Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks

[CDH]

No more compromises. Why? I'm not nearly as good of a writer, so read this:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013 ... epost.html

'nuff said. The current gun control laws need to be rolled back, not added to...

[jimlongley]

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.

[Jeff Barriault]

Y'all would think it unacceptable if, prior to posting a comment on this board, you had to seek approval from the government first. Can you imagine the outrage of having your words checked before you could exercise your God given right to free speech? Why is it so difficult to see background checks in the same light?

The law abiding majority of us must seek government approval before purchasing the means to exercise our God given right to self defense all because of the possibility of what someone else may do. Not because of what we might do, but the possibility of what someone else might do. It's absurd. I mean think about it. Do you like having to go to your "daddy" government and asking, "Oh please, please, please, can I buy a gun? I've been a good boy."

The purchase and sale of guns are not the problem. Evil men (or women) are the problem. To paraphrase Jeff Cooper, the problem of evil men can ge corrected by good men with guns. We need to deal with the evil in society and stop intruding into the lives of the law abiding. We don't need more background checks. We need less.

[lrpettit]

Y'all would think it unacceptable if, prior to posting a comment on this board, you had to seek approval from the government first. Can you imagine the outrage of having your words checked before you could exercise your God given right to free speech? Why is it so difficult to see background checks in the same light?

[terryg]

For what its worth, Baldeagle, I agree with you. If you have enough guns for sale to be able to afford to rent a table at a show, you ought to do background checks just like every other table.

I also don't like the activities enabled by armslist. I have sold firearms on gunbroker and sent them to an FFL to transact with the buyer. The armslist website, however, only serves to link two strangers for the purpose of a private sale transaction. I think conducting 'private party' gun transactions with complete strangers is pretty irresponsible. I have also conducted FTF transactions with members of this board - but the difference is that even though the individual was in some ways a stranger - this is still a community and you have some idea of who you are dealing with.

I know this isn't a popular viewpoint here. But background checks are an accepted pre-check to purchasing a firearm. They either need to be rolled back completely or made to apply in as many genuinely non-personal transactions as possible.

Yes, you're being inconvenienced in the exercise of your rights, but you haven't lost them. But if you adopt a rigid stand on ALL gun related registration, you will almost certainly lose your rights or be forced to fight and possibly die for them.

This is exactly the case.

But, I think the 'compromise' that every one is looking for with a law such as this should be a very strongly worded re-affirmation that govt registration of firearms or gun-owners will never be included by law or order.

[baldeagle]

Y'all would think it unacceptable if, prior to posting a comment on this board, you had to seek approval from the government first. Can you imagine the outrage of having your words checked before you could exercise your God given right to free speech? Why is it so difficult to see background checks in the same light?

Where do you get the idea that anyone on this board is having difficulty seeing that?

As for me, I have made it abundantly clear that I am for Constitutional carry, that I want to return to the days of my youth when I could walk into a Western Auto and buy any gun I wanted.

The law abiding majority of us must seek government approval before purchasing the means to exercise our God given right to self defense all because of the possibility of what someone else may do. Not because of what we might do, but the possibility of what someone else might do. It's absurd. I mean think about it. Do you like having to go to your "daddy" government and asking, "Oh please, please, please, can I buy a gun? I've been a good boy."

Whose fault is that? Ours. We forgot that it was our duty to educate our children and the people around us and fight for our rights. We got complacent.

Even now, while we hang on the precipice and klaxon alarm bells are going off screaming FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!, Charles is struggling to get people on this board to join the Texas Firearms Coalition, even though it's free to join. He needs hundreds of thousands and can't get 200 GUN OWNERS AND SUPPOSED FREEDOM LOVERS to join! It's pitiful and ridiculous. If you're reading this and you haven't joined, spare me the whining about our rights. You don't really care. Your actions prove it. (This is the "royal" you. I'm not pointing at Jeff, to whom I'm responding.) WE NEED TO WAKE UP! (And yes, I'm shouting.)

We lost campus carry last legislative session because the anti-gunners were more numerous, more active and more boisterous. We will continue to lose until those who say they stand for our rights are willing to stand up and be counted and NEVER back down.

In the meantime, we have to deal with reality.

The purchase and sale of guns are not the problem. Evil men (or women) are the problem. To paraphrase Jeff Cooper, the problem of evil men can get corrected by good men with guns. We need to deal with the evil in society and stop intruding into the lives of the law abiding. We don't need more background checks. We need less.

Preachin' to the choir, brother. Preachin' to the choir. Now go tell that to some of your friends, neighbors and co-workers and see what reception you get.

We can continue to whine and complain about losing our rights and stomp our feet and insist we're not going to take it any more, or we can get off our duffs, get active, get motivated, refuse to take no for an answer and turn this country around. I talk guns at work all the time. We now have three people with CHLs, my boss wants to get one and went shooting with me, another co-worker just bought a shotgun and asked me for advice about where to shoot (and obviously I offered to go with him), two more are planning on getting their CHLs, and the flaming liberal in our group gets refuted by me every time he tries to spew liberal garbage.

Gun owners have to get out of their comfort zones. Stop hanging out with like-minded people and get involved in the community. When people ask you about guns make it clear that it's as normal as getting up in the morning and going to work. That you think it's foolhardy to ever be in public without a gun because you never know when the BG might show up. Ask them why they think the 2nd should be any different from the 1st. And never back down from the liberals. Take them on every time they spew their garbage. Write your State Senator and Representative. Call them and talk to them. Get off your duff and go to their local meetings. Speak up. Write national Senators and Congressmen. Let them know where you stand and hold them accountable. Join the NRA. Contribute to NRA-ILA. Vote in every election, but more than that, get others to vote. Don't accept their excuses about how it their vote doesn't count.

Either we get active, and I mean frenetically active, or this country dies and your rights are gone. That's how stark the choice is, folks. The time for talking is over.

[baldeagle]

But, I think the 'compromise' that every one is looking for with a law such as this should be a very strongly worded re-affirmation that govt registration of firearms or gun-owners will never be included by law or order.

That would be nice, but I don't know how you would codify it into law. One Congress cannot bind another, so resolutions are meaningless even though they vomit out tons of them in every session.

[terryg]

But, I think the 'compromise' that every one is looking for with a law such as this should be a very strongly worded re-affirmation that govt registration of firearms or gun-owners will never be included by law or order.

That would be nice, but I don't know how you would codify it into law. One Congress cannot bind another, so resolutions are meaningless even though they vomit out tons of them in every session.

Very good point.

[MeMelYup]

How will this specifically reduce crime and shootings?

[baldeagle]

How will this specifically reduce crime and shootings?

It won't. But that's not the goal of this type of legislation.

[MeMelYup]

How will this specifically reduce crime and shootings?

It won't. But that's not the goal of this type of legislation.

Then we don't need it so everyone should be against it on the grounds we don't need more superfluous laws and it will not deter crime.

[jimlongley]

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.

[DEB]

For what its worth, Baldeagle, I agree with you. If you have enough guns for sale to be able to afford to rent a table at a show, you ought to do background checks just like every other table.

I also don't like the activities enabled by armslist. I have sold firearms on gunbroker and sent them to an FFL to transact with the buyer. The armslist website, however, only serves to link two strangers for the purpose of a private sale transaction. I think conducting 'private party' gun transactions with complete strangers is pretty irresponsible. I have also conducted FTF transactions with members of this board - but the difference is that even though the individual was in some ways a stranger - this is still a community and you have some idea of who you are dealing with.

I know this isn't a popular viewpoint here. But background checks are an accepted pre-check to purchasing a firearm. They either need to be rolled back completely or made to apply in as many genuinely non-personal transactions as possible.

Yes, you're being inconvenienced in the exercise of your rights, but you haven't lost them. But if you adopt a rigid stand on ALL gun related registration, you will almost certainly lose your rights or be forced to fight and possibly die for them.

This is exactly the case.

But, I think the 'compromise' that every one is looking for with a law such as this should be a very strongly worded re-affirmation that govt registration of firearms or gun-owners will never be included by law or order.

First to Bald Eagle, thank you for engaging this in conversation. I personally cannot support any more compromise. Will I have to? Perhaps and perhaps not, depending on where my line in the sand stands. As far as being forced to fight and perhaps die for what I believe to be my rights; I trained and practiced half of that for 21 years as did you Bald Eagle and others. Again where is that line in the sand. In order for mandatory Background Checks to be effectively policed, all firearms will have to be registered and have some sort of police check ala Britain, otherwise how will anyone know? I guess having L.E. doing some sort of undercover work and catching those of us who are not complying, thus placing us in the same category as Drug Pushers and etc. 20 years to life anyone? For something that was legal since America was in being. I feel it will not be, a just at Gun Show fix, it will in fact permeate into everything, I as a gun owner participates in. If one does not wish to sell without a background check there are many FFLs more than willing to charge one to help sell one's property. Again this is one reason I love lurking on this board, and that is when folks bring up the unpopular, so thanks again Bald Eagle. But I still feel no more compromise, might fully be defeated, but at least I fought and can look my grandchildren in the eye when I talk about the good old days.

[baldeagle]

First to Bald Eagle, thank you for engaging this in conversation. I personally cannot support any more compromise. Will I have to? Perhaps and perhaps not, depending on where my line in the sand stands. As far as being forced to fight and perhaps die for what I believe to be my rights; I trained and practiced half of that for 21 years as did you Bald Eagle and others. Again where is that line in the sand. In order for mandatory Background Checks to be effectively policed, all firearms will have to be registered and have some sort of police check ala Britain, otherwise how will anyone know? I guess having L.E. doing some sort of undercover work and catching those of us who are not complying, thus placing us in the same category as Drug Pushers and etc. 20 years to life anyone? For something that was legal since America was in being. I feel it will not be, a just at Gun Show fix, it will in fact permeate into everything, I as a gun owner participates in. If one does not wish to sell without a background check there are many FFLs more than willing to charge one to help sell one's property. Again this is one reason I love lurking on this board, and that is when folks bring up the unpopular, so thanks again Bald Eagle. But I still feel no more compromise, might fully be defeated, but at least I fought and can look my grandchildren in the eye when I talk about the good old days.

It's discussions like this that allow us to learn and to work out where our own line in the sand is. The question is, what do we do when that line is crossed?

[DEB]

I just watched a Movie, April Morning, about the American Revolution. It appears that the wheel of life continues to turn. I believe, through my reading, that the American Revolution started due to taxes, attempts to control firearms and Legislatures/Leaders who no longer represent the led, but instead believe themselves to be the better and the led to be nothing but simple subjects. I also know that D.C. represents the will of the large cities, but they IMO no longer represent the majority of the American landmass. Anyway, I found in a movie made in the early 1980s, to have the same arguments that liberals of today have. The British Army, the best in the world, no one has a chance to stand against tyranny and etc. I know that my comment does not fully meet the intent of this subject, but it kind of does as well.