I felt like you in the past, and even posted such here. You admit that the law would not have reduced crime. You have a constitutional right to own guns ( that right predates the constitution). Just because the government says they wont form a national registry doesn't mean that they won't in the future. Look at what has happened in NY and Connecticut. Anytime the government proposes something with "common sense" terminology a light bulb should go off and you should disbelieve everything. I recently bought a Marlin 30-30 from a young man, met me halfway between two cities, I checked out the rifle and bought it on the spot. How would I have done that under the propsed law? All of these sound good laws are meant to do only one thing, prohibit or make it difficult for honest people to obtain a firearm. They do not prevent the bad guy from getting guns.terryg wrote:I know this won't be a popular post here, but I wanted to share anyway:
I find myself conflicted over the background check amendment failure in the Senate last week.
On the one hand I am pleased because:
1. Like the majority of the proposals submitted and supported by gun-control proposals, this would have had a minimal (perhaps not even measurable) impact on violent crime.
2. Everyone knows it would have been dead the moment it hit the House floor. So it was really just for show and grandstanding anyway.
3. The failure of this amendment to pass will likely kill (at least for a while) other more serious and dangerous proposals.
4. I would be lying if I didn’t admit that it is also nice to see some of the more arrogant gun-control supporters, such as Mayor (Nanny) Bloomberg, get rebuffed.
But, on the other hand I am disheartened because:
From everything I have read, it seemed to be a decent proposal to me. It required background checks (just like federally licensed sellers) for all who sell firearms at gun shows or over the internet. I don’t really have a problem with that. It seems to me that if you have enough sales to be able to afford to rent a table at a gun show, even if it is a private collection, you probably should do background checks. It exempted private transactions to family and friends and had specific language barring the creation of a national registry – both of which would have been deal breakers for me.
It seems to me that we should either support background checks or not. I don’t like the idea of having to ask the government for permission to sell or give a firearm to a friend or family member (this particular amendment would not have required that). But I also don’t like the fact that some people are able to skirt the background check requirements by purchasing guns from a stranger at some tables at gun shows and over the internet. Either support NICS background checks or don’t. Will criminals still find ways to get guns? Of course. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to keep them from getting them through otherwise legitimate channels.
I am frustrated by the mis-information released by gun rights supporters – including the NRA. Not that their lies are any more egregious than those of Bloomberg, Obama, Feinstien, Schumer – because they most certainly are not. And I do not doubt for a moment that the NRA has been, and continues to be, a positive force for protection of this critical freedom in our country. But I do not think that compromising one’s integrity is the best way to win any disagreement – much less a policy debate.
I am also frustrated that both sides take a “can’t give an inch or they will want a mile” attitude. While it is most certainly true, it is equally true for both sides. It is extremely divisive and counter-productive.
I am an NRA member. Can you quote me one of those NRA "lies"? I don't recall any that I think are lies.