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.
I think that would be an awful deal, unless it was coupled with National Shall Issue legal carry and full 50 state reciprocity.
I’m tired of feeling naked when I visit my family in Kali; at home, I can bring my Glock nearly everywhere. In Kali, carrying my Glock is a felony.
Trump correctly surmised that he could appear to be flexible and reasonable, and at the end of the day the Dems would just hate his guts too much/too focused on getting everything to ever strike a deal with him.
This helps him with those wobbly suburban females.
I guess my point is, how do we know the gun store actually did the check?
A lot of these laws are a bit like locking your car. If a thief really wants your car, they will still get it, but it deters. Same thing here. The current system isn’t perfect, but it is a deterrent.
No matter what the Democrats say, their ultimate goal is to disarm law abiding citizens and assume the throne.
If Bill has a criminal record who precludes his having a gun, then he would not have gotten a gun from Bubbuh.
How can they enforce keeping gun sellers honest? By occasionally sending in an undercover officer with an ID which will turn up "denied", and seeing if Bubbuh sells anyway -- at which point Bubbuh is in trouble.
Sorr. Not interested in unilateral compromise.
Which is all the Dems are interested in.
No. No more compromises of any kind. Time for the other side, the would-be tyrants, to do that.
Repeal the NFA in its entirety, and then the ‘68 GCA, as a sign of good faith, and then we can address the issue of background checks. Maybe.
Of course, this proposal assumes that no data will be collected just because it will be “forbidden” in the law. Yeah, sure - and I’m the Queen of England. BATFE is legally prohibited from collecting a database of 4473s, yet they do so without a 2nd thought or any type of challenge. Screw that whole idea, unless you first have a similar background check on people who buy the NYT or New Yorker magazine.
A gang member will just have his girlfriend buy for him. SHE will turn up clean on any check.
Illegal immigrants have people infiltrated into DMVs to get real drivers licenses from fake documentation under fake names. The name on the drivers license has no criminal record associated with it, so will pass a background check, even though the person using the ID is a career criminal.
Part of the compromise could be for FFLs to destroy all the records they have.
Which is no sure thing given our Goebbels media. It does make for interesting rhetoric to expose their true agenda.
Any time you compromise, you lose 50%. Next time you lose another 50%. and it goes on and on.
Every one of those tens of thousands is unConstitutional The Second Amendment admits of NO exceptions, not for automatic weapons or nuclear missiles, not for ex felons or those deemed to be dangerous in the future, not for anything that hinders the owning and carrying of arms of any description. There are restrictions on the 2Amd that are Constitutional and have to do with the unregulated costs of owning weapons.
There are no Constitutional laws or regulations re fire or any other arms. Actions are, however, appropriate subjects for laws and regulations. The 2Amd says “...shall not be infringed,” nothing else and there are no exceptions in that amendment for anything.
Compromise This!!!
That pretty much sums it up. But you never hear the left talk about changing or abolishing the 2Amd. But in reality, that is what they would have to do.
Like and kind to all attractive women are potential prostitutes.
If Bill has a criminal record who precludes his having a gun, then he would not have gotten a gun from Bubbuh.
It’s kinda like those mom and pop stores selling booze to kids.
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.