Bobson;
"I think nationwide UBCs are coming anyway, and I don't see how registration has anything to do with them (though most others seem to, so maybe I'm missing something)."
Jeez, no wonder Washington got stuck with background checks when Bloomberg came to town. No wonder the 'gun friendly' east side of Washington couldn't muster a sufficient turnout in opposition, which would have sunk the bill (I forget the math, but didn't you only need about 20% of all gun owners to vote?). "Gun ambivalent" is much more like it. I can see why the NRA didn't waste its time & money on barren farmland with no grass roots.
As far as background checks, they ARE registration. The government simply promises not to keep any of the information collected in the transaction that could otherwise be used to register the buyer. By force-funneling all legitimate firearms commerce through a federal channel, a registry begins forming the instant that data begins getting retained, legally by statute in a very easy-sell down the line, or illicitly as is allegedly the case already.
Bobson;
"I wasn't saying that since we already lost that fight in my state, the rest of the country should be forced to suffer along with me. My point was that several states (11, apparently) already have UBCs, and they're an everyday topic among our opponents, and a direct goal."
You may have not said it, but such is the direct consequence of your ambivalence/ineffectiveness. BTW, the same can be just about said for Constitutional Carry (that a significant number of states support it) at this time, and more are expected to follow suit. Perhaps following the will of one-fifth of the states vs. the majority or our founding documents is a somewhat conflicted way to proceed?
Spats;
"That's assuming you actually get & get to keep that part of the bargain. IIRC, background checks on FFL transfers and exempting private parties from them (background checks) was all part of a negotiated deal. It wasn't a year before the antis started screaming about the "gun show loophole," and introducing legislation to require background checks on private transactions. (I want to say, but am not sure, that Charles Schumer introduced one just a few months after the deal was reached.)
The antis have broken their deals with us before. What makes you think this would be any different?"
No freaking kidding. The only two ACTUAL important aspects of UBC are that 1) they won't accomplish anything besides looking very much like registration to non-gunowners whose votes will be needed later, and 2) they will do nothing to stop the anti's from immediately pushing for outright registration and/or confiscation after passage. Those two facts DEFINE UBC's as a mere policy stepping stone towards a heavier-handed federal program with real teeth and consequences. UBC's do not 'require' registration, but they serve no other purpose than to strive for it. Very much like the planned obsolescence of Obamacare into a nationalized 'single payer' healthcare system. When mere UBC's fail to do anything, the cry will be to make them enforceable via registration.
Deanimator;
"So, does "promote the general Welfare" trump "shall not be infringed?"
"Does it trump the 13th Amendment?"
Many would argue that it already has, and the program is ironically enough, called welfare...
M-Cameron;
"lets make a deal....you remove the NFA......and ill give you a hug.....seems only fair considering the NFA is illegal."
I like this guy
TruthTellers;
"I'd rather try to keep .80 or .50 cents on the dollar than have nothing to show in return. Removing that tax and the months long wait on some NFA items is getting something in return."
How about save all of it by not letting others steal what is rightfully yours?
"...I think if there were a registration movement, that's when you
stick to your guns and vehemently deny it from happening"
Are you from Washington, by chance? If so, I'll reiterate what I said about the NRA not wasting its time & money bailing you guys out. If you won't vehemently deny the anti's from outright stealing 20%-50% (of what, exactly? Your RKBA?) from you, why are we to believe you would not stand for the next half? Or next? Or all of it, provided the anti's are so bold to try (hint: they won't go for the full-monty unless they are certain you cannot stand against them). It is very much like siege warfare; if you cede ground now, you don't have it when they make their next advance, and you also have fewer options & resources. If you allow gun ownership to be so expensive or onerous that it is unbearable, you'll find yourself the only person left to stand up for RKBA at the picket line (well, assuming you ever do show up at the picket line)
"And with UBC's, there's nothing that says there needs to be registration."
TT, if you base your favor/disfavor for policy purely on what is being promised or what is written in the actual statutes, you will lose incrementally every single time. There is a strategy to all this, and UBCs are a step toward our side of the field. The anti's know this, which is why they are pushing so hard. We've largely blocked them in from getting federal controls on most common types of firearms with the advent of Heller and the death of the AWB; they have very few non-administrative ways left to attack us, which is why the emphasis is now on things like BCs, safe storage, and tort liability.
F-111 John;
"There is an alternative to registration for UBCs, and that would be a Federal or State issued Firearms Owner's Identification Card."
Yeah, you're from the Michigan/Illinois region, which already has these so it may not seem as repugnant; why should I, a guy in Texas, put up with this nonsense? Why should you, if MI doesn't have them yet? Pass.
TCB
