Posted on 08/20/2019 7:23:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So-called “Gun Safety” advocates don’t really care about public safety, and it’s easy to prove that all they really fear is an armed populace who opposes their political agenda. Here’s the deal: They could have the “Universal Background Checks” (UBC) they’re fighting for, if they made just one small compromise.
Now, Second Amendment supporters understandably cringe at the word “compromise” because for generations the GOP dictionary has defined it as: “Giving the Democrats half of their ridiculous demands and then hoping they say nice things about us on TV for a few days.” But that’s not real compromise, it’s capitulation.
An artful deal gives each side what it most wants, with concessions that shouldn’t be painful for either side.
Gun-controllers claim to worry that many states allow individuals to sell firearms privately without background checks, and they say that this puts guns in the hands of “prohibited persons” who’ll use them criminally. They probably figure that a background check requirement would mean some of these criminals are turned away by law-abiding sellers. Maybe. But we needn’t debate whether this happens often enough for UBC laws to have a meaningful effect on public safety. They say yes, we say no. But with the right deal it doesn’t matter - let’s let them have their way. Almost.
We gun rights advocates actually believe that Universal Background Checks can enable tyranny. The other guys think that’s crazy and paranoid. But our logic is that if the would-be gun banners in government knew exactly who has what guns, a ban becomes more tempting because it’s easy to enforce – just knock on the listed owners’ doors. But when, say, 20% of all the semi-auto rifles are in unknown hands, a ban must rely on voluntary compliance, and they know that’s never going to happen. Nancy Pelosi knows there’ll still be millions of ARs and AKs out there even after the confiscation raids she might envision, so enforcement of a ban becomes a waste of political capitol and pointless bloodshed –why bother? Tyranny averted.
If they don’t think gun confiscation can enable tyranny, they forget what real Democrats like Hubert Humphrey argued on the presidential campaign trail not too long ago (and never got a peep of criticism from extremists in their own party): “the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
It doesn’t matter whether they’re nuts to think that Universal Background Checks will meaningfully help public safety. Or if we’re nuts to think that we can prevent tyranny by having guns the government doesn’t know about. With true compromise, it simply doesn’t matter.
All we ask in exchange for Universal Background Checks is this: Stop collecting data about who’s buying what guns. It’s like HIPPA privacy for gun owners. A background check doesn’t require a database on gun owners and serial numbers any more than liquor laws require the government to know how often I buy my preferred spirit.
For ten bucks, any seller could phone in a buyer’s driver’s license number to find out whether the buyer’s prohibited from buying a gun (appallingly, the current check system is off limits to responsible private sellers wishing to conduct a check). The new system could even be used by anyone to check out a babysitter or contractor. This system would record only that the ID was checked and issued a confirmation number. The seller can keep the confirmation as a defense to a false charge of selling to an unqualified buyer. The system knows only that someone was checked but has no idea if they even bought a gun, let alone what model or serial number.
Whoever wrote this must have went to Glenn Beck school of journalism. He dangles the full compromise until you’re tired of reading and quit. I did. Maybe after I finish my coffee I’ll come back and finish the article and see what the gotcha is for liberals.
No.
I’m not interested in comprising with Nazis.
At all.
Just putting this out there: If *MY* LOCAL sheriff announced a “well-regulated militia” akin to what Kurt Schlichter wrote about in his column, I would likely sign up. State-level? Maybe? Federal-level? um, no thanks.
How could the LEFT argue against it?
Here’s his column: https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/07/11/lets-call-the-liberals-second-amendment-militia-bluff-n2549829
An inch at a time. Always an inch at a time.
Enough.
Tens of thousands of existing laws do nothing to curb the evil while holding the innocent accountable.
In the upcoming unpleasantness and contest for your freedom either learn to use a rifle or otherwise ride the bus.
So here’s the real compromise: even firearms dealers will no longer have to keep a record (known as Form 4473) of who bought what – those eventually end up in government hands for databasing. The dealer verifies his customer by ID, (just like a liquor retailer who cards a customer) but gun purchases are private.
No traceable weapons at all?
So, if Bill goes into Bubbuh’s fine guns, buys a gun, and knocks over a liquor store with said gun, how do we know who sold him the gun? How do we know they asked for ID or anything?
This is confusing and seems utterly pointless.
In a car accident who or what is blamed? The car or the driver?
I noticed that too. And when you DO get to the compromise, it’s stupid.
The original author can kindly eff off.
This is laughable.
“So here’s the real compromise: even firearms dealers will no longer have to keep a record “
Yep, until congress reconvenes.
Lol! I quit on it too!
The Constitution has already been compromised into irrelevance.
No more.
Well, let’s negotiate in good faith. Each must give up something to the other.
I have the guns, YOU want them.
What will YOU give up to me to get them.
YOU have NOTHING to negotiate with but bluff and bluster.
End of negotiations.
I have posted this before, but the same recommendations could be applied to FINDING the potential mass killers BEFORE they have become a very difficult sociopath. This would not apply immediately, but looking at the long term, many serious confrontations could be either blunted or avoided entirely.
Acquaint ALL children of school age with the reality of firearms. Starting in the primary grades, instructions on how to AVOID being accidentally shot by an unsecured handgun they may happen upon. Also, allow the RETURN of fingerbang and toy guns, cap pistols and air rifles to the access of those in the early years of school, so guns do not retain an air of mystery that may be totally fascinating to the young mind. This also gives insight to the kinds of interactions that point to the predispositions of the youth as individuals. With the acceptance of these devices, it is also necessary to make sure the children have also been fully informed of the responsibilities of safe use and proper care of these devices, and rules of conduct while handling them, even in play. The idea here is to identify at a much earlier age those children who may either be totally afraid of the very idea of hand weapons, or so brazen that they far too quickly adopt the idea of using this kind of device in bullying tactics, which they would quickly reveal. The eternally timid should be given further instruction in means of avoidance, evasion, or how to escape once in a highly vulnerable situation. Also tattoo their Social Security number and name on some part of their anatomy, so the remains may be quickly identified, should they be so unfortunate. For the brazen bullies that WILL cause trouble later in life, counseling and/or psychiatric intervention at this stage may be a way to forecast or forestall future need for intervention, when the situation is much more serious.
For the remainder of the more normally-orientated children in middle school, familiarity with all types of side arms is much encouraged, with even some target practice with light-caliber sidearms, and by the time they are in high school, competitive range firing with specified skill levels as part of the school curriculum.
Guns become totally demystified, being a thing in which youth is in full contact with, and all the rules of care, feeding, grooming and proper use and storage have been instilled in the responsible youth, while identifying at a much earlier age those of whom should NEVER come into contact with weaponry of any kind.
Like I said, long-term, to first overcome the prejudices, and to make sure the NEXT generation is adequately prepared to be available for military training and careers in law enforcement, as well as common home defense. And to weed out the bad actors long before they may develop into a threat.
Of course, there would be some who would want to blow this proposal up into something sinister immediately, and I can only say, superstition is a dreadful taskmaster.
If a background check is to see if a gun buyer is a prohibited person at the time of purchase, why do they need the gun data? It is the person, not the gun that is being checked.
I finished my coffee and skimmed until I found it. Here it is...
“Get rid of all gun buyer databases”
5000 plus state laws, 460 pages of ATF laws and numerous Federal laws——it’s time they compromise in rolling that back to one main law——murder is illegal and we have zero gun laws, period!
Or we simply “compromise” and create “common sense” abortion laws because too many kids are dying.
Tracing is utterly pointless.
It is virtually never used to solve crimes.
A few guns may get returned to people they were stolen from.
That is the only thing it accomplishes that is legitimate.
The purpose of tracing is to be a precursor to registration.
The author is suggesting a point of sale check to determine if a gun may be legally sold. That is what we have now, except it does not work well and collects the pointless information for a supposedly non-existent registration system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.