After Columbine, there was the same "something mist be done" nonsense being pushed to "close the gunshow loophole" (eliminate private sales). We fought hard and did not accept a compromise - which is probably the only reason we aren't being sold the "something must be done, let's throw assault rifles under the bus now.
Closing "the gunshow loophole" wouldn't have been compromise. That would have been a surrender, seeing as there is no gun show loophole. Any dealer selling has to conduct the same background checks there as he would in his shop. Private sellers don't have to, of course, but that's true whether they're at gun shows or not.
As I said, I don't support UBCs because I see no practical way to enforce it. But laws improving mental health reporting to NICS, or imposing further penalties for criminal activity carried out with a firearm are something I don't see a problem with.
The idea that our only choice is to compromise and we have no say in the matter is nonsense. If you write your legislator and say "no support for any gun control" they will understand that. If you write your legislator and say "no support for gun control except maybe background checks if you have to" they are going to understand they can get your vote and the gun control vote by voting for background checks.
It's not nonsense. We are in a war of public opinion, and like it or not, we are not the whole electorate. If we look to the rest of the electorate like we are simply unreasonable zealots who simply refuse to do anything, we are going to lose support and the antis will find it easier to get the laws they want passed.
By all means make it clear to your legislature that you will not let him get away with
any restrictions of your rights. But don't also oppose legislation that doesn't restrict your rights in any way, such as the aforementioned harsher penalties for use of firearms in commission of crimes. We have take back the culture, so to speak, and undo decades of liberal attempts to marginalize gun owners and make them appear out of touch with mainstream society. Looking like intransigent know-nothings will
not accomplish this. Find the measures we can support, and become good at articulating our case to the rest of the public, however, and we can make they antis look like the intransigent ideologues who don't care about the facts, but just want to push their agenda.
The only thing that has changed since 1999 is we have 40 NRA A-rated Senators and 220 NRA A-rated Representatives and a ten year string if success at the federal level. So where is the defeatist "Some kind of gun control is going to pass" BS coming from?
Excuse me, but were you paying attention as NY state just passed the most restrictive gun laws in the country? Have you noticed California, New Jersey, Michigan, Colorado (whose house just today passed a bill limiting magazine capacity) all poised to follow suit? Haven't you noticed the spate of new gun-control bills in state legislatures all over the country and in congress? These are the people who don't believe in letting a crisis go to waste, and they mean to exploit the issue while emotions are still running high. And when the latest polls are showing a majority of Americans supporting UBCs and hi-cap magazine bans, a lot of those A rated senators and congressmen are very, very likely to make the calculation that they can get away with voting yes for some of these bills. That's precisely what one of my senators, Mark Warner -- who is one of those A rated senators, BTW -- did, and he has stated he will vote YES on Feinstein's new ASW bill. Don't rely too much on those politicians. They will disappoint you.
And why are UBCs the default option when they would not have stopped ANY of the last 4 recent massacres (3 of which went through a background check). Why are we not improving NICS per the 2007 law so that people like Cho are in the NICS database? Why is that not the "something must be done" option? Especially since that option might have actually had an effect?
See my previous comments. I don't support UBC, and I do support improving the reporting to NICS. That's one of those things I have been saying we
should support, and by doing so, we signal we
are trying to do something, rather than just stopping anyone else from passing anything -- it's just we want to make sure what we do will not only be effective, but won't punish law-abiding people for the crimes of maniacs.