I don't believe it-gun owners giving in

[RockyTop]

#1) Who are these "polls" being done by? I personally give no credit to any poll especially any done by our media which will be extremely scewed to fit their agenda. You also need to know where they polled, NY, DC, their own like minded fiends (or "friends") or somewhere like TX or the Midwest.

I'd like to know who is doing the polls, where the poll is being conducted and most importantly, the exact question(s) being asked.

Are they specifically asking if you want a Universal Background Check? or is it just a generic "Are you in favor of having background checks?" Right now there are background checks when buying from a FFL and many do/will support that.

I don't buy the mainstream media and their polls knowing how they have an agenda and skew things.

 

[itsa pain]

the main reason so many gun owners will give up is their worship of LEOs. the 2nd amendment is for fighting govt tyranny. feinstein will not get in her limo to check your mag capacity etc but LEOs will. so I find worship of LEOs and 2nd amendment conflict greatly. I do not say attack them just do not worship them

 

[GAMALOT]

Here is a link to a letter to the editor of the NewTown Bee.

Absolutely worth the read and says it all in one paragraph.

http://newtownbee.com/Opinions/Lett...Elected+Officials+Are+Fundamentally+Dishonest

 

[itsa pain]

yes gamalot that was great but remember the politicians will stay in their mansions while homeland security backed by local cops do their dirty work

 

[huntsman]

A lot of those who sometimes make private sales or buys continue to think that an arrangement can (or will) be made where individuals themselves can make background checks through NICS - or whoever. This sort of thing appeals to them, and they support Universal Background Checks under such a system.

But this isn't going to happen. It isn't what the anti's want, and it's not under consideration.

The only proposal that's on the table is to require all transfers of a firearm be conducted through an FFL.

For gun control advocates this is a simple and easy solution that only require a few minor changes in the current statute.

For us it could become a nightmare. :banghead:

+1

for those fellow gun owners who still want to do private sales only with a UBC as protection, what will you do when the law requires you to sell only to an FFL and at their prices? Slippery Slopes aren't where I want to be.

 

[razorback2003]

Compromise means Hughes machine gun ban is repealed, silencers taken off NFA in exchange for a system people can check for gun buyers when selling privately.

If we don't get something, they shouldn't get something.

 

[gossamer]

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.

This^^^

 

[gossamer]

the main reason so many gun owners will give up is their worship of LEOs. the 2nd amendment is for fighting govt tyranny. feinstein will not get in her limo to check your mag capacity etc but LEOs will. so I find worship of LEOs and 2nd amendment conflict greatly. I do not say attack them just do not worship them

Is there any room for "respect" in your Hobson's Choice?

 

[JustinJ]

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.

Given i did not quantify "effective" it is nothing at all like saying "if it could just save one life". In fact, i went on to say "significantly reduce" which is quite different than saving one life. Obviously what number one could consider significant is subjective. If the data were available one could look at the number of prohibited persons for a years time who used a gun in a crime that was purchased through a private sell and then expect that a number of those could have been prevented by universal background checks. Some of said people probably could have gotten a gun through the black market but certainly not all.

Second, by "if" i mean that if a background check system could be devised that would be effective. Not that we should just implement one on the off chance that it will be. Also, the burden against law abiding gun owners must be considered as well.

Regardless, it does make absolutely no sense what so ever to have a background check requirement for FFL dealers but not private sells. The often repeated mantra "we need to just enforce the laws" we have is absurd. If one believes there should be no background checks then they should just say so.

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*

Absolutely not a realistic check. This gun board represents a limited demographic of gun owners. People who frequent gun boards are generally far more enthusiastic about firearms than the average gun owner and as such will likely have different views.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm torn on the potential for a UBC law. I don't like it, but I also don't really see it as a Second Amendment issue. It could become one if the checks are used as de facto registration. And that takes me back to the question I still haven't answered for myself--should the House move now to craft a UBC without the potential for registration, or should it reject all proposals?

If I had a crystal ball and could know for sure that the GOP would retain the House in the next midterms I'd be happy telling the Senate to pound sand. But we just don't know how it's going to hash out, and the grand old party is a sick old man just getting back on the treadmill with these immigration proposals.

I am not willing to compromise the right to keep and bear arms, but I also agree that there are people who have legitimately lost that right. In theory NICS can filter some of them out. Not all, but some. To me the question of extending it is more of a public policy choice than a question of fundamental freedom.

As it stands now I do non-consignment local sales only to those I know or to those who seem legit. But my gut instinct is not a replacement for a background check. I don't want to sell to some wife beater or felon. And I don't want you to sell to one either. Neither of us has a right to sell arms to prohibited persons.

Or will universal background check mean the end of gift, trade or inheritance between family, friends and acquitances?

Well again this is another reason for perhaps grabbing the bull by the horns now and making sure it won't gore anyone. A GOP approved UBC would almost certainly have exceptions for intra-family transfers. Wait two years and who knows.

 

[gossamer]

I'm not interested in discussion.

If you aren't with us, you're against us. And against us includes trying to compromise away our rights. If you are one of those striving "to try to reach common ground" YOU HAVE NO HONOR.

Gun Fight -- a very well-researched, unbiased look at both sides of the gun debate in America throughout our history demonstrates through facts and data that since this vilifying, "any one who doesn't see it my way has no honor" attitude towards RKBA became more pervasive there have been MORE threats to gun rights and, in many cases, outright reduction in gun rights in our Country. Moreover, American sympathy towards gun restrictions tends to increase with this approach to RKBA.

While we can't say definitively that the correlation infers a causation, it is safe to say that it doesn't help secure gun rights.

The more you vilify everyone who does not think exactly like you the more support you lose. Calling a fellow RKBA supporters honor into question for such dubious reasons as trying to reach common ground? That is loathsome. Not very "High Road" either.

 

[traderpats]

The left counts on everyone else taking "The High Road" and slowly letting them subjugate their rights in the name of "compromise" and "civil discussion". They've been doing this for a long time and way too many fall for it.

The left-wingers are the most hateful, lying bunch of scum ever. They incessantly push their subversive agenda all the while they call anyone who wants to protect their rights "radicals". It's an old game, don't fall for it.....

NO damn compromise, not on our God-given rights....

 

[gossamer]

The left-wingers are the most hateful, lying bunch of scum ever. They incessantly push their subversive agenda all the while they call anyone who wants to protect their rights "radicals". It's an old game, don't fall for it.....

No, we aren't and no we don't. And I'll ask you to reconsider what you call fellow RKBA supporters and fellow posters here on THR.

 

[Cosmoline]

NO damn compromise, not on our God-given rights...

Do we have a God-given right to sell to felons and wife beaters? Can you offer a logical critique of NICS as a violation of the Second, WITHOUT bringing in fears of future registration?

We win on logic and reason. We win every time. But when we exceed the bounds of logic and start opposing measures out of partisan hate or emotion, then we lose.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

The only "compromise" I'm willing to make is that states SHALL BE REQUIRED to report those involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective to the NICS data base under the same requirements for felony and domestic abuse convictions.

Then, the government SHALL BE REQUIRED to prosecute instances of intentional falsification of information on #4473 as well as instances where a "prohibited person" has attempted to purchase a firearm and all cases of a "prohibited person in possession". Strawman purchase too, though I know they can be difficult to "prove".

THAT is what I mean by "common sense gun legislation".

 

[itsa pain]

goosamer respect only when it is earned I do not respect anyone unless they deserve it not because of a position they hold

 

[gossamer]

goosamer respect only when it is earned I do not respect anyone unless they deserve it not because of a position they hold

How about respecting everyone, REGARDLESS of the job/position they hold simply because they are a human being?

How about respecting the fact that those human beings do that job so they can cash a paycheck every two weeks and feed their family and pay their bills and pay your boss for the things that pay you?

How about STARTING with respect - regardless of whether they wear a uniform and a badge or a name tag and a kitchen apron - and seeing where it goes from there?

 

[Zeke/PA]

What the heck is wrong with Federal Form 4473?
The ONLY question that can't be LEGALLY checked out , because of confedentially issues ARE THE MENTAL HEALTH ONES!
Ban Hi- Cap Mags? Give me a break!

 

[gc70]

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.

The OP expressed disbelief that a large percentage of gun owners would favor universal background checks. Based on what I have read in the last month and a half on numerous gun forums, I believe that a majority of gun owners probably do favor universal background checks - in some form.

Old Fuff got to the crux of the issue in post #49. The multitude of different approaches that gun owners might favor are arrayed against a single proposal that is actually on the table - for all transactions to go through FFLs.

There are really only three options at this point:
- support UBCs on the anti-gunners' terms;
- oppose UBCs, or;
- work to develop a consensus among gun owners for an alternative approach to UBCs.

Whatever our community does, we need to get moving NOW because our lack of direction only empowers our opponents.

 

[JayBird]

I'm torn on the potential for a UBC law. I don't like it, but I also don't really see it as a Second Amendment issue. It could become one if the checks are used as de facto registration. And that takes me back to the question I still haven't answered for myself--should the House move now to craft a UBC without the potential for registration, or should it reject all proposals?

If I had a crystal ball and could know for sure that the GOP would retain the House in the next midterms I'd be happy telling the Senate to pound sand. But we just don't know how it's going to hash out, and the grand old party is a sick old man just getting back on the treadmill with these immigration proposals.

I am not willing to compromise the right to keep and bear arms, but I also agree that there are people who have legitimately lost that right. In theory NICS can filter some of them out. Not all, but some. To me the question of extending it is more of a public policy choice than a question of fundamental freedom.

As it stands now I do non-consignment local sales only to those I know or to those who seem legit. But my gut instinct is not a replacement for a background check. I don't want to sell to some wife beater or felon. And I don't want you to sell to one either. Neither of us has a right to sell arms to prohibited persons.



Well again this is another reason for perhaps grabbing the bull by the horns now and making sure it won't gore anyone. A GOP approved UBC would almost certainly have exceptions for intra-family transfers. Wait two years and who knows.

I think the grand old party is much better aligned right now to maintain its position in the house and gain ground in the senate than before. But...obviously alot is still to be seen.

But, the republicans hold a very large number of state houses and governors offices compared to the Democrats. It is far more likely that a state votes Democrat in the Presidential election while the bulk of the state goes Republican, than the other way around. Now, Democrats will trypically say this is because of gerrymandering, but I disagree with that statement.

I hope this didnt stray too OT into politics in this discussion, I just wanted to say I think The Republicans are much better aligned for mid term elelections than the Democrats.

As far as who has a right to sell to a felon or not. You are right, I dont have that right. But criminals wont give two rats about it.

Look at the big 'mass shooting' stories we always hear about. In almost everyone I can think of, the person bought the gun...at an FFL, and went thru a background check.

If the goal is to reduce 'mass shootings'(yes, I know that is not really possible, buy bear with me for a moment), I dont see how requiring something of others, that mass shooters have already gone thru fixes that problem. Maybe your gut instinct is better than you think, and better than some computer printout. Just saying.

 

[itsa pain]

goosmer I do not disrespect anyone but I will not respect anyone until they earn it that is my style you are free to use your style. you are advancing standing on a hill top in a circle holding hands and singing we are the world lol . it is a dream that will never happen.

 

[gossamer]

goosmer I do not disrespect anyone but I will not respect anyone until they earn it that is my style you are free to use your style. you are advancing standing on a hill top in a circle holding hands and singing we are the world lol . it is a dream that will never happen.

Funny, I've got over 370 post and not a one features anyone standing in a circle singing anything. You've got 6 and most feature your prideful antipathy towards Law Enforcement Officers who have no truck with you. So much for "style."

 

[Cosmoline]

JayBird those are good considerations. I think this does come down to a political gamble. If all gun control is shut down it gives the dems a major talking point in the mid terms and 2016. If a mag ban is passed it's almost certain to cost the Dems the Senate and probably the White House. Most of them know it, too. That leaves the UBC, which does enjoy pretty widespread support. I fear if it is not passed now it will be in two or four years. And the version passed then will be much worse than the version we could pass now and stay in control of.

Of course then once passed, it's a potential vehicle for all sorts of abuse from de facto registration to simply defunding NICS and effectively ending all legal transfers. But I think these are always going to be concerns with or without UBC's, and the solution to them is continued political pressure.

On the other hand, by taking a hard line and blocking UBC's now we could preserve the status quo and demoralize the antis. If I knew there would be no more mass shootings for the press to go ape over this would certainly be my choice. But we know there will be. So overall I'm coming down on the side of a GOP-drafted limited UBC with carveouts for family and some other things. WITH the proviso that something substantive is received in return. Shutting down and replacing the BATFE would be a great move. It's non-functional as it stands, and a new agency with a pro-gun mandate would be a real breath of fresh air for all of us. The new agency would not be in charge of arresting anybody, but would rather be a pro-gun licensing agency in charge of what would amount to an expanded 03 FFL as well as import/export, 01 FFL's, tax stamps for full autos and so on. Any criminal matters would need to go to the FBI. I can also envision the new agency assisting in training and safety programs.

I'm still thinking on it, but overall I think this is what I'm going to suggest in letters. FWIW, which ain't much I know ;-)

 

[JayBird]

JayBird those are good considerations. I think this does come down to a political gamble. If all gun control is shut down it gives the dems a major talking point in the mid terms and 2016. If a mag ban is passed it's almost certain to cost the Dems the Senate and probably the White House. Most of them know it, too. That leaves the UBC, which does enjoy pretty widespread support. I fear if it is not passed now it will be in two or four years. And the version passed then will be much worse than the version we could pass now and stay in control of.

Of course then once passed, it's a potential vehicle for all sorts of abuse from de facto registration to simply defunding NICS and effectively ending all legal transfers. But I think these are always going to be concerns with or without UBC's, and the solution to them is continued political pressure.

On the other hand, by taking a hard line and blocking UBC's now we could preserve the status quo and demoralize the antis. If I knew there would be no more mass shootings for the press to go ape over this would certainly be my choice. But we know there will be. So overall I'm coming down on the side of a GOP-drafted limited UBC with carveouts for family and some other things. WITH the proviso that something substantive is received in return. Shutting down and replacing the BATFE would be a great move. It's non-functional as it stands, and a new agency with a pro-gun mandate would be a real breath of fresh air for all of us. The new agency would not be in charge of arresting anybody, but would rather be a pro-gun licensing agency in charge of what would amount to an expanded 03 FFL as well as import/export, 01 FFL's, tax stamps for full autos and so on. Any criminal matters would need to go to the FBI. I can also envision the new agency assisting in training and safety programs.

I'm still thinking on it, but overall I think this is what I'm going to suggest in letters. FWIW, which ain't much I know ;-)

At least in your vision, we are getting something in it for 'us' in a real compromise. ie, it is not just us being steam rolled over and going belly up and saying "Sure, we will give you this as long as you dont take anything else from us now, please and thank you."

I am not against 'compromise'. I am against the type of compromise that the left has pushed on us everytime they get a chance. ie, we take something from you with the promise that it will be all we take from you until we decide to take from you again. :/

If the repeal of Hughes, or a complete overhaul of BATFE, or a removal of any 'sporting clause' to restrict firearms, etc etc were on the table, I would be much more willing to come to the table and discuss ways that we could require private sales to go thru some background check that is free of charge and not thru an FFL.

Since I dont see any of those being on the table currently, and any 'UBC' is simply going to be 'all firearm purchases must go thru an FFL' then I am firmly against it. And have been writing my congressmen every couple of weeks with that sentiment, and am starting to shift my focus onto 'UBC', since that is the area that the gun grabbers seem to be solidifying their push.

Dont get me wrong, I still think 'Universal background checks' are a waste of resources, considering that private sales are really not a problem. And I also dont think 'gun violence' is a problem that needs to be 'solved' either. This country is at historic lows in its gun homicide and crime statistics, and they are still declining. We need to keep reminding everyone that we don't have a gun violence epidemic right now. We HAD one about 20 years ago, but that was a drug crime problem, not a gun problem. And the advances we have made in concealed carry has helped drop our crime rate down significantly since then. We are searching for a 'cure' to an epidemic that does not exist.

But if they still want to try to fix 'mass shootings'? Fix the 'crazy people' problem. Guns in the hand of a crazy person is just as bad as a car or a knife or a bottle of gasoline, or a tank of propane, or any number of things in the hands of a 'crazy' person.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Gun Fight -- a very well-researched, unbiased look at both sides of the gun debate in America throughout our history demonstrates through facts and data that since this vilifying, "any one who doesn't see it my way has no honor" attitude towards RKBA became more pervasive there have been MORE threats to gun rights and, in many cases, outright reduction in gun rights in our Country. Moreover, American sympathy towards gun restrictions tends to increase with this approach to RKBA.

Adam Winkler, the author of Gunfight, is not unbiased; but a strong proponent of more gun control. Gunfight is propaganda - well written propaganda with a great deal of factual analysis; but it is meant to try and sell gunowners that gun control is good as well as help analyze how and why gun control had not been more successful.

http://www.volokh.com/2011/02/24/debates-on-gun-control-with-adam-winkler-and-john-donohue/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...am-winkler-to-ttag-on-gun-rights-buy-my-book/
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/controlling-guns-controlling-people