Let's Make a Deal-NFA and UBC's

[TruthTellers]

If we could remove short barrel rifles/shotguns, suppressors, and Any Other Weapons from the NFA making them no different than non-NFA rifles, shotguns, and handguns in exchange for national Universal Background Checks, would you support it? Explain why or why not.

 

[morcey2]

UBC requires registration to enforce. That makes it a non-starter. All it would do is save $200 for the NFA stamp for SBR, SBS, suppressors, etc since everything would have to be registered.

Matt

 

[Midwest]

What would come first? The UBC or elimination of the NFA category?

I voted no because I don't trust our politicians to follow through on the elimination of the NFA. But also because I believe UBC are a cancer on gun rights, already that cancer has spread to Colorado, Washington State, Oregon and next Maine, Montana and Ohio.
.

 

[Deanimator]

Sham "universal background checks" are nothing but a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, without which they're UTTERLY meaningless.

Registration of firearms has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future confiscation.

And that's without even touching on the absolute duplicity of the other side.

You're more likely to get semi-auto rifles ADDED to the NFA than anything removed. And that's AFTER an "agreement" as suggested.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Deanimator]

and next Maine, Montana and Ohio

Don't bet on it.

 

[Darkbob]

I wouldn't support UBC's even if there were no way to enforce them (Registration). Not even if they'd re-open the machine gun registry too (allow new MG's to be registered).

 

[AK103K]

No. Youre simply playing their game and compromising on something that has no business being compromised.

 

[M-Cameron]

lets make a deal....you remove the NFA......and ill give you a hug.....seems only fair considering the NFA is illegal.

im not sure what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard for you people to understand?

there is to be not more "compromises".....there is to be no more "meeting half way"....there are to be no more "deals".

you restore my god given rights.....and you get nothing in exchange.

"compromise" is how we ended up where we are now......more "compromise" isnt going to make it any better.

 

[Bobson]

I'm the only yes. There, I said it.

Heck, in my state, we already have UBCs. Not all of America enjoys the same level of freedom, folks.

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). May as well get something in return. Frankly, I don't trust the politicians to follow through either, but this isn't a realistic thread, so what difference does it make? Yes, in this mythical world where items might be pealed off the NFA, and where politicians could be trusted, I would be willing to give up something for it. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

 

[HOOfan_1]

It wouldn't happen, and what is done can be undone. As soon as they get a voting majority again like they did for the AWB, they would just re-implement the NFA, and probably make it even more prohibitive.

Repealing the NFA is way too big of a bone for the gun grabbers to throw the RKBA crowd anyway.

 

[230RN]

No.

 

[Spats McGee]

No, because of:

UBC requires registration to enforce.....

^this. . . .

. . . . I voted no because I don't trust our politicians to follow through on the elimination of the NFA....

^^and this. . .

But also because I believe UBC are a cancer on gun rights, ....

^^^and this . . . .

Sham "universal background checks" are nothing but a stalking horse for REGISTRATION....

^^^^and this. . . .

We've "compromised" enough.

 

[TruthTellers]

I'm the only yes. There, I said it.

Heck, in my state, we already have UBCs. Not all of America enjoys the same level of freedom, folks.

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). May as well get something in return. Frankly, I don't trust the politicians to follow through either, but this isn't a realistic thread, so what difference does it make? Yes, in this mythical world where items might be pealed off the NFA, and where politicians could be trusted, I would be willing to give up something for it. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

I'm much in the same camp. I think slowly, but surely each state will implement UBC's and ban private sales. We already have 17-18 states that have some form of a UBC whether it's for both long guns and handguns or just handguns. The remaining states are going to fall eventually, whether it's in a few years or over the span of a couple decades, most will have some sort of UBC. Even when just a few states are the lone hold outs, by that time, there will be enough votes in Congress to pass a national UBC law.

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.

And with UBC's, there's nothing that says there needs to be registration. I think if there were a registration movement, that's when you stick to your guns and vehemently deny it from happening.

 

[TruthTellers]

And I also believe in the power of civil disobedience. We already see the result of that in New York and Connecticut where registration was completely rejected by the people and we see that the police and local law enforcement don't care to enforce it.

That same rejection nationwide is too great to enforce.

Of course, that's only if the sheeple grow a set and tell the authority to shove it by not walking lock step in the UBC push.

 

[Mike Faires]

Trade

Lets see you proposing that we agree to a change that affects all gun owners to benefit the few who have or want items that fall under the NFA "other" category. That certainly seems elitist and self serving at the very least at worst it could be shill for the government to detects weakness in our ranks.
Either way a very bad idea and precedent to set.

 

[230RN]

Nope, again.

I've been a serious firearms enthusiast since the early sixties (that was the last century, remember?) and I've seen too many "compromises" due to "the best we can do politically" lead us by the rings in our noses down Infringement Street.

Infringement Street is a dead end.

Anti-gunners are pretty darned good at setting up these kinds of successive compromises in advance, knowing it can only be to their advantage when the compromise is agreed upon. Let's face it, they're better strategists than we are.

I'd rather be called names like uncompromising and stubborn and a clinger to my guns and religion and partisan than become a slave.

I'm beginning to actually like being called a redneck, though.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . I'm much in the same camp. I think slowly, but surely each state will implement UBC's and ban private sales. We already have 17-18 states that have some form of a UBC whether it's for both long guns and handguns or just handguns.

17-18? That high? I really haven't kept up with the numbers, so I went out on the internet and looked for some numbers. According to the CSGV, 11 states require them: CA, CO, CT, DE, DC (not a state, I know), MD (handguns), NY, OR, PA (handguns), RI and WA.

Source: http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/ -- Footnote 1.

. . . . 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. . . . .

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?

And with UBC's, there's nothing that says there needs to be registration. I think if there were a registration movement, that's when you stick to your guns and vehemently deny it from happening.

There's nothing yet that says that there has to be registration, but the key word is "yet." See above.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm the only yes. There, I said it.

Heck, in my state, we already have UBCs. Not all of America enjoys the same level of freedom, folks.

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). May as well get something in return. Frankly, I don't trust the politicians to follow through either, but this isn't a realistic thread, so what difference does it make? Yes, in this mythical world where items might be pealed off the NFA, and where politicians could be trusted, I would be willing to give up something for it. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

Rather than trying to take OUR freedom away, a more profitable endeavor for you would be to try to get yours BACK... unless you never wanted it in the first place.

One more time:

1. You pass a "universal" background check.
2. How will you know whether anybody does it? You DON'T... without REGISTRATION.
3. There will be MASSIVE non-compliance. "Irish democracy" will be the rule of the day.

Sham "universal background checks" aren't coming at the national level ANY time in the foreseeable future.

 

[Jackal]

I voted no. Once the gov opens a door, it NEVER gets shut...

 

[Deanimator]

And with UBC's, there's nothing that says there needs to be registration.

...unless you actually want to ENFORCE them.

Without REGISTRATION, they're as UTTERLY meaningless as a state religion and mandatory church attendance without a headcount.

 

[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.

 

[Deanimator]

Originally Posted by 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.

Now you've registered gun OWNERS.

Yeah, THAT'S an improvement.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[AK103K]

Now you've registered gun OWNERS.

Yeah, THAT'S an improvement.

NO, I REFUSE.

I agree. How's that better?

 

[pintler]

It depends on the definition of UBC. If it means two trips to an FFL to lend a friend a gun, no way. If it means the DMV puts a G-for-guns on your license when you turn 18 (which is removed if convicted, ...), and you have to check for that prior to a sale, no problem.

I'd gladly swap that for, say, universal reciprocity and dismantling NFA.

 

[M-Cameron]

I'm the only yes. There, I said it.

Heck, in my state, we already have UBCs. Not all of America enjoys the same level of freedom, folks.

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). May as well get something in return. Frankly, I don't trust the politicians to follow through either, but this isn't a realistic thread, so what difference does it make? Yes, in this mythical world where items might be pealed off the NFA, and where politicians could be trusted, I would be willing to give up something for it. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

oh, so if it doesnt effect you what do you care about the rest of the country, eh?...


you are the worst kind of gun owner.

hell, suppressors are illegal in my state.....but i still wrote my reps in support of the Hearing protection act.........because even though it wont effect me, it still in the best interest of the country.