I don't believe it-gun owners giving in

[JayBird]

The whole 70 or 80 or 90 or whatever number anti-gunners are floating around of 'gun owners' who are in favor of so called universal background checks.

People. We need to stick together. There is no reason to 'compromise'

Everytime we give in and get nothing in return, we are simply surrendering our rights for nothing in return. That is not 'compromise'. A compromise is getting something in return.

Someone please explain to me what we are getting in return for this? Someone please tell me why you are in favor of 'universal background checks' if you are?

I have a real hard time believing the numbers being thrown around. So I ask it here to find out if I really am in such a minority even among gun owners.

I personally see it as a prelude to a national firearms database and national registration...which I am strongly against. Which is why I am against 'universal background checks' among other reasons as well.

 

[Avenger29]

Look back over the past month or so on this here board and see the surrender monkeys RUSHING to throw our rights away before the commies even make any progress on their legislation.

I'd daresay you could probably find members of this board who'd also be A-OK with banning CCW, a complete ban on semi-autos, etc...

It's disgusting. Compromise NEVER works. NEVER.

 

[JayBird]

Look back over the past month or so on this here board and see the surrender monkeys RUSHING to throw our rights away before the commies even make any progress on their legislation.

I'd daresay you could probably find members of this board who'd also be A-OK with banning CCW, a complete ban on semi-autos, etc...

It's disgusting. Compromise NEVER works. NEVER.

Are gun owners now either so naive or too young or not knowledgable enough on history to understand that when the 'going gets tough' it's not time to run but it's time to dig in.

I find it hard to believe that gun owners dont realize how incrementally handing over portions of your rights just makes it easier for them to come and take more in the future??

Heck, even the 'compromise' we made with the Brady bill is being used against us in this discussion of so called 'universal background checks' just as NFA was used to help get GCA and then Hughes. Just as they were used to get the Clinton ban.

Just as any compromise now will be used against us in the future.

 

[medalguy]

I'm not sure there are really that many gun owners willing to settle for anything. I believe the drive-by media are ginning up these numbers to show the uncommitted that there really are gun owners who want "reasonable controls" on guns. This is in the hopes of convincing the large numbers of prople out there who know absolutely nothing about guns except what the Great One and Uncle Joe tell them, that we really do need "sensible controls" on guns, and most gun owners agree with this position.

Excuse me, I need to go barf about now.

 

[JayBird]

I'm not sure there are really that many gun owners willing to settle for anything. I believe the drive-by media are ginning up these numbers to show the uncommitted that there really are gun owners who want "reasonable controls" on guns. This is in the hopes of convincing the large numbers of prople out there who know absolutely nothing about guns except what the Great One and Uncle Joe tell them, that we really do need "sensible controls" on guns, and most gun owners agree with this position.

Excuse me, I need to go barf about now.

I am honestly hoping that is the case.

I sometimes look at these 'poll' numbers and immediately question them. But I don't see anyone in the public eye openly question them, so it leaves me wondering.

I really would love to hear a justification for why we need a universal background check law passed at the federal level...from a gun owner, that actually would be in favor of it.

 

[helitack32f1]

jaybird, I share your irritation and disgust. I do not understand either but it sometimes could be a case of thinking "Well, we need to do SOMETHING and maybe if we give in on this one little thing, they will leave us alone and besides, what would it really hurt to have some more background checks?"

Instead, people need to hold the line on the fact that not one single proposal for "Sensible" :banghead: gun control would have stopped any of the recent incidents. Somehow it needs to be drilled into people that criminals by definition DO NOT OBEY LAWS!!! It has been said a billion times but even the uninformed people among the gun world will still not get it. Besides, who needs an AR with more than 10 rounds for hunting?:banghead:

I still suspect that fighting this battle on the grounds of the 2nd Amendment is possibly a mistake and could be better fought by appealing to peoples ability to reason, think, and make an informed decision based on reality and truth, once they actually accept that they need to become thoroughly informed on the issues at hand and learn the facts.

Unfortunately i no longer have that much faith in the average American. And even a lot of gun owners fail the thinking, informed aspect.

 

[ngnrd]

Somehow it needs to be drilled into people that criminals by definition DO NOT OBEY LAWS!!!

The problem with this position is that it leads directly to the position that we don't need any laws for anything, because criminals don't obey laws anyway, which is just ridiculous on its face. Without laws, there exists only anarchy. And, I don't think you could get many people to buy tickets for that ride.

... this battle ... could be better fought by appealing to peoples ability to reason, think, and make an informed decision ...

Bringing logic to an emotional argument is akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight. You may win an occasional skirmish, but it is usually by blind luck. The problem is that the "emotion" that a lot of pro-rights people have been bringing to the table is judged to be stubbornness, paranoia, and fear of the gub'mint (you know... tin foil hat stuff).

What we should be doing is voicing our outrage at the criminal perpetrators, coupled with concern for our immediate safety, and our children's safety. i.e., Hey! That's the bad guy over there. The government needs to do something about the bad guys! And, while we are "having a national dialog" to figure out what can be done about the bad guys, I'm going to arm myself, and my family, so that we can defend ourselves from the bad guys.

Aww, heck. The government obviously can't protect me or my children, and the police can't be everywhere, so it's up to all of us to defend our families, to defend our neighbors, and to defend our communities. We all have to pull together, and get competent with the best weapons available, so that we can all be safe, and no longer have to fear the bad guys.

Alright... I'll admit that the "government needs to do something about all these bad guys" line isn't exactly perfect. But, it doesn't have to be. It just has to be a legitimate emotional response to the random, uncontrollable violence, with the point being that we need to better arm ourselves.

It's certainly better than only rattling off cold, sterile facts and statistics in a futile effort to defeat a heated emotional argument.

And, of course, this tactic won't work for the true anti-rights zealots. But it may keep them from convincing the uninformed masses that guns are the problem, instead of the solution. Even if it just confuses the issue, the more people hear that guns may be the only way to protect ourselves and our children, the tougher it is to make a case for more gun control.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Laws only succeed if followed. If read succinctly, laws are nothing but rules.

It isn't stricter or more laws we need, it's harsher punishment to those that break them.

Lack of laws don't create anarchy; the evil of humans do. It isn't the law that deters the criminal, its the impending punishment they face if they break said laws. Otherwise, we'd never even see crime. Don't confuse the two.

 

[Plan2Live]

Unfortunately i no longer have that much faith in the average American. And even a lot of gun owners fail the thinking, informed aspect.

Ditto

 

[ngnrd]

From dictionary.com

an·ar·chy [an-er-kee]
noun
1. a state of society without government or law.


And, you're right: laws do not deter criminals. The truth is, there is no law that can be made that cannot also be broken. And it is up to society to determine a fitting punishment for doing so. The trick is to appropriately punish the individual that broke the law, and not the tools the criminal used to commit the illegal act.

 

[larryh1108]

Well, if the numbers are from polls, we know how those work. How many polls have we ambushed on these boards? I'm sure there are polls that the Brady people ambushed as well that we were unaware of. That number is about as realistic as anything that comes from the media or government.

 

[browningguy]

I think the majority of posters in this thread have lost the battle already, if anyone has a different belief you consider them beneath contempt, surrender monkeys, want to go barf etc.

With those attitudes how many people are going to engage in discussion with you? You invite a discussion then make it clear that anyone not following along your path is going to be skewered. So you get no discussion, and no ability to change someones mind with reasoned discourse.

 

[Mobuck]

Big difference between "gun owners" and "gun enthusiasts". A "gun owner" might not have a problem with a universal(including private, FTF sales) because he/she has a couple of 3 firearms and has zero interest in trading or buying other than over the counter. A"gun enthusiast" is always searching for something and looking for trades or private sales to expand his personal collection.
I personally know "gun owners" who have NEVER purchased a firearm in their life. They have Grandpa's old shotgun or 22 rifle and are satisfied with it and are done. I've had people bring me guns "to be cleaned" that had been sitting in a closet for 20-30 years. They were "gun owners" but definately NOT "gun enthusiasts" and I'm 100% sure that they would see no reason not to have a universal background check.

 

[SleazyRider]

I think the majority of posters in this thread have lost the battle already, if anyone has a different belief you consider them beneath contempt, surrender monkeys, want to go barf etc.

With those attitudes how many people are going to engage in discussion with you? You invite a discussion then make it clear that anyone not following along your path is going to be skewered. So you get no discussion, and no ability to change someones mind with reasoned discourse.

Thank you for bringing some logic and common sense to this chest-thumping thread!

 

[Sav .250]

"Gun owners" while you would hope all believe in the premise, there are some who will disagree. Not all see the same picture with in any group. Just the facts of life.

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

I agree with ngnrd. We don't need more background checks. We need more eye for an eye justice. We need these evil murderers to fear justice.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Every state has laws regarding FTF sales. Failure to enforce those laws are not grounds for another law. The media for whatever reason has overlooked this point.

 

[JustinJ]

Just because somebody is a gun owner that does mean they are required to hold the OP's position on all gun related issues. Personally, i've gone back and forth in my mind regarding universal background checks. While i don't like the idea, if they could be effective in reducing gun related crimes private sale background checks could do far more to protect gun rights than take them away. Every time a murder with a gun occurs or a mass shooting happens it adds fuel to an already large fire to restrict gun rights. If a step could be taken to significantly reduce such events while still allowing law abiding citizens to own the weapons they choose we would be far better off in the long run.

The gun community needs to start looking at things objectively and rationally rather than clinging to mantras and paranoia.

 

[Delmar]

I'd welcome a chance to debate "sensible gun laws" with people favoring more restrictions on what is legal currently and exactly how what they propose is going to help the current situation.

What difference does magazine capacity make in a "gun free" zone?

How is banning classes of weapons or causing compulsory registration going to affect the bad people EVERYONE would like to see disarmed?

What I dont care to debate is the "it might" do this or that. Dont care to debate the emotional types who throw down this or that to try to defend their position. Im talking about reasoned debate, factual and unemotional.

What we are considering is taking rights away from American citizens, and that should NEVER be done lightly or without a demonstrable positive effect.

 

[Walkalong]

As long as I have been around guns saying that gun owners support this or that has been one of the anti's tactics.

Stay vigilant, keep calling, keep writing. They never give up, so neither can we.

 

[cfullgraf]

Every state has laws regarding FTF sales. Failure to enforce those laws are not grounds for another law. The media for whatever reason has overlooked this point.

That pretty well covers it in my opinion.

The government enacts many laws, not just gun laws, that there is no hope in accomplishing the goal of the law but makes them look good to their constituents.

Throw in passing laws based on a knee jerk reaction without the appropriate investigation just make the laws worse. Look at New York's new gun law where they admitted the day after the law was passed that they had to amend it so that law enforcement would not be in violation of the law. That is not smart nor efficient legislation regardless of your position on gun control.

 

[JayBird]

I think the majority of posters in this thread have lost the battle already, if anyone has a different belief you consider them beneath contempt, surrender monkeys, want to go barf etc.

With those attitudes how many people are going to engage in discussion with you? You invite a discussion then make it clear that anyone not following along your path is going to be skewered. So you get no discussion, and no ability to change someones mind with reasoned discourse.

So are you for or against 'Universal Background Checks'

And if you are for them....why?

I would really like to hear a well reasoned argument from a gun owner....on why they support it. If any here do.

 

[JayBird]

Just because somebody is a gun owner that does mean they are required to hold the OP's position on all gun related issues. Personally, i've gone back and forth in my mind regarding universal background checks. While i don't like the idea, if they could be effective in reducing gun related crimes private sale background checks could do far more to protect gun rights than take them away. Every time a murder with a gun occurs or a mass shooting happens it adds fuel to an already large fire to restrict gun rights. If a step could be taken to significantly reduce such events while still allowing law abiding citizens to own the weapons they choose we would be far better off in the long run.

The gun community needs to start looking at things objectively and rationally rather than clinging to mantras and paranoia.

Of course another gun owner does not have to share the same opinion as me.

But I would hope that they could at least justify and back up the reason why they disagree with me.

Saying...If they could be effective...is like saying...if it could only just save one life. Both statements could be used to justify any law, on guns or anything. I want to hear specifically about 'UBC', because if someone supports it, I would assume they have somewhat of a well thought out reason.

 

[GAMALOT]

How many times in this discussion and many others has it been quoted, "Criminals don't follow laws"? Nothing new here!

What happens when the laws make criminals out of law abiding gun owners?

Take for instance the new laws in NY state. Many right here will become criminals if they continue to pound their chests and refuse to obey these ridiculous new laws once they are enacted.

I absolutely disagree with these new restrictions in almost every way but, and this is what gets me slammed every time right here, I would rather comply with the laws and maintain my right to Keep and Bear Arms than to get busted and lose all of these rights. Many here call this giving in while I think it is the smarter way to go about our business and work on getting these laws repealed.
Keep in mind, once you have a felony involving guns in this state you are banned from owning guns-PERIOD! Thumping your chest will do little more than leave bruises.

I still have hope that an injunction will be handed down but I am also making arrangements to store any banned items with pals in less restrictive states until things blow over or get turned over.

As gun owners we are completely free to hang together or even just hang alone but we are still hanging either way. Makes very little sense to me.

There is a right way and a wrong way to show opposition and until I see the revolutionary flag raised I'll be sticking to my plan because no one here can help me when I am hanging.

 

[JayBird]

As long as I have been around guns saying that gun owners support this or that has been one of the anti's tactics.

Stay vigilant, keep calling, keep writing. They never give up, so neither can we.

That could very well be the case.

Call this my test thread to judge if these polls are true or not. I have not seen a whole lot of actual 'support' so far, but maybe they didnt like the way I asked the question, as some have suggested. *shrug*

So. To any gun owner that wants the federal government to pass a new law restricting the private sale of an individual's private property to another private citizen who lives within the same state...please...with sugar on top...explain to me your reasoning behind it, and why you think a new law is necessary.