TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: Actually, there's no cognitive dissonance here (I think that's the term you might have meant rather than intellectual dishonesty).

I didn't use intellectual dishonesty to refer to this. I used it in reference to us claiming the anti's always ask for an inch when they will want a mile later. It is intellectually dishonest if we don't admit that we desire the same thing and use the same tactic.

But you are right. Cognitive dissonance is the perfect term to describe support of NICS checks in some instances of stranger sales and not other instances.

The Annoyed Man wrote: I would like to get rid of NICS entirely. Make ALL sellers responsible for knowingly selling a firearm to a felon. Make all felons responsible for having tried to buy a gun.......from anybody. Get the government entirely out of the process except that of prosecuting criminals. I'm always about personal responsibility and getting government out of the process. And by the way, I'm not entirely convinced that nonviolent felons shouldn't have all their rights restored once they've served their sentences. Even so, the fact is that we have NICS, and its existence has to be acknowledged. But I am only in favor of changes which dismantle NICS and get government out of the process, even if only incrementally. So if a proposed law will expand the scope of NICS, then I'm agin' it.

So like I said, I can respect that position. My desire, then, would be for the people and groups that represent us to honestly articulate that position and not resort to disinformation campaigns like our opponents do.

Maybe they have to do it ... I don't know. Maybe I should close my eyes to how the sausage is made. I just don't like feeling like I need to take a shower afterwards.

Let me add ... when I say conflicted - I mean truly conflicted.

The part of me that is happy about the bill failure is ecstatic that it blew up on Obama's face. I couldn't be happier that Obama, Bloomberg and his cronies went home crying in their milk.

I just don't know that it was a bad bill - it actually made a few positive changes for gun owners. I don't know that we were on the right side of this one, I don't know that it won't come back to bite us, and I don't like disinformation campaigns.

K.Mooneyham wrote: The bill may indeed have been written as you say. But if you read about what happened to the FOPA of 1986, it was amended at the very last second by Hughes, Democrat, New Jersey, in an attempt to kill the bill with a "poison pill". It was an overall good bill, so Ronald Reagan made the tough choice and signed it anyway. However, this time it could have very well gone the other way, making a not-so-great bill MUCH worse with some last minute amendment that the current POTUS would happily have signed.

I can see that as a legitimate concern. Now if we had enough votes to kill it now, we should have enough to kill it later if the anit-registry language was gutted. And if not the Senate, surely in the House. But I can see concerns over the bill getting corrupted in the process.

Dave2 wrote:

terryg wrote:But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family.

As written, it wouldn't. But when was the last time a law was passed that nobody ever tried to twist? Stop trusting the government so much.

I don't trust them. Current laws could also be twisted to allow create a registry. This amendment would actually make that harder.

RAM4171 wrote:

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

This

That's fine. I can respect that position. Just come out and say NICS checks, all of them, are an infringement and they don't work. The system costs too much money and we need to abolish it.

But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family. Just be honest about it and about what you don't like about it.

Dishonesty and manipulation are tactics that the other side uses. I think we are, or at least should be, above that.

anygunanywhere wrote: I seriously doubt many actual criminals try to purchase firearms legitimately.

Agreed - not many. But I have no doubt that some do. (FWIW, I don't believe the 40% no background check bull that Obama pushes either).

anygunanywhere wrote: There are many individuals who are on the no buy list that are not actual violent felons intent on actually killing someone in a crime.

There are many individuals on the no fly lists who have absolutely no ties to any terrorist organization whatsoever.

Anyone in their right mind will not grant the government authority to maintain a list of people who can be allowed to purchase something.

A swipe opf a pen makes us all criminals.

Aswipe of a pen puts us all on the no buy list.

A swipe of a pen makes all firearms illegal to own.

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

As I replied to MeMelYup ... I can understand that argument. But for it to be valid, one would have to advocate to abolish NISC altogether. Then there is at least consistency. As I stated in my initial rant ... either we support NICS background checks or we don't. I see no reason to insist they be conducted for FFL transactions but not other stranger-to-stranger transactions.

MeMelYup wrote:I understand where you are coming from. Consider these questions though.
As it was written how would the new background law have stopped the Boston marathon bombing, New Town massacre, or the theater shooting in Colorado, or the shooting in Arizona?

It would not have.

MeMelYup wrote:Does this restrict the criminal or the noncriminal?

Most of the background check proposals I have seen would restrict the non-criminal significantly and the criminal only moderately. This one, however in my eyes, restricts (really inconveniences) the non-criminal minimally and the criminal moderately.

MeMelYup wrote:How would it penalize the criminal?

It would penalize the criminal by making it harder for them to get a gun via otherwise legitimate channels.

MeMelYup wrote: Why should you or I be censured for a criminal act we did not commit.
Why should you be denied an inalienable right because I or someone else might do something wrong.

Ok, that is fine. I can accept that as an argument - but it should be applied universally. Non-criminals are currently inconvenienced every time they purchase a firearm from an FFL. If we are against this inconvenience from a stranger, we should be against it from an FFL as well and we should come out and say so. We should say we think all background checks for gun purchases are an infringement and should be lifted. But to support the NICS in some stranger-to-stranger purchases but not others seem disingenuous to me.

anygunanywhere wrote:How can I be intellectually dishonest by insisting that I posess and maintain all of my God given rights including my life?

Anygunanywhere

You are not are not being intellectually dishonest by taking that stand. My statement about intellectually dishonesty came about as a result of the following chain:

anygunanywhere wrote:If you can illustrate where us pro-2A patriots have taken a mile when we have been given an inch your post might actually have validity.

terryg wrote:I said both sides will "want a mile" not that both sides have been able to take a mile. And it is true. ...
I don't disagree with you on many individual issues. But to not acknowledge that both sides push for incremental changes with the hopes of getting more incremental changes is intellectually dishonest.

I was specifically and only referring to the accusation that the anti's push for small changes with the hopes of obtaining more changes in the future. That is, in fact, the way to get things done in our political environment. (Heck, it is the way to get things done in the world.) Whether we do it or not is independent of the righteousness of our motives and I don't have a problem with us doing it. All I am trying to do is highlight the fact that we engage in this style of getting our agenda done just as much as the anti's do. That is all I was referring to when I mentioned intellectual honesty.

Dave2 wrote: I'm under the impression that the ATF effectively already has the authority to force all relevant transactions at guns shows to go through an FFL

I am not aware that this is the case.

Dave2 wrote:... and you already have to go through an FFL to sell a gun online.

But you don't have to go through an FFL to advertise online and make a FTF transaction with a stranger.

rotor wrote: 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.

That is true, but it is true right now. This amendment would serve to make it a little harder.

rotor wrote: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?

You wouldn't have ... unless you met at an FFL and paid a fee. I didn't say it was perfect, but I think it was pretty decent. There is no way to tighten up background checks perfectly.

rotor wrote:I am an NRA member. Can you quote me one of those NRA "lies"? I don't recall any that I think are lies.

I am a proud NRA member also. And I am very glad to have them on my side. But, two main pronouncements about the bill seem disingenuous:

1. It would lead to registration - I know this could still happen at a later date, but it can still happen with the current laws. The bill changes nothing.
2. It would require federal approval for some firearms transfers to family or friends - As best I can tell, this would only occur if one had advertised a gun for sale first and then decided to sell it to a friend or family member.

anygunanywhere wrote:

terryg wrote: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.

If you can illustrate where us pro-2A patriots have taken a mile when we have been given an inch your post might actually have validity.

I said both sides will "want a mile" not that both sides have been able to take a mile. And it is true. Many want to see the NFA repealed allowing easier access to fully auto, silencers and such. Many (myself included) want to see nearly ALL off-limits locations eliminated. That seems like a no-brainer to us, but to the likes of the anti's - that would be the full mile. Many want CHL minimum age to drop from 21 to 18. Many want to see constitutional carry.

anygunanywhere wrote: We have been "gaining" at lots of state levels, but is it truly gaining or getting what we should already have?

To you, that is getting what we should have. But to the anti's, it is asking for a mile or more.

I don't disagree with you on many individual issues. But to not acknowledge that both sides push for incremental changes with the hopes of getting more incremental changes is intellectually dishonest.

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.