...some random thoughts, but valid points...
Random, yes. Valid, not necessarily.
the right to keep and bear arms, whatever they might be, "shall not be infringed". But that all ended in 1934 with the Gun Control Act of 1934. Machine guns, short barreled rifles & shotguns, etc, became regulated. Regulation, no matter how you define it, is infringement.
Regulation is infringement, but the 1934 gun control act isn't the first. Back in the 1800s, a federal gun ban was imposed on blacks, particularly the newly freed slaves. Gun control isn't about security of the people. It's about controlling the people.
So, we have already gone down that road.
Doesn't mean it's the right road. Before America gained it's independence, the rights of people were infringed by the institution of legal slavery. Should we have then continued down that road?
Such a big deal is made about Universal Background Checks.
We'll come back to this.
Aren't all handguns, post 1899, subject to this already?
No. Sales of handguns have more restrictions than long guns by federal law. However, by federal law, a background check isn't required for a private sale. However, the seller is forbidden to sell any firearm to anyone they have reason to suspect is a forbidden person.
Where federal handgun law differs from long arm law is that when purchasing a handgun from a dealer, the purchaser must be at least 21. The transferer and and transferee must both be residents of the state in which the transfer (whether it's a sale or gift) takes place. Long gun transfers are a little more lax because of the "sporting purposes" nonsense.
it is nice to have the option of going to a gun show, and purchasing a long arm, should I desire to do so, without a paper trail...
If you buy from a private party, yes. However, a dealer cannot transfer a firearm to you without filling out the proper paperwork and calling in a background check.
...a paper trail can lead to registration and potential confiscation...
Filling out a Form 4473 records the sale at the point of sale, but does not register the firearm. One thing TV shows and movies get wrong- LEOs cannot call up the BATF and find out who was the original purchaser of a firearm. They have to call the maker who directs them to the distributor who directs them to the shop it was shipped to. They then have to go to the shop and search through the form 4473s. The, they have to go to the original purchaser and see if they still have that firearm. If the government wants to use the Form 4473s for mass confiscation, they'll have their work cut out for them.
IF you already have Gun Control Acts, which already have infringed the rights of law abiding citizens, why is such a big deal made about banning assault weapons?
That's like asking why if you aren't allowed to hit a bully back, why is it a big deal to give up your shoes so you can't run away- or better still- chase the bully down?
However, "assault weapons" can mean anything tyrants wants it to.
If you control the language, you control the argument
If you control the argument, you control information
If you control information, you control history
If you control history, you control the past
He who controls the past controls the future.” – Big Brother, 1984
A tyrant can find a way for all firearms to be defined as an "assault weapon". That's just for starters. Next thing you know, steak knives will have to have rounded points and you'll need to be 21 to shop for tableware.
Again, like I said, I don't agree with paperwork and banning and infringement, but if this needs to be done, I don't have a problem with that per se.
Why would it need to be done? The majority of firearms are owned by law abiding Americans and the majority of Americans are law abiding. Why would we need to ban something the majority of Americans do not use to commit crime? That would leave them defenseless against the small minority who are violent criminals?
And here's why? What purpose do they serve other than to fire many shots in a short period of time? Can anyone explain why they are necessary over other available firearms, other than they could be fun to shoot? No real sportsmanship there, no skill in improving target practice skills, no needed for hunting or even self defense. I would still keep my nose out of this except for I think that the cause was really really damaged or hurt when the term "assault" was used to define many such weapons.
Here is your most invalid point of all. A simple bit of research will show you how wrong you are on this point.
Such a big deal is made about Universal Background Checks.
You don't think background checks are a big deal? Fine. Let's roll out the background checks. Computers are used everyday for criminal purposes, to commit fraud, theft, violence, rape, illegal sex acts against minors, terrorism, cannibalism, human trafficking, illicit drug trade and other vicious and depraved acts. Before anyone can have a computer device transferred to them, they must go to a licensed dealer, be at least 18 years old and pass a background check. Because certain features are not suitable for the purposes of entertainment or connecting to any source of information not approved by the government, they will be strictly prohibited or cannot be transferred without an extensive background check, possession of the proper paperwork and the payment of a $200 tax.
However, I would compromise on "universal background checks" with the following-
-Sporting clause is struck down from the GCA of 1968. Our Second Amendment is about defense of our persons, families, communities and nation. Not busting clay pigeons at the country club or duck hunting.
-Short barreled rifles and shoguns be removed from the NFA and reclassified simply as "handguns". Attaching a buttstock would no longer require a tax stamp.
-Remove silencers from the NFA and treated as another accessory.
-Open the machinegun registry to new machineguns.
-CCWs of one state recognized by all- the same as states driver's licenses
-No information about the firearm being transferred is to be given other than if it's a long arm, pistol or other.
-Private parties must be able to call NICS with the tranferer's and transferee's information to get approval. Private party sales need not go through an FFL.
Most important of all-
-All candidates, politicians holding office and all their staff, whether direct hires, contractors or consultants, must pass the same background check and a drug test. Actually, they should have to pass the same background check and drug screening as law enforcement officers.
True compromise is about give and take. We've given and they've taken. Now, it's time we demand they give us something. The above is the minimum for a reasonable dialogue about background checks.
