jerkface11
Member
You're trying to get our side to support gun control. Maybe you should stop.
Those fifth column efforts have been going on for decades... with spectacularly little to show for them. The funny thing is that some of them actually believe their own propaganda and really think that gun owners want to STOP being gun owners on the installment plan.You're trying to get our side to support gun control. Maybe you should stop.
The only thing it "damages" is the fifth column attempts to dupe gun owners into supporting the effort to ensure that they're not longer gun owners. I've been exposing the TRUE motivations of gun control advocates... and their Quislings in AHSA and the NFA before it for the better part of twenty years. And I've been highly effective at it.That kind of rhetoric is not productive and often damaging in convincing the undecided to support our cause. Please stop.
You're attempting to convince us to go along with "universal" background checks. That hardly helps our cause.
That is very much an inaccurate, distorted, over-simplification of what I have posted in this thread and the other thread.
You keep trying to convince us that caving on this is somehow good for us. I know you sugar coat it but that's still what you're doing. So don't act like I'm distorting anything.
Twin Reverb said:10 point critique snipped for brevity
But I think Bart is right on the record keeping. Keeping guns away from prohibited people doesn't require writing down serial numbers.
Like it or not, the feds set the criteria for who is a prohibited person and during one of the so-called background checks, they might deny a buyer, but when law enforcement finds a prohibited person with a firearm, too often they get off lightly. BTW, why do they need the firearm SN# during the so-called background check?
I expect you lost it there too.Already had that argument in the other thread.
while I am trying to be informative, this wasn't meant to be a dissertation; but an Internet post in a gun forum
These monotonously repetitious attempts to deceive the gullible are an indication of both the level of contempt which anti-gunners and their fellow travelers have for gun owners, and just how out of touch they are.
Nobody's buying the snake oil anymore.
DeepSouth said:Also, could you elaborate on Mr. Gottlieb's position. I well remember him being against the Toomey-Manchin bill, then being for it and making a pitiful speech at a press conference, and if memory serves he turned against it again in last few hours before the vote.
And those are EXACTLY the people driving the anti side of the debate.In reality, the percentage of hard core anti's that want to take away all our guns is probably about the same as those folks that take the 2nd Amendment literally and believe every citizen should have access to hand grenades and bazookas.
A defendant charged with failing to comply with a UBC law is perfectly within his rights to tell a prosecutor, "Prove it." There is no UBC law in Arkansas, and virtually every gun owner I've ever met has bought and sold guns with no background check. In the absence of registration, how exactly will a prosecutor show that any firearm I purchase in a private transaction was purchased after the effective date of a UBC law? Is it impossible? No. It's very unlikely, though.Bartholomew Roberts said:There are about 300 million firearms in the United States that have not been tracked past the point of first sale. Prosecuting someone for selling one of those without a UBC would be extremely difficult unless prosecutors can prove the transaction happened AFTER UBCs became law.
I'm not liking the sounds of this. To my (perhaps uneducated) ear, this sounds like the "non-business FFL-01" essentially becomes a Federal Firearm Owner's Identification. Everyone who gets this NB-FFL01 can buy, sell, trade amongst themselves without a UBC. Everyone else has to have a UBC. Do I have that right? No, thank you. Unless I buy from an FFL, I can already buy, sell, and trade all I want without a UBC. Why would I give that up, pay for the privilege of doing so, and then have some recordkeeping requirements piled on top of that? No matter how easy the recordkeeping requirements may seem, it's more than I have to do now.wally said:The only "compromise" I'd even think about would be to turn the FFL-03 C&R (with the same requirements) into a "non-business" FFL-01 and re-open the NFA registry with LEO must sign provision (or remove LEO signature requirement altogether) with suppressors removed form the NFA.
Other needed detail's would be no check requirements between dealer to dealer transfers and allowing the non-business FFL-01 to conduct background checks to increase completion and keep costs down. I think the currently typical $20-25 transfer fees are way too high as it is.
Getting this would get us something tangible in return as long as we don't cave to allowing a centralized database to being developed. Basically for about the current cost of one transfer fee every three years any gun owner could be a non-business FFL-01 and buy, sell, and trade among themselves unimpeded. The C&R record keeping requirements are not burdensome and don't facilitate developing a centralized database.
And those are EXACTLY the people driving the anti side of the debate.
As I said, they operate through duplicity, deception and disinformation. Their targets are the uninformed and the gullible.
The "moderates" may want a "compromise" but they're NEVER going to get it. What they're going to get, IF we capitulate, is an incremental destruction of the right to keep and bear arms, with each excision of a right characterized as "common sense".
No they aren't. The extremists on the anti-gun side are driving the debate, and are doing it with lies and disinformation. There's NO equivalence with the pro-gun side. It's like trying to equate the Institute for Historical Review with the Wiesenthal Center. Not only won't that dog hunt, it's a DEAD dog.The extremes are driving the discussion on both sides of the issue and the tactics are the same.
No, nothing has happened at the Federal level because the pro-gun side has stopped buying the LIE of "compromise". NOTHING has been proposed which wasn't either an outright attack on the 2nd Amendment or a stalking horse for an outright attack on the 2nd Amendment.That is why nothing has happened at the Federal level in years