House Fires First Shot, So to Speak, on Universal Background Checks

[Deanimator]

I have a 2A Right. I do not care if I am seen as unreasonable. If you don't want your 2A right seen as a bargaining chip, don't use it as one.

Opponents of the Fugitive Slave Act were portrayed as "unreasonable" by the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest too.

I wouldn't "horse trade" myself into slavery. Why would I "horse trade" my way out of the ability to resist it?

 

[Kevin5098]

It doesn’t matter what I like. The more powerful will prevail. Telling you how it is has nothing to do with me liking it or not. Your deity will not save you from losing this argument. Only being more powerful will. If the RKBA were a deity provided right, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Yes, the more powerful will prevail. They certainly did in 1783. In many other cases, rights have been taken from the people by force. If you don't believe in a deity, then you can think of our inalienable rights as natural rights of human beings. My personal view of the deity is that he has given us free will and seldom intercedes in our affairs. It is up to us to secure our rights and maintain them if necessary. That is my belief and to be honest, I could care less what you believe.

 

[Deanimator]

You cannot reason with anti gunners, they have never offered anything for something, and never will. The moment you start thinking you can bargain with them you have lost.

II's like trying to make a deal with the meth head herding everybody into the walk-in freezer. At that point, what do you think you're going to talk him out of? What have you got to trade?

 

[Deanimator]

Any "deal" premised on the laughable fantasy that the anti-gun cult are going to "bargain" or more fundamentally that they're decent human beings whose word has any value at all isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Yes, the more powerful will prevail. They certainly did in 1783. In many other cases, rights have been taken from the people by force. If you don't believe in a deity, then you can think of our inalienable rights as natural rights of human beings. My personal view of the deity is that he has given us free will and seldom intercedes in our affairs. It is up to us to secure our rights and maintain them if necessary. That is my belief and to be honest, I could care less what you believe.

If you don’t care what I believe, why did you bring it up? I didn’t. I never specified my beliefs regarding a deity except that one did not grant RKBA. Not yours, not mine. As far as natural rights are concerned, there is no such thing. If you keep referencing the Declaration of Independence regarding something never mentioned in it, you are wasting your precious time.

 

[Texas10mm]

The problem with UBC is it solves NOTHING. The Left knows this. But they want it passed so a few years down the road they can say it's not working....unless we have universal registration. Registration leads to confiscation. They have to know what you have before they can make plans to take it from you.

UBC won't stop criminals from obtaining firearms. We all know that. What it will do is turn otherwise law abiding people into felons. Also it's the stepping stone to registration.

The Left is playing the long game, the eventual goal is to eliminate firearms ownership, then they are free to proceed with the enslavement of the populous.

 

[Walkalong]

Registration leads to confiscation

Which leads to genocide, just check the history books.

Just say no.

 

[ilbob]

I still can’t believe POTUS threw us under the bus on bumpstocks and got nothing for it.

The answer to “what comes next?” Is easy, more of the same until everything is out of civilian hands.

No more machine guns then bump stocks make them machineguns only a matter of time before they figure out it doesn’t take sliding hunk of plastic to get them to fire like that so that’s the end of semiautos. Then it’s time to shift focus to “sniper rifles” aka bolt action rifles....

We have not gotten "nothing" out of the bumpstock ban just yet. It could well be the 2A issue that SCOTUS decides to look at. OTOH, it would be a whole lot easier to throw it out based solely on the wording of existing law. But one never knows.

 

[Deanimator]

Let's not over-think this:

1. The other side has been trying to END citizen firearms ownership since zeppelins were the next big thing.
2. The other side has been lying about their goals since Joan Crawford was a sweet young thing.
3. We've been "horse trading" since AT LEAST 1934.
4. We've been getting rolled since AT LEAST 1934.
5. The other side has only JUST started telling the truth when they started threatening to KILL us... if necessary with NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Now tell me what we're going to get from falling for one MORE grift?

 

[readyeddy]

We should recognize the different groups of people who are involved in this process.

2A Rights Advocates: This is generally us. People who believe 2A rights are sacred and should not be compromised.

Gun Control Advocates: These folks actually believe gun restrictions save lives and reduce crime.

Sociopath Gun Grabbers: Scary people who want to disarm the public to render them powerless.

Politically Motivated Officials: PMO's will take almost any position depending on polls and party lines. Some call these people "realists". Generally malleable, this group can be predictable and useful depending on deal making possibilities and opinion polls.

Silent Majority/Middle America: Thought to be mostly extinct, this group continues to exist despite mainstream media reports. These folks are mostly concerned about putting food on the table, educating their children, and paying the rent or mortgage. Individual members may or may not feel strongly about guns, but for the most part they don't participate in the debate. They identify with those they consider to be capable and decent, and they value what they consider to be common sense solutions. PMO's mostly pander to their own tribe, but the SM/MA group can make or break a PMO and, therefore, the SM/MA are feared if awakened like a sleeping giant. If you're running for POTUS, you want the support of the SM/MA.

The first 3 groups are entrenched. They key, IMO, is to focus on the the last 2 groups, which requires the special talents of lobbyists and political operatives.

 

[Deanimator]

The first 3 groups are entrenched. They key, IMO, is to focus on the the last 2 groups, which requires the special talents of lobbyists and political operatives.

This is a political and social struggle and has to be treated as such.

We're going to get nothing from the other side except attempts to destroy (and subvert) us.

The public at large has to be shown that they're being lied to. Where I've been able to do that, I've won converts.

 

[rpenmanparker]

The problem with UBC is it solves NOTHING. The Left knows this. But they want it passed so a few years down the road they can say it's not working....unless we have universal registration. Registration leads to confiscation. They have to know what you have before they can make plans to take it from you.

UBC won't stop criminals from obtaining firearms. We all know that. What it will do is turn otherwise law abiding people into felons. Also it's the stepping stone to registration.

The Left is playing the long game, the eventual goal is to eliminate firearms ownership, then they are free to proceed with the enslavement of the populous.

Yep. Those lefties. Always trying to enslave people. But you figured it out.

 

[old lady new shooter]

You're stretching. I assume you are an "originalist". As an originalist how would you react if a liberal jurist ruled against RKBA because of an interpretation of a document that showed a negative mindset of the founders? Holy slippery slope, Batman! I surely wouldn't mention mindset in this kind of discussion if I fully shared your views.

In jurisprudence, legislative intent is a very important concept. That's why documentation of the discussion of laws is published. The discussions are cited all the time in rulings, not least in the Supreme Court.

 

[tommy.duncan]

Why don't we add that anyone who votes for gun control legislation should lose their Govt funded armed security!!

 

[rpenmanparker]

In jurisprudence, legislative intent is a very important concept. That's why documentation of the discussion of laws is published. The discussions are cited all the time in rulings, not least in the Supreme Court.

I don’t doubt it. But you are admitting that laws can be interpreted based on contemporaneous records of intent. HERESY! And here I thought the word was the word. So “shall not be infringed” doesn’t necessarily mean shall not be infringed? If I found a document by a founder expressing reservations would it cast doubt on the issue?

 

[old lady new shooter]

I don’t doubt it. But you are admitting that laws can be interpreted based on contemporaneous records of intent. HERESY! And here I thought the word was the word. So “shall not be infringed” doesn’t necessarily mean shall not be infringed? If I found a document by a founder expressing reservations would it cast doubt on the issue?

It's not a question of "a document", it's a question of the entire discussion. There is no question after reading the discussion around the second amendment that the Founders did not put it into the Constituion just so to ensure skeet shooting would be legal

As for the word being the word, yes, but AS THE WORD WAS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN. Which BTW is why "a well-regulated militia" does not mean a gun registry. "Regulated" at the time did NOT mean hamstrung by government rules, it meant something more like orderly and functional.

 

[jmorris]

We're going to get nothing from the other side except attempts to destroy (and subvert) us.

That’s it in a nutshell. Even the “Firearm Owners Protection Act” Took something that was legal and banned it. It would be foolish to think any other laws that further eliminated rights are a positive, rather just further erosion.

 

[rpenmanparker]

It's not a question of "a document", it's a question of the entire discussion. There is no question after reading the discussion around the second amendment that the Founders did not put it into the Constituion just so to ensure skeet shooting would be legal.

As for the word being the word, yes, but AS THE WORD WAS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN. Which BTW is why "a well-regulated militia" does not mean a gun registry. "Regulated" at the time did NOT mean hamstrung by government rules, it meant something more like orderly and functional.

Why do you (and so many others) waste your time explaining the “well regulated” part when any literate person already understands it? Who with an ounce of sense would misconstrue that? Then you completely ignore the “militia” part which is the crux of the matter. So you worry about what well regulated means but act like militia isn’t even there. Militia? What militia? I don’t need no stinking’ militia. Whachu talkin’ ‘bout militia?

 

[jmorris]

During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were members of the militia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Now to be PC we will include Women and non abled-bodied folks...

It was well after the writing of the 2nd Amendment term “militia” was redefined.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

And recent attempts at redefining in further doesn’t change what they meant when they wrote it. That said the losers don’t get to right the history books...

 

[hso]

but may be a tougher sell in the Republican controlled Senate.

It will die in the Senate, "not just be tougher". This will be SOP running up to the 2020 election and will be used against the GOP for obstructing "common sense gun laws".

 

[TJ AK-74]

Here's a simple solution to UBC: make anyone who gets a state-issued photo ID get a NICS check at the same time. Have a gun logo on the ID card. If the individual fails the NICS check (actual fail, not just a delay) or in the future is convicted of a disqualifying offense, simply punch out the gun logo. This way every single citizen would go through a check and you would not need to do a NICS check at an FFL or anywhere else, just look at their ID.

 

[JTHunter]

The problem with UBC is it solves NOTHING. The Left knows this. But they want it passed so a few years down the road they can say it's not working....unless we have universal registration. Registration leads to confiscation. They have to know what you have before they can make plans to take it from you.

UBC won't stop criminals from obtaining firearms. We all know that. What it will do is turn otherwise law abiding people into felons. Also it's the stepping stone to registration.

The Left is playing the long game, the eventual goal is to eliminate firearms ownership, then they are free to proceed with the enslavement of the populous.

"Incremental steps". Time is on their side.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

"Incremental steps". Time is on their side.

That's a sad, but probably true, fact. I've been watching it happen since 1968...

 

[Deanimator]

"Incremental steps". Time is on their side.

Time was on the side of the Japanese... in December 1941. Things looked a little different in December 1944.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I saw this coming. These things don't ever die, they just get put on the back burner until congress has enough votes to push them through. The bill will probably get thru the house, I doubt it will get thru the senate. I will bet that if it gets to the pres it's a done deal. He would sign it in a heart beat.