Sell Out Republicans

[we are not amused]

I have been reading the Toomey/Manchin bill, and the more I read it the better it looks.

I am not yet ready to endorse it completely, but the more I learn about it, the better it looks.

Too many gun owners are even more clueless about how government works, than some of the silly gun banners are about guns.

 

[NC-Mike]

If you were only selling out your own rights, I'd have no problem respecting your personal beliefs, unfortunately, you are selling out mine too.

Same could be said of speed limits and many other laws, that's part of living in a society governed by laws. And yes I understand we are talking about a constitutionally conveyed right but the first amendment is also restricted.

And FWIW, I don't see registration creeping in when events have shown us we have a solidly pro-gun rights congress. Remember, ATF used to be able to keep instant background check data for 90 days and they caught a lot of FFL shenanigans as a result but the gun dealers cried foul (as they had a right too) and the ATF was defanged and only allowed to keep the data for 24 hours.

We are winning.

And we should continue to win as long as we support and keep the same kind of congress we have now.

 

[NC-Mike]

For that matter, of states with universal background checks, how many have proposed or passed additional gun control since they restricted private sales? Pretty much all of them right?

No not all. Not even most I believe.

 

[NC-Mike]

So Mike, we should get on board with this because it will make the radical anti-gunners have a change of heart about us and the guns we own?

You truly believe that?

No, I believe we get on board for two reasons, first being I truly do believe it is the right thing to do. Uniformity of requirements to purchase or transfer a firearm simply strikes me as the right policy and I am very interested in seeing our community portrayed as the empathetic, rational, responsible and law-abiding people we truly are and that does set an example. That's how politics works.

Gun-owners as group, particularly concealed carry permit holders, are among the most law-abiding segments of society. That fact must to trumpeted and that moral high-ground used to our benefit. We do need to send a positive message out about ourselves and how we feel about our country.

This business of the NRA leaking an internal memo and then claiming it was Obama's policy is just downright dirty pool. The NRA rightfully picked up the lead after VT and supported enhanced background checks because it was the right thing to do and I believe they enhanced themselves as an organization because of that, how is this any different?

This is the evolution of background checks. Making them universal and having uniformity and no LOOPHOLE!!! the media can point to (and rightfully so) seems like it would help our side.

There has to be a give and take. In this case, we are giving NOTHING. All that's being done is an expansion of the existing background checks and providing uniform purchasing requirements. I applaud our congress for their measured response and I would love the have the same kind of pro-gun rights congress for the next 25 years.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

CA, CO, IL, NY, OR and RI already require universal background checks on sales at gun shows.

CA, IL, RI have proposed additional onerous gun restrictions. CO and NY have already passed outright gun bans. OR I don't know about.

CT, MD and PA require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows.

CT and MD are both shafting gun owners hard this legislative session. Not sure about PA.

HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC and NE require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun.

New gun laws proposed and likely to pass in HI (actual confiscation proposed but unlikely to pass), MA, and NJ

It looks to me like Kipling's Danegeld is applicable here.

 

[BullfrogKen]

CT, MD and PA require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows.

CT and MD are both shafting gun owners hard this legislative session. Not sure about PA.

PA has not permitted a handgun to transfer outside of a State Police check since the 1930's. Gun shows, in your neighbor's garage, wherever. I believe the only exception is from parents to children and between spouses.

PA has it's typical gun-control legislators proposing typical gun control crap. It's not going anywhere here.

I am very interested in seeing our community portrayed as the empathetic, rational, responsible and law-abiding people we truly are and that does set an example.

Portrayed in whose eyes?

The anti-gun American citizen won't see you as a rational, responsible gun owner until we get rid of all the guns they don't like. If you really think this will do anything to placate anyone, you really don't understand the mindset of the anti-gunner. They don't want you to have them. They certainly don't want you to carry them. And if they had their way, you wouldn't be out killing Bambi with them either.

Fact is the Brady Law hasn't reduced crime, or even kept guns out of the hands of people it purports to stop from getting guns.

 

[NC-Mike]

Portrayed in whose eyes?

The anti-gun American citizen won't see you as a rational, responsible gun owner until we get rid of all the guns they don't like. If you really think this will do anything to placate anyone, you really don't understand the mindset of the anti-gunner. They don't want you to have them. They certainly don't want you to carry them. And if they had their way, you wouldn't be out killing Bambi with them either.

Fact is the Brady Law hasn't reduced crime, or even kept guns out of the hands of people it purports to stop from getting guns.
BullfrogKen is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message

I don't worry about the anti-gunner, I already know what his position is and I'm not trying to change him because at the end of the day, he is entitled to be at the table of discussion, state his opinion and have it seriously and judiciously considered, this is American and that's the way it works. Political battles are won in the great middle, that is the people you want to influence, those are the people who will decide your destiny. Any thing the shooting community can do to demonstrate who we really are and not be branded a bunch of angry, bitter, gun-clinging red-necks, the better our collective fortunes will be. We are in a battle of idea and we need to play to win.

Now I happen to know that instant background checks have resulted in many, many people getting declined. This is a well-reported fact and people generally like the idea of universal background checks as a simple, prudent, uniform means of vetting someone before they receive a firearm and does no harm to any one who is legally able to own a firearm. It also shines respect on gun ownership and illustrates that only responsible people that have followed the law should be allowed to own them.

That is why we, as gun-owners, as responsible and law-abiding citizens maintain the High-Ground and moral position from which to speak and our voice should be rational, measured and responsible.

Now please forgive me if I seem off the particular topic because I am, I am looking at the long view and how the shooting community sustains itself for the next ten generations. The only way I see that happening is for us to get out in front and be proactive and positive and willing to discuss and engage with anyone who has an idea of how to reduce or prevent violence.

Even if our response is "that will not work" it has be done in a positive and measured fashion with facts and figures being present. This is a much a public relations battle as anything and if we are bunkered down and get negative, the shooting community will allow itself to be branded and that will be a fatal-self-inflicted wound.


One more thought...

A long time ago I was in a discussion with someone on another topic about federal and state law and he reminded me I live in a state and I am subject to that particular state's laws and if I didn't like them, I should start to work to change those laws first because those are the laws that affect most. Or I should just move...

 

[RX-178]

The good news in this is that the Schumer's already pledged to turn against the bill if the Toomey amendment is voted up.

 

[hso]

The good news in this is that the Schumer's already pledged to turn against the bill if the Toomey amendment is voted up.

Now that would be a gift that wasn't anticipated.

 

[RX-178]

I believe (don't feel like looking it up again, you guys can do that) his exact words were:

'It'd turn Times Square into the OK Corral'.

 

[beatledog7]

Same could be said of speed limits and many other laws, that's part of living in a society governed by laws. And yes I understand we are talking about a constitutionally conveyed right but the first amendment is also restricted.

In what ways is 1A restricted? And which of those ways is not designed to protect a right of someone else?

The concept I'm addressing here is that which says one person's right extends no further than the next person's right. Libel, slander, shouting fire when there is no fire, etc. all slam into another person's rights. Holding a rally on private property does the same thing. Having a church service that involves human sacrifice does as well.

How does owning a firearm of any kind, carrying it for SD, or shooting it at a target range, interfere with any other person's rights?

 

[x_wrench]

it's my personal feeling that anyone who is a member of congress, the senate, president, or judge that fails to support ANY of our constitutional rights AS WRITTEN, is a sell out. our constitution is NOT OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION! take it at face value, and QUIT TRYING TO MANIPULATE IT to suit YOUR wants. it is OUR guarantee that we will not be over run by evil or mindless politicians, or BOTH. a big part of this problem is that no one has stood up to challenge ANYTHING that they have done in the last 50 years or so. (since the Kennedy assassinations) so they feel empowered to do anything they dang well please. it is high time that a few, million man marches on Washington D.C. happens, to let them know that we WILL NOT TAKE THIS! PERIOD! money is extremely tight for me right now, i would have to take a bus, and sleep in a park, but i am game. who else will join me. we HAVE to have more than 20 or 30 people. it has to be an extremely large number. preferably a million of us. something that they will be FORCED to pay attention to.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Now I happen to know that instant background checks have resulted in many, many people getting declined.

Actually, no I'm not going to let that pass. I'm going to challenge that premise.

Show me how many these "many, many people" who are being declined are felons. Show me the convictions. Show me how the Brady Instant Check actually reduces crime, or keeps violent felons from obtaining handguns.

 

[rdhood]

The existing background check system is all too easy to convert into registration. The only thing missing is to get all sales into the system and that is exactly what UBCs do. 4 or 5 of the last big shooting incidents, including Giffords, went through NICS. Universal background checks will not stop these incidents and when they don't, they'll be coming for bans.

Bingo. What we, and everyone else, knows is that this legislation would not have stopped ANY of the past mass shootings. The only way to stop mass shootings is to confiscate all guns.... PERIOD. Every gun control measure is a way point to that end.
FIRST, we pass UBC. THEN, UBC turns into registration. THEN we start disqualifying groups of people, one by one.

Let's look at mental health:
Phase 1: confiscate guns of the folks taking psychotropic drugs. Then : confiscate all of the guns in the household of those taking such drugs. These include drugs for ADD/ADHD, mild depression and anxiety, etc.

* One in ten Americans (about on in six of the ADULT population) takes antidepressants. THAT MEANS THAT ONE IN SIX HOUSEHOLDS (~20 million) will have their guns confiscated.
* approximately 9.5% of children 4-17 years of age (5.4 million) have been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2007. Discounting that some families might have more than 1 child on drugs, that is an additional 5.4 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS that will have their guns confiscated.

Now, some of these households never had guns to begin with, and it really is impossible for me to guess the number of households that will actually be hit. There will be overlap in numbers. At 114,800,000 households in the U.S in 2010, one could guesstimate that a full 25 million households, representing 20% of the population, would be disqualified almost immediately. With a gun ownership rate of about 47-53 million households with a gun ( a little less than half), virtually half of all guns could be confiscated just based on prescription medicine in the household.

And that is just the start....


In another marriage, my ex-wife started taking Paroxetine (Paxil) without my knowledge. I would have been devastated if the Feds had shown up at my door, unannounced, and taken my firearms. Yet, this is the reality all of us will live in if this legislations passes. And THAT is why I cannot support these Senators. They are gambling with our rights, and I don't like it.

 

[sporty66]

I oppose any and all gun legislation.Everyone knows if we give in on this the next time a mass shooting happens they'll pass more laws to infringe on our 2A. The gungrabbers will not be happy till we turn out like enland and australia and we all know what kind of gun free eutopia that is

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The good news in this is that the Schumer's already pledged to turn against the bill if the Toomey amendment is voted up.

Where did you hear this? Schumer was on the morning TV shows yesterday stumping for Manchin-Toomey. Last I heard, they were welcoming SAF support and hoping it would get them to 60 votes.

 

[Deer_Freak]

The senate needs to move along with the gun control debate. The senators already know how they stand and there is no need for further debate. Lets vote and if anything passes we will see how it goes in the house.

Everyday that the senate debates gun control is another day for the media to parade someone involved with sandy hook around. It's time to move on and deal with other problems.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Mike: You seem to think this is a democracy where everybody gets together and throws in their ideas and the majority view is then accepted, that is not the way a healthy republic operates. The anti's and the press are going to keep pounding until they are able to disarm the public, if you do not agree with that then there is no need for a continuing discussion. It would seem to me that your strategy is to keep feeding the aligator until the last man standing is consumed. Hopefully you can understand why some of us do not agree to that strategy; instead we would prefer to keep our Constitutional and God given right to defend ourselves without seeking permission from the very authorities who constitute our biggest threat. Can you name the events that would have been prevented by the proposals you support? If those in the thrones of power were really interested in preserving peace and lives they would be looking into the overuse of behavior controlling drugs, the lack of enforcement of existing laws, and the elimination of actually identifying those with significant mental issues who have been mainstreamed into our communities.

 

[NC-Mike]

Mike: You seem to think this is a democracy where everybody gets together and throws in their ideas and the majority view is then accepted, that is not the way a healthy republic operates.

Sure it is and that's the way it has operated. Life is a compromise, politics is a compromise and compromise is the way we do things, or else Nothing would ever get done.

We are a hybrid socialist/republic nation, that is the biggest compromise of all and how quickly we forget that fact.

People yelling about taking the constitution at face value and marching to Washington... He means he's angry because people are not interpreting the constitution the way he does. He is angry the media is not interpreting the constitution the way he does, well get used to it, that is the way of the world and it is not the media's job to reflect your particular viewpoint. It is not their job to advance ideas and ideologies.

And the slippery-slope argument is all well and good and you are entitled to it.

If you want to live in fear of "if" and "they." I do not and will never.

Real events tell us different, real events tell us we are winning. We had a congress-person shot in the head by a nut with a Glock and a 32 round mag and NOTHING came of it.

Now we have dozens of dead kindergarteners and we are talking about expanding background checks! Who the hell cares if it works or not, that is what the public wants, its seems reasonable, it harms no one wanting a firearm, so why oppose the idea? "If" is not a good enough reason.

I talked about public relations, there is where the real war is being fought. The shooting community must be out front and carry a POSITIVE message. I just heard someone say a bunch of Newton parents were in the VIP area at the Mass marathon. How long before conspiracy theories start about revenge against them by gun-nuts. These techniques are employed to brand a group or organization. Its similar to what Janet Nepolitano did when she said the biggest danger to the US was domestic terrorists. I truly believe she was trying brand Vets as potentially dangerous, and in the greater scheme, gun owners... Better take their guns away...

Yes we are in a battle to keep out gun rights. Strap in, its going to be a long and constant war that will only be won in the court of public opinion and right now, we are winning. I want to keep it that way. People want universal checks? Lets have it and lets not fear anything because the other side wanted an AWB and a hi-cap mag ban and they got neither. We won.

Think about how long the Abortion debate has gone on. How Roe VS wade will be overturned!!! We are in for the same kind of battle!

On NICS:
About 1.2 percent of all instant background checks result in a denial from the FBI. Over 70,000 denials so far.

Another thought from those that say NICS doesn't prevent felons from buying guns. Well it does prevent them from buying from legitimate dealers and it does that just because it is there.

I have no problem shutting down or impeding a distribution channel used by criminals to obtain guns. Shut them down one by one.

 

[NC-Mike]

How does owning a firearm of any kind, carrying it for SD, or shooting it at a target range, interfere with any other person's rights?

There are plenty of cases in the courts over noise and safety issues.

Also in NC, there is a law called "going armed to the terror of the people"

I guess some people are skeered of guns.


And I think you already answered the question of restrictions on the FA.

 

[BullfrogKen]

About 1.2 percent of all instant background checks result in a denial from the FBI. Over 70,000 denials so far

So, you assume a denial means that person was a felon?

 

[NC-Mike]

So, you assume a denial means that person was a felon?

Of course not but I do assume that a robust, evolving and comprehensive instant background check system will keep unqualified people from buying guns through dealer channels or stop them from even trying.

Not every person is savvy enough to make an illegal firearm purchase if they are denied conventional purchases.

All in all, I do believe background checks are a good thing.

 

[baz]

Manchin-Toomey do not (yet?) have the votes they need. Plus:

Of the 16 Republicans who crossed the aisle last week and voted with Democrats to begin a debate on gun control, 10 of them have now formally said they will vote against Manchin-Toomey: Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...on-gun-control-90082_Page2.html#ixzz2Qd1JWsQs

If everyone else votes as before (and I think a couple of more Democrats will vote against it this time), and if 60 votes are needed, it doesn't pass.

 

[rdhood]

I have no problem shutting down or impeding a distribution channel used by criminals to obtain guns. Shut them down one by one.

I object if that means infringing on my rights and costing me $$$$. Find a way to make FTF happen without an instant background check for every gun. Get rid of FFL fees.

On NICS:
About 1.2 percent of all instant background checks result in a denial from the FBI. Over 70,000 denials so far.

Sorry, but that is patently, blatantly false. From the FBI website: "Denials issued by the NICS Section in 2011 totaled 78,211."

That was for 2011 ALONE. In all, there have been several MILLION denials, and several HUNDRED THOUSAND FALSE DENIALS.

Your arguments are weak and your facts ...well... are bogus. Try again.

 

[NC-Mike]

Quote:
On NICS:
About 1.2 percent of all instant background checks result in a denial from the FBI. Over 70,000 denials so far.

Sorry, but that is patently, blatantly false. From the FBI website: "Denials issued by the NICS Section in 2011 totaled 78,211."

That was for 2011 ALONE. In all, there have been several MILLION denials, and several HUNDRED THOUSAND FALSE DENIALS.

Your arguments are weak and your facts ...well... are bogus. Try again.

OK, I stand corrected on the number, not the percentage and all that means is more denials from the NICS system.

I don't understand why anyone would want to remove the background checks and have anyone and everyone able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun, can you please explain that position to me and how it will fly to the general public?

Thanks,

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.