Creating a contingency plan to influence the legal language of a UBC

[Lord Teapot]

There are many who see that as a plan worth derailing. Count me amongst them.

this^

line in the sand. no compromise. the founders used the word 'infringe' for a reason. they knew. UBC=registration=first step to any gun ban. look to britain/australia for proof of that, no need to go dig deeper into the past.

 

[Nom de Forum]

There are many who see that as a plan worth derailing. Count me amongst them.

I wrote "plan" I obviously meant to write "thread".

 

[JSH1]

this^

line in the sand. no compromise. the founders used the word 'infringe' for a reason. they knew. UBC=registration=first step to any gun ban. look to britain/australia for proof of that, no need to go dig deeper into the past.

In Australia nationwide registration happened at the same time as the bans in response to the Port Arthur massacre. Prior to 1996, firearms were regulated at the state level and each state had different regulations.

Even without a nationwide firearm registry, the bans went into effect. The government didn't go door to door collecting firearms, instead the majority of owners turned them in.

 

[PJSprog]

I am just more likely to stick my neck out posting on a controversial topic or taking an unpopular stance on issues than most folks. Even in the face of bad odds of having this thread stay on topic I am willing to try even if ridiculed. Its called displaying moral courage PJSprog.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking that approach, and I commend you for the effort in that direction. Unfortunately, you took the path most often taken by the enemies of freedom in that you are attempting to squash any opposition to your idea, rather than engage in the conversation with all sides. Controlling the conversation is what people like Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer try to do. They don't want to have any discussions with us; they want to completely shut us down and have everything their way. That's essentially what you've done here, too. You started off by stating that "This is not a thread..." for any discussion of things about which you disagree. There are nearly 200K members on THR. Many of them will disagree with you, yet you've asked them not to offer their opinions here.

Why would you expect anyone who is adamantly opposed to an idea - one that infringes on our Constitutional freedom - to help you formulate any manner of watered down version of that idea? How could you reasonably expect anything other than opposition on a shooting forum?

 

[Nom de Forum]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking that approach, and I commend you for the effort in that direction. Unfortunately, you took the path most often taken by the enemies of freedom in that you are attempting to squash any opposition to your idea, rather than engage in the conversation with all sides. Controlling the conversation is what people like Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer try to do. They don't want to have any discussions with us; they want to completely shut us down and have everything their way. That's essentially what you've done here, too. You started off by stating that "This is not a thread..." for any discussion of things about which you disagree. There are nearly 200K members on THR. Many of them will disagree with you, yet you've asked them not to offer their opinions here.

This is not a thread about the the pros and cons of a UBC. This is a thread about creating a contingency plan to influence the language in a UBC law. Asking people to not discuss the pros and cons of a UBC in this thread is no different than in a thread about what bullets to use in a .30-30 for deer hunting to not discuss the pros and cons of banning deer hunting. I am just attempting to keep the thread on topic and prevent “bickering” about my motive and the pros and cons of a UBC from getting it closed.

Why would you expect anyone who is adamantly opposed to an idea - one that infringes on our Constitutional freedom - to help you formulate any manner of watered down version of that idea? How could you reasonably expect anything other than opposition on a shooting forum?

You can be adamantly opposed to an idea and still plan a course of action should your opposition fail to prevent that idea from becoming reality. That should not be too sophisticated a concept for anyone here on THR to understand. I suspect some people may be being deliberately hostile to discussion simple because they want the discussion closed by a moderator.

So PJSrog I ask that you please consider a scenario: The political climate in this nation has moved toward almost certainty some type of national UBC law will be enacted. You have an opportunity to prepare language for that law. What language do you propose that realistically has a chance of making it into the law and making that law as benign as possible? Give me your suggestions. I am not looking for you and I to mutually agree on those suggestions.

 

[jerkface11]

There is no way to make a "universal" background check benign. It requires government permission before you can sell your property.

 

[Sam1911]

We may not have a seat at the table but we can influence the discussion and our elected representatives.

I do try very hard to do that, so that when MY representatives take their seats at the table they fight tooth and nail and claw and sinew AGAINST any such plan. You are certainly within your rights to believe that will fail. I do not, and I do not see the tide of political history as having swung (at least in the decade or two of recent history) toward such an outcome. When I am afraid we'll LOSE, maybe I'll try to scrape back something from the wreckage. I'm NOT afraid we'll lose now.

And I think at this point the NRA (at least) has learned a pretty hard lesson about the harvest they reap in lost credibility if they even appear to be helping write deals with the devil. (Ahem ... "FOPA"?)

As you can tell from my signature line, I am a supporter of the NRA. That does not mean I am a mindless drone agreeing with and obeying the instructions of the NRA leadership. The NRA may be the biggest player in the game but they are not the only player.

What does that mean? That you are one of the members who help hold the NRA's feet to the fire and keep them on the straight-and-narrow, or one who wishes they'd be more "reasonable" and come up with compromises instead of fighting? I certainly don't agree with everything the NRA says or does. I have a long memory and still, in a distant way, will never forget the weakness of past compromises.

Are you telling me just because the NRA got it fingers burned, causing defections and new organizations to be created, it should not be creating the same type of contingency plans as (some of which are for the most improbably events) the military of all nations do? We are in a fight, even the most unexpected should be planned for.

It most definitely should NOT be promoting/discussing/debating them in public, at least.

If you're facing the enemy across the trenches, do you give Churchill's Speech and rally the public, or do you get on the radio and ask the public to help you brainstorm some great ideas for how to negotiate some peaceful compromises? Having a plan is fine, but usually the guy who starts visibly scrambling for compromise positions is in trouble.

O.K. that is the second reference to the Devil/Satan to discredit both the opposition and any friends to the RKBA that think the discussion valid. I am trying to avoid that type of name calling in this thread.

If "deals with the devil" is too much of a charged name for this, I don't know what to tell you. This is a BAD thing, and you're asking the members to help you think up ways to do this BAD thing, so it is marginally less BAD. A "deal with the devil" implication is about the cleanest brush you could realistically hope to be painted with.

I don’t see or feel any self-loathing. “Emo” ? Isn’t that some type of sex fetish? Don’t think any definition of “emo” applies.

Really? Your google button broke? If you don't catch the parallels between this line of pondering and the depressed, quasi-suicidal, over dramatic, faux-nihilism of the Emo subculture, then disregard the comment.

Neither do I think we will ever be given a seat at the table unless we have a pre-planned convincing explanation for why we should be given one.

"Hey! We gotta plan, TOO!" isn't a great convincing explanation of why we should have a hand in deciding things. WE ARE THE PEOPLE is why we should have a hand in deciding these issues, and WE THE PEOPLE -- as many of us as we can get to stand up and fight -- can/should/do say NO.

Your argument is either one of two things:
1) You really are trying to get RKBA folks to agree to UBC because you want UBC, but being coy about it or
2) You are seeking to ameliorate the bad effects of bad law passed against our will, by trying to buy the favor of our enemies by pretending to (or actually) going along with them, hoping that after you've won their favor and are allowed to contribute, you can convince them to hold back a bit from their full desires.

Both are probably foolishly optimistic.

One last thing. I don’t think your post is any thing like the suggestions and comments requested.

Ok, so? I understand that you made some stipulations and put limits on this conversation. This is a public forum. No one is bound by your stipulations on conversation.

 

[Nom de Forum]

There is no way to make a "universal" background check benign. It requires government permission before you can sell your property.

You missed the phrase "as possible" I said as benign as possible, not benign.

Here is another suggestion for consideration, get any national UBC Law to have a sunset date requiring re-authorization. That gives Congress an easy out for letting a bad law expire.

 

[JSH1]

Again, look at Washington's UBC as an example of how tactics are important.

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but (as I've asked many times before in other "compromise" threads), why do we think we're going to have a "seat at the table" to get to write any of this grand new legislation?

Any bill with a hope of passing needs votes from both parties. That is how you get a seat at the table. That is of course if the goal is to actually pass bills instead of grandstand for the base.

I am NOT trying to get ANY bills passed! There are enough laws. I'm trying to stop this train in its tracks, and so far those who agree have largely won that battle.

I do not seek to give ground now, in some oddball belief that the anti- side will have MORE power soon than they have in the last three years or so, when public sentiment surged to their ultra high water mark. If they failed after Sandy Hook, they don't have much hope of mounting a MORE effective attack any time real soon.

Stay strong. This is working.

That is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today. The idea that even sitting down and trying to reach common ground is a betrayal.

I don't want to reach COMMON GROUND. I want our rights protected, and they are FAR, FAR from as robust and universal as they should be, already. I will oppose with every fiber seeing them further watered down because someone wants COMMON GROUND.

Remember the cake analogy? You've got a cake and some big tough dude walks up and says, "Gimme your cake!" And you say, "That's MY cake." And he agrees to compromise by taking only half of your cake? That's not compromise, that's still theft. He's got nothing I want. He only wants to take. That's the gun control debate in absolute, fullest truth.

I assume you are using the Firearm Owner Protection Act as an example of bad legislation. However, it is an example of giving something to get something.

I see the Hughes Amendment as a prime example of incredibly dirty political tricks. I have mixed feelings about FOPA. It is mostly a good thing, but has a fundamental, awful flaw.

If you think that holding up FOPA as an example of the sort of "common ground" you're looking for will gain you support among RKBA activists? You deserve the ridicule you'll earn.

 

[jerkface11]

Again, look at Washington's UBC as an example of how tactics are important.

You campaigned for it didn't you?

 

[Deanimator]

Some of the responses here indicate there are individuals who are terrified to even consider a contingency plan.

People who plan for failure, FAIL

You're planning for success... just not success for 2nd Amendment supporters.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I do try very hard to do that, so that when MY representatives take their seats at the table they fight tooth and nail and claw and sinew AGAINST any such plan. You are certainly within your rights to believe that will fail. I do not, and I do not see the tide of political history as having swung (at least in the decade or two of recent history) toward such an outcome. When I am afraid we'll LOSE, maybe I'll try to scrape back something from the wreckage. I'm NOT afraid we'll lose now.

Planning when you are afraid of losing is the wrong time to plan. Planning when you are still winning is the best way to prevent losing.

What does that mean? That you are one of the members who help hold the NRA's feet to the fire and keep them on the straight-and-narrow, or one who wishes they'd be more "reasonable" and come up with compromises instead of fighting? I certainly don't agree with everything the NRA says or does. I have a long memory and still, in a distant way, will never forget the weakness of past compromises.

It means I support most of the NRA's plans, and I work within the system, to change the ones I think need modification or abandonment.

It most definitely should NOT be promoting/discussing/debating them in public, at least.

I guarantee nobody in NRA leadership is going to openly discuss this topic on THR. As far as the public seeing our discussion; the vast majority of the public does not know THR exists.

If you're facing the enemy across the trenches, do you give Churchill's Speech and rally the public, or do you get on the radio and ask the public to help you brainstorm some great ideas for how to negotiate a some peaceful compromises? Having a plan is fine, but usually the guy who starts visibly scrambling for compromise positions is in trouble.

That is not what is happening. Sometimes that guy who appears to be visibly scrambling for compromise on tactical positions is setting a strategic trap.

If "deals with the devil" is too much of a charged name for this, I don't know what to tell you. This is a BAD thing, and you're asking the members to help you think up ways to do this BAD thing, so it is marginally less BAD. A "deal with the devil" implication is about the cleanest brush you could realistically hope to be painted with.

Nothing personal Sam. I am just sick of all the Nazi, Quisling, Fellow Traveler, Fifth Columnist insinuations. They are absurd and do more damage to the credibility of the people making them than to the people they are directed to.

Really? Your google button broke? If you don't catch the parallels between this line of pondering and the depressed, quasi-suicidal, over dramatic, faux-nihilism of the Emo subculture, then disregard the comment.

Didn't even think to google it. I guess I am just not that hip. I had no idea of, nor am I anything like, the people of that subculture.

"Hey! We gotta plan, TOO!" isn't a great convincing explanation of why we should have a hand in deciding things. WE ARE THE PEOPLE is why we should have a hand in deciding these issues, and WE THE PEOPLE -- as many of us as we can get to stand up and fight -- can/should/do say NO.

Your argument is either one of two things:
1) You really are trying to get RKBA folks to agree to UBC because you want UBC, but being coy about it or
2) You are seeking to ameliorate the bad effects of bad law passed against our will, by trying to buy the favor of our enemies by pretending to (or actually) going along with them, hoping that after you've won their favor and are allowed to contribute, you can convince them to hold back a bit from their full desires.

Both are probably foolishly optimistic.

Neither 1 or 2 applies to me. I am certainly not being coy or foolishly optimistic!

Ok, so? I understand that you made some stipulations and put limits on this conversation. This is a public forum. No one is bound by your stipulations on conversation.

No they are not bound by my stipulations. I made a statement of intent and request not an order I have the authority to issue. It was made because I have seen you and all the other Mods close threads where bickering about something other than the actual topic has occurred. In fact, I see that the other thread that Bartholomew Roberts created was closed for bickering. I left that thread to avoid contributing anything more that would cause a closing. In my opinion a few Moderator deletions and warnings may have saved Bart's thread. I hope that approach will be tried here if necessary rather than just closing the thread without warning.

 

[HammsBeer]

Nom de Forum, you have it set in your head that UBC is inevitable, and want an alternative plan. So rather than getting out entire hand burnt on the hot stove, we'd only get our finger tips burnt willingly. Yea, sounds like a great plan. Why don't you focus all this effort into not getting burned AT ALL?!

 

[Nom de Forum]

People who plan for failure, FAIL

You're planning for success... just not success for 2nd Amendment supporters.

That is an absurdly applied platitude. Have you never heard of fail-safe procedures?

It is not planning for failure. It is planning to make an opponent's possible victory a hollow tactical win not a strategic victory.

 

[AlexanderA]

I think this discussion is counterproductive. At the very least, it's way premature.

The assumption of this thread is that the next step in gun control (universal background checks) is inevitable. It's not.

In any case, when you're negotiating, you start with your maximalist position. You don't start by giving away half the store. If you then "compromise" 50/50, your opponent wins 75% of what he wants instead of 50%. Then he comes back and starts it all over again, you "compromise" again, and now you have half your 25%. And so on and on until you have nothing.

Guns are just too polarizing an issue any more for there to be any meaningful compromise. Both sides are "all in." Either we're going to have guns in this country (legally), or we won't. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Sam1911]

Planning when you are afraid of losing is the wrong time to plan. Planning when you are still winning is the best way to prevent losing.

I am planning. Planning to fight and win. If we lose, we lose. If we lose, we won't be invited to the table to try and mitigate the loss.

To a very real degree, planning for failure is indeed setting yourself up to fail. Getting folks thinking about ways they might be able to be ok with losing isn't focusing on prevailing. And we're prevailing.

It means I support most of the NRA's plans, and I work within the system, to change the ones I think need modification or abandonment.

And the NRA is opposed to UBC. Are you trying to change that?

I guarantee nobody in NRA leadership is going to openly discuss this topic on THR. As far as the public seeing our discussion; the vast majority of the public does not know THR exists.

No, but so what? WE know it exists and we have thousands of members that we help and encourage to go out into the world and win this fight! THR isn't going to be a place where we can sort out the best strategy for playing in the losers' bracket.

That is not what is happening. Sometimes that guy who appears to be visibly scrambling for compromise on tactical positions is setting a strategic trap.

Well, I've given you the benefit of suggesting a couple different ways you might be cleverly looking to set a trap and help us fight AGAINST UBC, but you're being careful not to let on if this is all part of a more devious plan to win.

Nothing personal Sam. I am just sick of all the Nazi, Quisling, Fellow Traveler, Fifth Columnist insinuations.

I'm sure.

They are absurd and do more damage to the credibility of the people making them than to the people they are directed to.

To a degree, I agree with you. But on two other levels I disagree.
Agree: Yeah, this isn't the same as the Holocaust, and that's silly on the face of it.
Disagree 1: Yeah, but there IS at least a kernel of truth at the bottom of some of these parallels and that's why they sting.
Disagree 2: Some folks (on either side of the debate) are not politically or historically sophisticated, and simply respond to strong motivation in symbolism. Like it or not, both sides use it and it works to get people calling and voting.

And yes, we will attempt to moderate as best as we can before simply closing the thread. Final decisions like that are often left to a majority of a Staff quorum though, so not my call.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Nom de Forum, you have it set in your head that UBC is inevitable, and want an alternative plan. So rather than getting out entire hand burnt on the hot stove, we'd only get our finger tips burnt willingly. Yea, sounds like a great plan. Why don't you focus all this effort into not getting burned AT ALL?!

Have you served in the military? I have. One thing the military knows is that all or nothing strategies are very dangerous. That is why troops are held in reserve during attacks and why contingency plans are created. There is not much chance that the U.S. will be attacking the U.K. but somewhere there is a plan for doing so. We should be as smart in making a contingency plan for the chance that a UBC become inevitable before it becomes inevitable. A UBC is more probable than an attack on the U.K.

 

[Sam1911]

But why do you think it matters that WE have a plan for if (when?) we're beaten?

If we're beaten, THEY won't be asking what we want.

If we're beaten, we'll get UBCs with whatever gooey toppings they want on it. They aren't going to ask us if they should hold the whipped cream.

 

[lilguy]

I have lived with UBC and waiting periods for the 43 years I've been envolved in the gun culture. In Illinois it covers most gun ownership transfers. It has not hindered me one bit in acquiring a large collection and getting my license to carry. All that being said it is this system of gun owner control that made me a rabid supporter of the NRA. Even on a blue collar retirement income I financially support 3 pro gun organizations to the tune of several thousand dollars a year.
Never give ground unless you are killed in the battle, I will never support others having to submit to the system I live under.

 

[JSH1]

I am NOT trying to get ANY bills passed! There are enough laws. I'm trying to stop this train in its tracks, and so far those who agree have largely won that battle.

You don't want restrictions lifted on suppressors, barrel lengths, overall lengths, etc? You don't want nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry? You don't want any changes to laws dealing with firearms? If you do want to change something you need to get a bill passed into law.

I do not seek to give ground now, in some oddball belief that the anti- side will have MORE power soon than they have in the last three years or so, when public sentiment surged to their ultra high water mark. If they failed after Sandy Hook, they don't have much hope of mounting a MORE effective attack any time real soon.

I agree nothing much is likely to happen at the national level. The sides are at a stalemate, neither able to move the ball. The effort after Sandy Hook was doomed from the start.

I see the Hughes Amendment as a prime example of incredibly dirty political tricks. I have mixed feelings about FOPA. It is mostly a good thing, but has a fundamental, awful flaw.

If you think that holding up FOPA as an example of the sort of "common ground" you're looking for will gain you support among RKBA activists? You deserve the ridicule you'll earn.

So the FOPA was mostly good but saying so should get me ridicule. Mostly good, is usually the best outcome you can expect. It is ridiculous to think we can get everything we want without giving anything. That isn't how politics works.

 

[JSH1]

You campaigned for it didn't you?

No, I didn't.

I do think Oregon's UBC is a good bill and that came from engagement in the process. Oregon's UBC was negotiated in the legislature and changes were made to get the votes needed to pass.

Washington could have had something similar to Oregon with different tactics. I personally think they still can if the gun community can realize that they aren't going to roll back the clock.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I am planning. Planning to fight and win. If we lose, we lose. If we lose, we won't be invited to the table to try and mitigate the loss.

To a very real degree, planning for failure is indeed setting yourself up to fail. Getting folks thinking about ways they might be able to be ok with losing isn't focusing on prevailing. And we're prevailing.

The problem with planning strategies that are Victory or Death is the possibility of death. Passage of a UBC does not have to result in a mortal wound.

And the NRA is opposed to UBC. Are you trying to change that?

I would prefer not using a UBC for what proponents openly say they want it to accomplish. I do what to change the NRA's thinking that their is no need for a contingency plan influence the content of a UBC law.

No, but so what? WE know it exists and we have thousands of members that we help and encourage to go out into the world and win this fight! THR isn't going to be a place where we can sort out the best strategy for playing in the losers' bracket.

Thats great Sam! I am very happy we have that team of players fighting the good fight. Think of what I am proposing as setting up a Red Team.

Well, I've given you the benefit of suggesting a couple different ways you might be cleverly looking to set a trap and help us fight AGAINST UBC, but you're being careful not to let on if this is all part of a more devious plan to win.

This thread is really all about a simple topic: suggestions. It is not about concealing a devious plan. Perhaps after you and others help me get enough good suggestions we can all work together on a "devious plan".

I'm sure.

To a degree, I agree with you. But on two other levels I disagree.
Agree: Yeah, this isn't the same as the Holocaust, and that's silly on the face of it.
Disagree 1: Yeah, but there IS at least a kernel of truth at the bottom of some of these parallels and that's why they sting.
Disagree 2: Some folks (on either side of the debate) are not politically or historically sophisticated, and simply respond to strong motivation in symbolism. Like it or not, both sides use it and it works to get people calling and voting.

It is not any possible parallels that sting. It is all the other things associated with Nazism, etc. that stings/disgust me that people forget when they resort to this type of tactic in debate. It should not be condoned if for no other reason than it makes pro-gunners who disagree with me here, but who agree with me on some many other things, tarnish our image.

And yes, we will attempt to moderate as best as we can before simply closing the thread. Final decisions like that are often left to a majority of a Staff quorum though, so not my call.

Thank you that is all anyone can ask. I am well aware that THR is one of the best moderated forums.

 

[danez71]

I am not looking for suggestions that support my suggestions. I am looking of all types of suggestions for crafting a plan, some of which I probably not agree with. Please not some of the suggestions I delineated above are from people I do not have much agreement with.

Nom,
We have had our differences so I'm probably included, at least in part, in the reference above. But I think you realize I'm open minded and civil enough to realize that I don't know everything and I'm willing to learn.... but will also need a pretty compelling argument to change my beliefs.

Having said that....

I don't believe in UBC in any of the proposals Im familiar with. Maybe there is one... but I haven't seen it yet.

I think there is too much Govt in our lives and the Govt has repeatedly demonstrated that they only try to prosecute such a minority of the BC/4473 form violations that its laughable in a not so funny way.

I also believe, as others have said, that the anti 2A politicians don't negotiate in good faith.


I also don't believe that you can legislate morality. We, collectively, are ultimately our own police.

I do believe.. or hope for... that there was a way for sellers is Private Party Transfers (PPT) to be able to do a BC before they sell. It should be a purely Go/No Go answer and a S/N isn't needed.


I do recognize that being able to trace a crime gun is a good thing but, again, I haven't seen a proposal yet that isn't ripe for abuse or has already been abused to screw over the law abiding guy.




My beef in these recent threads is that we continue to allow ourselves to be portrayed as wanting to hide in the shadows doing dubious things.

And that the argument of ' You'll never stop 100% of them so all BC check should go away.' just isn't working. It isn't compelling to the average voter.



Having said all that....... I'm not readily in favor of negotiating with the Anti's.

I'm in favor of getting more people on or side through raising awareness and educating the fence sitters and hopefully getting more of the mildly anti voters on our side. The rabid anti's are probably a lost cause other than the ones that may/will follow the Pro 2A wave that we need to create.

IMO, this should be a an "Activism Discussion and Planning " thread to do what I said above, not a Negotiating thread.

But I'll participate in a civil discussion.... and hopefully convince others that I'm right.

 

[Nom de Forum]

But why do you think it matters that WE have a plan for if (when?) we're beaten?

If we're beaten, THEY won't be asking what we want.

If we're beaten, we'll get UBCs with whatever gooey toppings they want on it. They aren't going to ask us if they should hold the whipped cream.

Because I hope if we are "beaten" as you say, it will be a beating that is much like the beating the Allies gave the Axis. A beating not an annihilation. We should always ensure we plan to limit the damage from possible tactical defeats to ensure strategic victory. We do this by making it impossible for them to get the whatever "gooey toppings they want". They will settle for less. They always have. Remember the national AWB the anti-gunners got. Anyone today having a problem buying an AR-15 in Arizona and states with similar laws?