter]

COOL! A word play argument along with a backhanded personal insult. I have not had a good one of these since I retired from being a Governmint Secret Agent. I accept your challenge Sir.

En garde!

First definitions are in order;

delay

noun

de·lay | \ di-ˈlā , dē-\

Definition of delay

(Entry 1 of 3)

1a : the act of postponing, hindering, or causing something to occur more slowly than normal : the state of being delayed

//get started without delay

b : an instance of being delayed

//apologized for the delay

//a rain delay

2 : the time during which something is delayed

//waited out a delay of 30 minutes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delay

wait

verb

\ ˈwāt \

Definition of wait

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1 : to stay in place in expectation of : await waited the result of the advertisement— W. M. Thackeray wait your turn

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wait

Synonyms for wait

Synonyms: Noun

delay, detainment, detention, holdback, holding pattern, holdup

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wait#synonyms

So for my purposes of English common language definitions delay and wait are synonyms.

Now to my sources:

“H.R. 1112 authorizes delays in background checks of up to 20 business days.

An initial 10-day waiting period would be required before processing the sale of a gun. If the background check is not completed during that time period, the buyer must file a petition with the federal government and wait another 10 days before the transaction may go through.”

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...n-control-bills-in-congress-white-house-says/

“A second bill (H.R. 1112), expected to be taken up Thursday, would extend the period federal authorities have to complete a background check before a gun sale can go through. Under current law, if a check isn't finalized in three business days, the transaction can automatically proceed.”

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/27/698512397/house-passes-most-significant-gun-bill-in-2-decades

I would like to continue our duel but alas I must return to work tomorrow which unfortunately starts earlier than usual. So I will close simply by saying I don't not accept your strategy of appeasement.

Nice try, but it's not a semantics game. Provisions for longer periods of investigation before transfer if there is no response from NICS are not waiting periods, "cooling off" periods.

I don't agree with it in any way, but I'm not going to engage in fear mongering by calling it something it's not. I'll leave that to you and the likes of GOA. I find it more effective and honorable to not engage in the same dishonest tactics our opponents use.

 

[giggitygiggity]

If Republicans were as diligent and intent on passing pro gun legislation as the Democrats are about passing anti gun legislation, then we’d be able to buy machine guns and suppressors off Walmart shelves.

It’s very frustrating that the Dems only took two months to successfully pass anti gun legislation in the house, yet Republicans took two years and failed to deliver on the HPA, concealed carry, and anything pro gun whatsoever. I think the Republicans should have moved forward with the HPA after Las Vegas just to make a statement that one crazy nitwit and a bunch of rabid journalists and Dems will not derail pro gun legislation and deny law abiding citizens their rights.

 

[Tommygunn]

..... 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.

The longer I live, the less faith I have in "public opinion" as some "bellwether" for politicians. Politicians have pushed their agendas down our throats before (like Obamacare) and often give pretty sounding names to laws to help. In my more cynical moments I can believe a reincarnation of Hitler could make popular and cheerfully pass a law titled "Be Kind to Newborn Kittens and Puppies Act," but the law would call for the literal extermination of tomorrow's most politically unpopular minority population -- but this would not be found out until you got to page 87 in small type at the bottom of the page.

I'm not sure what public sentiment is about UBCs, but it sounds to me like another issue that sounds great in generalities, but not in details. There are other issues that are like this; they poll well, except when the details are brought out, the near collective response is, "What!!???! --' Wait, it will cost WHAT do do that!!??? And taxes will have to TRIPLE???? UH, thank you very much."

If UBCs must be, we need to get SOME THING positive in return. I can accept that. But our first choice is to fight it, and better communicate the downsides of it.

We also need to do a better job of education. The reliance on government as a pallatIive or solution for every problem of society has to cease. A more realistic concept of expectations must be instilled in the public consciousness.
How?
Better education is where it needs to start.
A higher standard for politicians. A citizenry better able to detect the lies politicians foist on us to attain office.

I suppose what I'm really saying is we better start practicing by figuring out how to herd cats ..... 'cause in a society where "two fools out vote one wiseman,*" We're pretty much toast............



*---A reference to a statement Socrates made a few millenia ago.

 

[Tommygunn]

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.

"Work more often than not???" Very few criminals try to purchase guns from an FFL, and of the very few that do, most are simply refused even though they've commited a crime in making the attempt. Yet most receive no further consequences. Now it's claimed that it wasn't the purpose of NICS checks to imprison exfelons who tried to buy guns from ffls.
Of the exfelons who were denied, do you suppose that one failed attempt to buy a gun was the sum total of their efforts to obtain a gun?
No. You don't know and can't know. Does anyone? Are such stats known, or collected?
Most criminals get guns through criminal or devious means. They will not be effected by a UBC because they do not obey the law, do not care about NICS checks because THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO NICS CHECKS OR UBC CHECKS.

With due respect, I don't believe you have any reliable or honest metric to judge just how reliable NICS checks are. They only control the honest citizenry.
They largely serve only to control the population and to further acclimate us to federal oversight in our lives.
We've had NICS for a quarter century. If it was such a great success, then why the continued cry for more gunlaws .... ever more gunlaws. Gun bans.... the universal background check .... why? There are 20,000 gunlaws in America. Why do we need so many?
Think about it.

 

[Deanimator]

With due respect, I don't believe you have any reliable or honest metric to judge just how reliable NICS checks are. They only control the honest citizenry.

But isn't that the REAL goal in the first place?

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Howard Metzenbaum

 

[BSA1]

Nice try, but it's not a semantics game. Provisions for longer periods of investigation before transfer if there is no response from NICS are not waiting periods, "cooling off" periods.

At no time have I brought up the subject of waiting periods, "cooling off" periods which occur after the UBC has been approved and the sale completed.

By changing the topic you have conceded to my arguments.

Touche'