TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley

baldeagle wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:How will this specifically reduce crime and shootings?
It won't. But that's not the goal of this type of legislation.

But public opinion doesn't know that, so giving the anti-gun nuts "Gun Show Background Checks" will not accomplish anything.

First we have to get a grasp on that public opinion and that takes more than giving up just one more concession to the other side. The people I talk to every day are pretty much polarized, either they are for us or against us, and those that are for us are pretty spread out across the spectrum of knowledge about guns and gun laws. There are gun owners out there who have no idea that you can't (legally) mail order firearms right out of a catalog or off the internet directly to your home; There are gun owners I have talked to who still equate "assault weapons" with machineguns; and the numbers of people who do not and would not, etc, etc, own guns who think "assault weapons" are machineguns are legion and most refuse to consider the logical explanations we offer about form and function.

I have been lectured on facebook, and then unfriended by some of those people, one of whom even sent me a long private message about the machineguns used in Aurora and Sandy Hook.

I don't see any way that giving up one more little chunk will either sate the desire of the anti-gun nuts for ever more anti-gun regulations or alter public opinion in any significant manner.

jimlongley

baldeagle wrote:
jimlongley wrote:As has been pointed out many times, before GCA '68 was passed and since, those restrictions are already in place and therefore useless in that act, so they should be more than willing to bargain them away in the spirit of compromise. Giving them their "loophole close" without gaining something in return is not exposing their weaknesses, they will never acknowledge them, just as they don't acknowledge the total ineffectiveness of the "Assault Weapons Ban."
I really don't care if they acknowledge them. It's about winning public opinion, not convincing pig-headed idiots that they're wrong.

Then "compromise" will never work. Public opinion did not favor the pro gun side after GCA'68 was passed, all that got out there wasn't that we, the gun owners, had compromised and settled, but that the anti-gun nuts had prevailed in an "important first step" and with the favor of the media, that is the kind of word the unknowing would get again. It was the same with the "Brady Act" and the "Assault Weapons Ban" and in the latter, it was even stated, by the politicians and media, and therefore ingrained in public opinion, that that law would show the NRA and the other nay sayers. Of course when it was time for a failed law to sunset, the shapers of public opinion trumpeted to the world that we hadn't given a good law time enough to really work, and even today cite "studies" that show how effective it was, never acknowledging that it just flat didn't work.

I am sorry to so strongly disagree with you, but history has proven, over and over, that every compromise that we make is merely a step in the direction they want to go with nothing in return for us, and floating a proposal to appease them while expecting a magical return in public opinion is disingenuous at best. The time for compromise is long past, at least compromise as practiced by the anti-gun nuts, and it's time we got some of our own. The days when we let them have a law that we knew would not do any good hoping for public opinion to ride with us because we were good boys and girls and let the others have their way, have proven that such appeasements do not work. Appeasement is not compromise, it is just poor strategy and poorer tactics.

jimlongley

baldeagle wrote:
jimlongley wrote:So this is an example of a compromise YOU would be willing to make? Knowing that a compromise is a two sided transaction, what are we getting in return?
We defang an emotional argument and expose the anti-gunners true agenda. I believe there is value in that.[/quote}

But that's not compromise, it's just surrender.

baldeagle wrote:
jimlongley wrote:This rule is onerous to me, as a private person I have taken several of my collectible or unwanted guns and sold them at gun shows, without renting a booth, and a couple were actually sold to persons at booths. This blanket "All persons renting booths . . ." law would then mean that the person renting the booth that sells nothing but nuts and candy would have to run a background check on themselves if they bought my gun from me.

I think we should deal with the existing environment thusly: In the true spirit of coompromise, we will agree to requiring background checks to be run on all (gun) transactions at gun shows as long as there is a booth provided to do all of the background checks for face to face transactions and for face to booth sales, but in return GCA '68 will be repealed. That sounds like a good compromise.
The '68 GCA reads, in part:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Which of those parties do you think we should be allowed to sell guns to? How are you going to sell that to the average uninformed citizen? Because I can tell you EXACTLY how the anti-gunners will frame it. OMG, these extremists want to sell guns to criminals and spousal abusers. See, we told you they couldn't be trusted. We need to require background checks on EVERY gun owner to ensure none of them are doing this. We need registration and annual inspections to make sure they aren't trying to bypass this law. These people are nuts. No wonder crime is so high!

And the average uninformed American will agree with them. You don't defeat an enemy by playing into their hands. You defeat them by exposing their weaknesses.

As has been pointed out many times, before GCA '68 was passed and since, those restrictions are already in place and therefore useless in that act, so they should be more than willing to bargain them away in the spirit of compromise. Giving them their "loophole close" without gaining something in return is not exposing their weaknesses, they will never acknowledge them, just as they don't acknowledge the total ineffectiveness of the "Assault Weapons Ban."

jimlongley

baldeagle wrote:
RAM4171 wrote:THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Why do people not understand thesese words?
Well, first of all, it's BEAR arms, not BARE arms. Secondly, understanding it is one thing. Dealing with the existing environment is something else entirely. Why do people not understand THAT?

So this is an example of a compromise YOU would be willing to make? Knowing that a compromise is a two sided transaction, what are we getting in return?

This rule is onerous to me, as a private person I have taken several of my collectible or unwanted guns and sold them at gun shows, without renting a booth, and a couple were actually sold to persons at booths. This blanket "All persons renting booths . . ." law would then mean that the person renting the booth that sells nothing but nuts and candy would have to run a background check on themselves if they bought my gun from me.

I think we should deal with the existing environment thusly: In the true spirit of coompromise, we will agree to requiring background checks to be run on all (gun) transactions at gun shows ass long as there is a booth provided to do all of the background checks for face to face transactions and for face to booth sales, but in return GCA '68 will be repealed. That sounds like a good compromise.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background check

Re: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background check

Re: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background check

Re: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background check