Biden: universal background checks could exclude family members
- Thread starter JohnBT
- Start date
- Status
Pointshoot
Member
mljdeckard : "We are not in a position where we need to compromise at all."
Thank you ! Nice to see someone else understands that.
Many supporters of the 2A are our own worst enemies.
Now we do need to go on the offensive. Starting with a push to get the details of 'Fast & Furious' before the American people. Look at how many deaths those guns caused.
Thank you ! Nice to see someone else understands that.
Many supporters of the 2A are our own worst enemies.
Now we do need to go on the offensive. Starting with a push to get the details of 'Fast & Furious' before the American people. Look at how many deaths those guns caused.
mister_murphy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 104
Exceptions for transfers between family members? Hmm...Then who would define who is and who is not a family member?
Will it be just immediate blood family such as from a parent, to a child of legal age? What about an adopted child (officially or unofficially)?
How will this exception deal with divorce situations also? Say for example, the transfer would be legal to do when your married, but say sometime later there is a divorce, the firearm transferd is then stolen and recovered, then how does the divorced person prove that the transfer took place during the marriage, instead of after, to stay within the legalities, without having it transfered through an FFL?
Way to many variables to even take a risk on agreeing to it in any way...
Will it be just immediate blood family such as from a parent, to a child of legal age? What about an adopted child (officially or unofficially)?
How will this exception deal with divorce situations also? Say for example, the transfer would be legal to do when your married, but say sometime later there is a divorce, the firearm transferd is then stolen and recovered, then how does the divorced person prove that the transfer took place during the marriage, instead of after, to stay within the legalities, without having it transfered through an FFL?
Way to many variables to even take a risk on agreeing to it in any way...
wacki
Member
I thought both parties gain something in a compromise.
What did we actually gain (as opposed to not lost)?
Zeke/PA
Member
Backround Checks?
I 'm all for it, BUT let's start with a backround check of Barack Obama.
Some shady crap in HIS detail has, in my opinion been covered up!
I 'm all for it, BUT let's start with a backround check of Barack Obama.
Some shady crap in HIS detail has, in my opinion been covered up!
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"We're willing to talk, but only if Mr. Biden exits the room"
. I don't think we want to go down the road of digging through our highest officials' backgrounds; we'd be horrified at what the majority of folks on both sides of the aisle have been up to. I personally think of our elected government officials like Asian cuisine; if it tastes good, and you think you'd like to have it again, then don't ask the chef what it's made of!!! I yearn for a government of goody-two-shoes, but as all goody-two-shoes' know, they'd just get thrown out by the shady guys (and on ethics charges, too
)
TCB
Nah, he just got an F in Political Science the first time he took it
. I don't think we want to go down the road of digging through our highest officials' backgrounds; we'd be horrified at what the majority of folks on both sides of the aisle have been up to. I personally think of our elected government officials like Asian cuisine; if it tastes good, and you think you'd like to have it again, then don't ask the chef what it's made of!!! I yearn for a government of goody-two-shoes, but as all goody-two-shoes' know, they'd just get thrown out by the shady guys (and on ethics charges, too)TCB
chipcom
member
He can negotiate till he gives away his PA accent...my bargaining position is not going to change and neither should yours. Some issues are nonnegotiable - the basic human right to defend one's self and family by the means of our choosing is one of them.
chipcom
member
People need to understand one hard truth....neither the Constitution nor the 2nd Amendment is going to protect their rights. Look at how the Constitution has been shredded to pieces over our history...and the shredding has accelerated since 9/11 (and many were proudly, stupidly chanting USA, USA as they were being shredded). Just like criminals don't give a darn about laws, the plutocratic duopoly doesn't give a darn about your rights and will use their slick way with words to make the words of the Constitution irrelevant.
Folks, we should be framing this as a fight for our basic, primal human right to defend ourselves and our families from predators - whether that predator be animal, human, organizational or governmental, with whatever means we see fit. We don't need the Constitution to justify our cause, because our cause predates the Constitution.
Folks, we should be framing this as a fight for our basic, primal human right to defend ourselves and our families from predators - whether that predator be animal, human, organizational or governmental, with whatever means we see fit. We don't need the Constitution to justify our cause, because our cause predates the Constitution.
Lupinus
Member
Oh so he is willing to put some mayo on our sammich.
How nice
How nice
It may have lettuce and all the fixings but it is still one big soggy crap sandwich.
gc70
Member
JohnBT said:
This is not a new position or a signal of willingness to negotiate or compromise.
Schumer's S.436 from the prior session of Congress and Moran's H.R.21 from this session of Congress both provided exceptions for "immediate family members."
1911 guy
Member
I want you to send me your entire life saving because I think I'm entitled to it. However, I'm willing to settle for $10,000. That's a compromise you can live with, right? My address is...
1911 guy
Member
Solo, we might be distantly related. I find your sense of humor somewhat familiar. It's the same kind that irritates my wife.
HorseSoldier
Member
I am inclined to think Biden being willing to compromise would be an indication that he/Barry-O are starting to realize that they seized the initiative, charged right in, and after taking a moment to catch their breath realized they're in a blind draw with high ground on three sides . . .
somerandomguy
member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Messages
- 314
They SHOULD exclude family members. I'm not responsible for anything that my family members do/have done, it's ridiculous to punish someone who's law abiding for that. Out of the mercy of his heart he's going to be partially fair, I ain't buying it. Say NO to compromise.
BHP FAN
Member
'' I am inclined to think Biden being willing to compromise would be an indication that he/Barry-O are starting to realize that they seized the initiative, charged right in, and after taking a moment to catch their breath realized they're in a blind draw with high ground on three sides...''
Lord, I hope so. I thought that was us in the ''target rich environment''....glad to hear we have them right where we want 'em!
Lord, I hope so. I thought that was us in the ''target rich environment''....glad to hear we have them right where we want 'em!
Ehtereon11B
internet infantryman
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 983
Biden isn't loosening his position out of negotiation but common sense. Some bean counter probably told him that MOST of the person to person transfers were gifts between family members, typically in the same house, pushing for background checks on those would have been a logistical nightmare for little gain. So he probably figured to make it easier on himself by not going after Dads giving their kids .22s.
I think we can push for nothing at all. I support background checks, but not when they are crammed down my throat by force. Biden didn't want the support of any pro-RKBA people when he came up with his ideas, so I feel like he can keep them. Let them fight for every step if that is how they want it.
I am more worried about a magazine capacity restriction than background checks. Why be worried about what can be transferred to whom if the only thing left to transfer is a Mossberg 500 plugged to two rounds?
I am more worried about a magazine capacity restriction than background checks. Why be worried about what can be transferred to whom if the only thing left to transfer is a Mossberg 500 plugged to two rounds?
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Please do not be confused. What is happening is an outright attack on the Bill of Rights. Its more than the Second Amendment. They wish to not only disarm Citizens but they want to decide what entertainment we can view. Before we know it we will have lost everything.
gc70
Member
Ehtereon11b said:
Biden is not "loosening his position" at all. We have clear evidence in previous bills submitted in Congress that the intention was always to provide an exception for family members. And an exception for family members is not offered out of common sense, but because it is smart politics that will kill the majority of the opposition to universal background checks.
Any bill that directly and immediately causes pain to 80 million gun owners will never become law. But a bill that affects a much smaller slice of gun owners has a much better chance of being enacted. The UBC exception for family members is a divide-and-conquer tactic.
The vast majority of gun owners probably do not do private transactions with anyone but family members. Requiring UBCs without an exception for family members would tick off nearly all 80 million gun owners. But provide an exception for family members and UBCs might only affect 10 or 20 million gun owners. The majority of potential opposition to UBCs is eliminated with one exception (which can be revoked later). That is not "common sense" by our definition, but smart political maneuvering.
"Biden is willing to compromise." Read: Biden is willing to let us keep some of the rights he is trying to take away.
You know, with all of the struggle of fighting against legitimate gun owners in order to enact legislation that will not stop violence...I wonder why they don't just cave and work with us? Look at how much time, effort, and money has been poured into the two sides fighting each other. I'm going to do so as long as it helps keep my rights, but I wonder how much time and energy we could put towards actually making the situation better if we stopped focusing so much on the guns.
Seriously, it's like a university spending all of its resources testing to see whether students can still study if they can only use pens instead of being allowed both pens and pencils, instead of on training for good study habits and reducing tuition costs.
I saw a few signs on Saturday that said something like "Congress should focus on debt control, not gun control." Well, all of these studies and all of this financing they want to do for the anti-gun agenda...that is OUR tax dollars paying for it. In a good economy this would be irritating, but in this economy it is absolutely infuriating that they want to use my money to pave the way to take away my rights.
Excepting family members does not exclude close friends. Does this mean that in order to sell to a female friend of mine who is concerned about her new job in a shady part of town, I have to jump through hoops? Good job protecting the stalker in this hypothetical situation.
You know, with all of the struggle of fighting against legitimate gun owners in order to enact legislation that will not stop violence...I wonder why they don't just cave and work with us? Look at how much time, effort, and money has been poured into the two sides fighting each other. I'm going to do so as long as it helps keep my rights, but I wonder how much time and energy we could put towards actually making the situation better if we stopped focusing so much on the guns.
Seriously, it's like a university spending all of its resources testing to see whether students can still study if they can only use pens instead of being allowed both pens and pencils, instead of on training for good study habits and reducing tuition costs.
I saw a few signs on Saturday that said something like "Congress should focus on debt control, not gun control." Well, all of these studies and all of this financing they want to do for the anti-gun agenda...that is OUR tax dollars paying for it. In a good economy this would be irritating, but in this economy it is absolutely infuriating that they want to use my money to pave the way to take away my rights.
Excepting family members does not exclude close friends. Does this mean that in order to sell to a female friend of mine who is concerned about her new job in a shady part of town, I have to jump through hoops? Good job protecting the stalker in this hypothetical situation.
What they want is for the civilian population to be eventually totally disarmed, and working with us to reduce the frequency of mass shootings would go against their goal. The more mass murders involving guns there are, the more easily we can be disarmed. Mass murders are useful for manipulating public sentiment and increasing government power--that's why any legislation they pass will do nothing to curb mass murder and all it can to reduce gun ownership among law-abiding citizens.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
