Biden: universal background checks could exclude family members

[JohnBT]

Looks like he's willing to negotiate a little, so it's a start. That exemption may not make his hard core supporters too happy.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bid...0d77a6-60c5-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

"In that meeting [with Ducks Unlimited], Biden conceded that any push for universal background checks could include exceptions for gun transfers between family members."

 

[mgmorden]

I'd like to know what DU's position was in all of this. As a member and someone who attends a LOT of their fundraising events if their position waiver's from that of the NRA that's another organization that can kiss my support goodbye.

 

[mljdeckard]

We are not in a position where we need to compromise at all.

 

[JohnBT]

The point is that Biden is willing to compromise.

 

[mljdeckard]

First of all, I doubt his sincerity. Second,.......so what? It doesn't matter if he is willing to compromise if we aren't in a position where we need to.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

It also said he was willing to run for President...... That is a chilling thought in itself.

 

[meanmrmustard]

First of all, I doubt his sincerity. Second,.......so what? It doesn't matter if he is willing to compromise if we aren't in a position where we need to.

Boom. Point, set, match. This is the sentiment we've been trying get across in several of these threads.

There ain't no rest for the wicked, Biden included.

 

[M-Cameron]

first things first....this isnt a 'compromise'.....its a well known negotiating tactic.

if you want something that you wouldnt normally be able to get.....you ask for something more insane first, so that when you propose what you actually want, it doesnt seem as far-fetched, and you are more apt to get it...

....these people have made a career of manipulating people, dont fall for their tricks.

 

[meanmrmustard]

first things first....this isnt a 'compromise'.....its a well known negotiating tactic.

if you want something that you wouldnt normally be able to get.....you ask for something more insane first, so that when you propose what you actually want, it doesnt seem as far-fetched, and you are more apt to get it...

....these people have made a career of manipulating people, dont fall for their tricks.

It's called haggling. People do it a lot. Usually, they're used car salesmen.

 

[2ifbyC]

Do you think Biden would be wanting to "sweeten the deal" if he thought they were winning?

Remind me again, how are the 2A advocates benefiting from his gun proposals?

 

[caribou]

"Compramise" in a military situation is when the Enemy is allready in the camp.

We cannot have such, in this war on our Rights.

Gun control is premption to govornment abuse and genocide and the Second Amendment is about Combat, as idistatefull as it is, if you find yourself defending your life, your rights, your state, your country or your familys, YOU are in Combat.

Ask a vet of the recent wars if his 30 round mags werent just what he needed.

 

[buckeye8]

Do not begin to negotiate on his terms. Nothing good will come of it.

Compromise is when two sides determine their own starting points and meet somewhere near the middle.

Compromise is not possible when one side unilaterally determines the starting point for both parties.

 

[-v-]

It shows that we're in a position of strength and they are not. Sure 30 round mag limit, IF you dissolve the NFA act of 1934 .

 

[beeenbag]

So Adam Lanza can rest easier knowing that after he murdered his mother and stole her guns, he didn't violate a new transfer law

 

[Manco]

first things first....this isnt a 'compromise'.....its a well known negotiating tactic.

if you want something that you wouldnt normally be able to get.....you ask for something more insane first, so that when you propose what you actually want, it doesnt seem as far-fetched, and you are more apt to get it...

....these people have made a career of manipulating people, dont fall for their tricks.

Precisely. From a slightly different angle, no matter what sort of deal is made (short of nothing being done), we lose something that we have now, gaining nothing, while they gain something they didn't have before, losing nothing. If we iterate this process enough times, we'll eventually end up with nothing. We must therefore fight for every little right we currently have, and never "compromise" (at least not in this way--if we actually received something in return, then I'd listen, but that never happens). We have no legal or moral reasons to make any such deals. If Biden is willing to ask for less, it means that even he knows he had asked for too much, so he doesn't have the votes, and we (via our supporters in Congress) should not give them to him now--he should just keep offering to compromise more and more until the whole stupid suggestion goes away.

This should be part of the argument against magazine capacity limits, by the way--pointless laws that serve ONLY to nibble away at our rights, bit by bit. It only hurts those who use guns for self-defense, for whom carrying additional magazines and reloading during a shooting would be an inconvenience at best, and a hazard in the latter case. Mass murderers, on the other hand, can carry all the magazines they need and reload in relative safety while their victims cower in fear. And pointless laws should never be passed anyway.

So Adam Lanza can rest easier knowing that after he murdered his mother and stole her guns, he didn't violate a new transfer law

BUSTED! If we need concrete proof that the antis are not trying to solve the problem at hand, and are merely on a gun-grab because the opportunity presented itself, then this would be a good example to use.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The proof that they are notintereseted in solving the problem is the lack of mention or attention to what is driving young white males to take actions against humanity without reason. I think a quick look into their backgrounds which show a history of bizarre behaviors and psychotropic drug use in their adolescence would be a good place to start as for determining the root cause but since the prescription drug business has invested heavily in our politicians and both some parents and those in the education field like the idea of tranquilizing young males we will not see any action towards a real solution. Politicians with a Marxist bent have been trying for centuries to render their subjects defenseless so as to insure their seat of power.

 

[Elkins45]

So Adam Lanza can rest easier knowing that after he murdered his mother and stole her guns, he didn't violate a new transfer law

This reply is full of win.

 

[jbrown50]

18 USC § 922 (d) 1 - 9 already states that it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any prohibited person.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1)is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2)is a fugitive from justice;

(3)is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4)has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5)who, being an alien—
(A)is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B)except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6)who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7)who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8)is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A)was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)
(i)includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii)by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9)has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) ofsection 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) ofsection 925 of this chapter.

What's the motive behind the cry for expanded background checks when it's already my responsibility to ensure that I don't provide guns to a prohibited person? If these laws, already on the books, aren't working then maybe they should be repealed.

I'm sure Biden is already familiar with these laws.

 

[Tirod]

We don't need more examples of what we already know - it's a gun grab, AND it was forecast nearly a year ago. It was just sitting on the agenda to bring up after the election - unfortunately, the odds were it would happen. It just needed an incident.

The latest pronouncements from the White House seem to follow his script writers caveat that "we can make a change if the people want to." Well, this morning, there's a quote from a WH press person about getting SOME of the gun control passed. They are already spinning the result - anything passed is an accomplishment they can point to as doing something, all part of a legacy. It will probably rate a small display in the Presidential Library.

They should build it in Hawaii. <--- That, right there, is how we should be focused - in the future, just the same as our opponents. They aren't reacting to events, they are forecasting them and using some to their advantage.

Second terms are usually no cake walk - the Obamacare backlash has started, major corporations are trending to hiring part time to avoid health care. Listen and keep you ears open. We haven't fixed the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling is still an issue, world events aren't going away, we have another election for Representatives in less than 22 months. That will be a big indicator and backlash, too. The administration is going to have bruises over the next year, and his party is going to be even more exposed for what they are.

Don't look to the (officially sanctioned) news at 6 to tell you about it, use the internet, the People's News Source.

 

[Yo Mama]

The background checks will pass. No more private sales without one. Biden had to add to his position allowing family members to get the votes needed.

How pathetic though. The one thing we know about the monster in CT, was that he was denied a purchase using a background check. Why would Biden want to exclude him as a family member?

Another example how the anti gun right legislation makes no sense.

 

[beatledog7]

To Biden and his ilk, compromise means, "Get them to think in generalities that they're getting something they want, then yank it away in the hidden details."

 

[huntsman]

NO MORE INFRINDGEMENTS but buying or selling at this stage of my life isn't a concern instead what matters to me is my kids inheriting so yeah this is a big deal to me.

 

[19-3Ben]

Wondering if this is his way of following Bill Clintons recommendation to back off a little.

 

[Browning]

The point is that Biden is willing to compromise.

Who cares?

That means he knows his position is weak.

 

[Manco]

What's the motive behind the cry for expanded background checks when it's already my responsibility to ensure that I don't provide guns to a prohibited person? If these laws, already on the books, aren't working then maybe they should be repealed.

I'm sure Biden is already familiar with these laws.

They aren't being enforced, and the new laws won't be, either, I'd expect. The antis are counting on law-abiding gun owners to obey them, while criminals (useful for instilling fear, which generally increases government control and power) can do whatever they want.

We don't need more examples of what we already know - it's a gun grab,

I meant for us to use in the media for the public--it's something they could potentially understand without making us look more paranoid (to them) than we already do.

Second terms are usually no cake walk - the Obamacare backlash has started, major corporations are trending to hiring part time to avoid health care. Listen and keep you ears open. We haven't fixed the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling is still an issue, world events aren't going away, we have another election for Representatives in less than 22 months. That will be a big indicator and backlash, too. The administration is going to have bruises over the next year, and his party is going to be even more exposed for what they are.

Yep, this happens with every president who gets elected to a second term--they start out so positive that they can accomplish the REAL agenda they had in mind, since they no longer have to worry about reelection, but then they get slapped down time after time and their party usually gets punished in the midterm elections. I sure hope that the rule holds true this time around, but my fear is that the strange hold that Obama has over the majority of people in the US may make him the rare exception. We'll have to strive relentlessly to frustrate and defeat him at every step.