Thoughts on Manchin-Toomey Amendment

[terryg]

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.

[anygunanywhere]

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.

All we have done is given up our rights incrementally. Even with the AWB sunset we did not gain anything other than "get back" what we had previously lost.

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

This is why we need to stick to our insistence on absolutely no more infringements. Period. We know this is true, because if you do not understand that the ultimate goal of our foes is eventual disarmament and confiscation, why would you want to give up anything that advances their goal?

Anygunanywhere

[rotor]

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 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.

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

[Dave2]

It required background checks (just like federally licensed sellers) for all who sell firearms at gun shows or over the internet.

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, and you already have to go through an FFL to sell a gun online. One provision is already unwanted both by republicans (as evidenced by their vote) and democrats (as evidenced by the Obama administration's unwilling to act through the ATF), and the other is redundant. Why should it pass? What good does it do to require something nobody wants and everyone thinks will be ineffective?

[terryg]

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.

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.

[terryg]

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.

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.

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.

[terryg]

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.

... 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.

[Dave2]

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.

It had something to with sanctioning events that did or didn't allow non-dealers to participate, depending or if "sanctioned" is a good or bad thing in this context (really, could english get any more confusing?).

... 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.

Of course not. It's a private, face-to-face transaction unless one of you is a dealer.

[tomneal]

Never give a inch

[anygunanywhere]

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 really do not care (and this is saying it kindly) what the antis think. They are a bunch of Constitution trampling, rights squashing, communist traitors who are hell bent on destroying my freedom and liberty to the point of erasing me and mine from the surface of the earth.

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

Anygunanywhere

[Abraham]

anygunanywhere,

You're supposed to be reasonable.

If you stand up for your rights, you're unreasonable.

If you fight hard for your rights, you're a bellicose crackpot.

Resistance is futile - so says the collectivist mind set - ah, unless you fight back in which case some may say you're an incrementalist zealot.

You're not.

[terryg]

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:

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. ...
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.

[MeMelYup]

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?
Does this restrict the criminal or the noncriminal?
How would it penalize the criminal?
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.

The 1st Amendment affirms that every citizen of the United States has the right to freedom of Speech (we wont go into freedom of the press). Learned people and others say you do but you don't. They say "You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." They are wrong. You can yell Fire if you want, you must be willing and are obligated to be held accountable for your actions. If there is no fire and people are hurt, you are responsible and must suffer the consequence's.

There is no difference between the 1st or 2nd Amendments as far as accountability.

[terryg]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Thanks. I got it now.

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.

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.

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

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