House Passes Gun-Control Bill Expanding Background Checks on Firearm Sales

[Renegade]

The government doesn't give me permission to own a gun. The government has, however, passed laws against some people buying guns. As long as we have those laws, I'm willing to say they should be obeyed.

LOL. Spin it anyway you want, but if government does not say "Proceed", you do not get your gun.

Do you consider that attitude unreasonable?

I must have missed the "reasonableness" clause in the 2A amendment.

If you're putting me in that group you're making a mistake.

I am not putting you in any group. I recognize some gun owners want to pass gun control, and I am no longer going to waste my time and money fighting the inevitable. Until gun owners unite, we have no chance.

I've consistently said that the government should pass some legislation, calling it a Universal Background Check, that would infringe LESS on the rights of gun owners than the current system. That would be a step in the right direction.

And I have consistently been against Background Checks since the day I first heard about them, and always will be. No background checks infringes LESS on the rights of gun owners than the current system.

 

[Renegade]

I suggest an alternative. We should play politics. We should give the progressives something they want

When have they ever given us something we want?

Appeasement has never worked. It is for the weak, give them half your lunch money voluntarily maybe they will not take the rest till next week. Hard pass. Giving in only makes you weaker, them stronger, bolder. We held strong during Obama and they got nothing. NOTHING. Then Trump gets in, and he starts offering AWB, Bump Stocks bans and who knows what else and NOTHING in return. Now we are back on our heels again.

Gun owners will NEVER learn.

 

[benenglish]

No background checks infringes LESS on the rights of gun owners than the current system.

True. No background checks, none at all, would be less infringing.

Of course, if you got your way, some dumbass dealer would be presented with a customer trying to buy an AR who is clearly a drooling psychopath. Said psychopath will be clearly caught on video telling the dealer that he wants it so that he can go shoot up a pre-school.

Being a dumbass, there will be a dealer who will sell that gun.

Then the psycho will go shoot up a school.

Then the political landscape will shift so completely that gun rights as we know them will simply cease to exist.

I'm not willing to go there. I think there are smarter ways to proceed.

When have they ever given us something we want?

I'm willing to give them something they want that's functionally meaningless if it gets us something meaningful.

Of course, I understand your attitude. We've done nothing but incrementally lose our rights since 1934. I am completely unwilling to give up anything else of substance. But I'm also completely unwilling to foreclose the possibility that there may be practical methods to work our way back to more freedom instead of less.

If we want to get our cake back we're going to have to either work the system or start shooting. When the problem comes to my door, I may have to decide to start shooting. Until then, I simply think we should work the system.

It's the total denial that it's possible to work the system that puts me off; lots of gun owners seem to be in that camp and I think they're just wrong. Thankfully, many aren't. That's why I give money to the FPC and the SAF. That's why we got the favorable bumpstock ruling yesterday - because we have some gun rights advocates who are still willing to work the system.

Pardon me for trying to find more ways to continue that fight.

 

[oldag]

When have they ever given us something we want?

Appeasement has never worked. It is for the weak, give them half your lunch money voluntarily maybe they will not take the rest till next week. Hard pass. Giving in only makes you weaker, them stronger, bolder. We held strong during Obama and they got nothing. NOTHING. Then Trump gets in, and he starts offering AWB, Bump Stocks bans and who knows what else and NOTHING in return. Now we are back on our heels again.

Gun owners will NEVER learn.

This. Liberals do not give, they only take.

Past time for lines to be drawn in the sand.

 

[Wiliamr]

Next will come a national license/permit to purchase a firearm.... if UBC is common sense and reasonable restriction/requirement/regulation, shouldn't we use an even more complete (intrusive) check (possibly including interviews with spouse/relatives and requiring 4 references and passing a psych exam; for only a $400-$800 fee/tax) to determine who can buy a firearm in the first place? I mean, gun owners should certainly appreciate a positive permit system saying you CAN rather than one (background checks) that only provides negative results (DENIALS) and really doesn't always work due to incomplete info availability!

Then will come a permit to buy ammo.

Ummmm Sheila Jackson Lee already has offered this in HR127 and HR 125

 

[bbbass]

Ummmm Sheila Jackson Lee already has offered this in HR127 and HR 125

You noticed that eh? Just wait until they have the right context/narrative to build up. The secret will be presenting PART of it. Not the whole thing. Tiny steps, remember?

 

[bbbass]

@benenglish I think the diff between our thoughts on it is that I don't believe that in the current circumstances the antis have to compromise or give up anything to get their agendas passed. They never do. Gun owners/groups are always the ones that compromise. Maybe if we retain the filibuster SOME of their crap can be put off, but I think there are enough Senators on board with the "reasonableness" of enhancing the background check requirements. I mean WHO is going to lobby against such innocuous sounding measures??

I'm on the side that is compromised out. I'm tired of giving away rights to get nothing in return. And I don't think they want to negotiate. Biden has not talked to McConnell since assuming POTUS. Pelosi never did talk to Trump. And the D's continue their pattern of shutting Rs out of mtgs/discussions. They don't need our side. At least not until 2023.

 

[bbbass]

Okay, I got this.....

I will trade national UBC for a national ban on abortions.

 

[Wiliamr]

I have a simple and effective universal background check. "What did you pay per round for 9mm?" $1.35 - You too stupid and crazy to own a gun, go away.
You are willing to pay $1500 for that case of ammo from ( a well known pricey place that sells online)? You definitely too crazy to own a gun. Go away!

 

[benenglish]

I think the diff between our thoughts...

That's one of the most depressing posts I've read in a long while. Unfortunately, I have to admit that the reason it's so depressing is that I can see there's truth to it. I don't think you're 100% correct but there's enough truth to your words to put me into a funk for the rest of the day.

 

[Darkpriest667]

You noticed that eh? Just wait until they have the right context/narrative to build up. The secret will be presenting PART of it. Not the whole thing. Tiny steps, remember?

It's called policy incrementalism and it's dangerous as **** because by the time you've lost everything you don't even realize it until it's way too late.

 

[Axxe55]

That's one of the most depressing posts I've read in a long while. Unfortunately, I have to admit that the reason it's so depressing is that I can see there's truth to it. I don't think you're 100% correct but there's enough truth to your words to put me into a funk for the rest of the day.

I have to agree with @bbbass on the issue of compromise. I spoke about this on another forum just a couple of years ago.

True compromise, is when both, or all parties reach an agreement that benefits all parties involved and all give up something for that compromise to work. At no point have gun owners ever benefited from any so-called "compromises" in order to appease those who legislate gun laws that further infringe upon law-abiding gun owners. Everything they want, or claim to want is in the interests of deterring criminals from getting, or having guns or for safety of society.

Gun owners are taken from, but have never that I can recall ever gotten anything of substance in return for what we end up losing.

The can, or may call it it compromise, but I call it oppression and infringement.

 

[cycleguy2300]

SMDH.

I'm away from home atm but I think I can help some of you understand why UBCs do not have to have any connection with firearms when I get back home to my desktop and don't have to type on my phone.

Or y'all could just read the links I provided.

My question is why there are free citizens who cannot own a firearm. If they cannot own a firearm, they shouldn't be in free society.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[HawkeyeSATX]

Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

 

[Kar98]

I have to agree with @bbbass on the issue of compromise. I spoke about this on another forum just a couple of years ago.

True compromise, is when both, or all parties reach an agreement that benefits all parties involved and all give up something for that compromise to work. At no point have gun owners ever benefited from any so-called "compromises" in order to appease those who legislate gun laws that further infringe upon law-abiding gun owners. Everything they want, or claim to want is in the interests of deterring criminals from getting, or having guns or for safety of society.

Gun owners are taken from, but have never that I can recall ever gotten anything of substance in return for what we end up losing.

The can, or may call it it compromise, but I call it oppression and infringement.

Exactly! Compromise! Both sides of an issue give and take. But one side just giving a little, and the other side continuing to whine until the first side gives more, etc etc, that's not compromise, that's salami tactics.
A compromise I could live with: They want universal background checks? Cool, make it a Federal license to carry, with the same conditions and stipulations as in Texas, carry concealed or openly in all states and territories. You get to skip the background check, and lets ditch Form 4473 while we're in there.

 

[gll]

Cool. Then we have a common frame of reference.

It never is.

So we agree. Again, cool.

Here we start to diverge. I agree about their desire. You've nailed that. However, I think progressives will negotiate anything that they think is in their own best (read: selfish) interests.

That will be true as long as we stick to our principles, refuse to negotiate, and just spend our time shouting "Shall not be infringed!"

I suggest an alternative. We should play politics. We should give the progressives something they want. They want to be able to tell their base that they helped pass UBC. I've proposed a form of UBC that actually infringes LESS on gun rights than the current system. (BTW, while I thought this up all on my own, I've since discovered that it was a concept discussed over at ARFCOM long before it germinated in my brain.)

I don't think the progressives would hesitate to sell out their base if they could claim a victory in getting some form of UBC passed. I think that if a real conservative with some courage came forth and proposed a UBC like I outlined in those links you read, the progressives might sign on for purely political reasons, so they'd have a talking point, some fresh meat to throw to their base.

Look, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the progressives are so intent on control that they wouldn't take the opportunity to score points for short term political gain, to help them get re-elected. But, deep down, I don't think any of them cares about anything more than getting re-elected. I think they'd be willing to sign on if it were presented right.

Unfortunately, that's all somewhere in the future or maybe just in a fantasy. The current problem is stopping the kind of UBC that sparked this thread, the kind that the progressives will continue to throw at us until we finally wise up and give them an alternative that enhances the cause of 2A rights while simultaneously allowing them to save face.

Yeah, that would be a bitter pill but I'd be willing to swallow it if it helped secure the 2A from more attacks.

Once they have YOUR UBC, they'll amend it to make it THEIRS.

Okay, I got this.....

I will trade national UBC for a national ban on abortions.

I won't... I no longer care if they abort their babies.

 

[Axxe55]

Exactly! Compromise! Both sides of an issue give and take. But one side just giving a little, and the other side continuing to whine until the first side gives more, etc etc, that's not compromise, that's salami tactics.
A compromise I could live with: They want universal background checks? Cool, make it a Federal license to carry, with the same conditions and stipulations as in Texas, carry concealed or openly in all states and territories. You get to skip the background check, and lets ditch Form 4473 while we're in there.

Problems with any sort of compromise at this point in the game is that at this point, law-abiding gun owners don't have much less to give up!

 

[Kar98]

Problems with any sort of compromise at this point in the game is that at this point, law-abiding gun owners don't have much less to give up!

Hence, not another fucking inch, until they give US something. In the spirit of compromise.

 

[Axxe55]

Once they have YOUR UBC, they'll amend it to make it THEIRS.

I won't... I no longer care if they abort their babies.

On personal note, I'm Pro-Life and for the most part don't believe in abortion. Murder is murder.

But in too many cases, they are using tax-payer dollars to fund abortion, and they want even more money. IMO, too many women are using abortion as a means to birth-control because they are making poor life choices. Abortion should only be used in the most of extreme situations, and it should never be funded with money that comes from the tax-payers.

 

[Axxe55]

Hence, not another fucking inch, until they give US something. In the spirit of compromise.

As far as I'm concerned, they owe gun owners going back to 1934!

So yes, not another inch will I give.