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.
Actually there are laws that might be Constitutioinal such as Kennesaw’s ordinance that all households must have guns. That one certainly does not “infringe.”
The Batfuckers would also have to destroy the records that they have (illegally) copied - wipe the memory of every computer and flashdrive of them. If you believe that they will, regardless of the law, then I’ve got some beachfront property in Kansas for you.
bkmk
“like”
No, let's use the model of Social Security. Let's call it "Gun Control Reform."
We'll support enhanced sentences for crimes committed with a gun, prosecution of illegal gun sales and illegal possession of a gun.
In return, we require removal of all restrictions on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
Legalize Constitutional Carry in all 50 States. it is the only compromise.
Bingo! If you believe Hollywood hype, tracing a firearm is a 5 minute process that catches the criminal 99% of the time, before the next commercial break. (Of course, Hollywood would also have you believe that all legal firearms sales involve "registration," whatever process that might be, as imagined by the script writer.)
Reality is a lot different - IIRC, commercial FFL records only go to the federal government when a license expires/terminates (i.e., in most cases, when the business closes permanently). And in most cases, those records (primarily the FFL's "bound books") are simply stored in cargo containers, due to a massive backlog.
So, tracing a weapon would likely start with the manufacturer (if still in business), leading to a distributor (ditto), then to a commercial FFL (ditto), then to 'John Smith' (the first owner, who may or may not still live at the same address, or even still be alive), etc. It's never quick, often completely futile, and rarely done.
The radical Left in this country would LOVE to require 100% mandatory registration, with real-time database searches, etc. But even if they got their wish, most traces would simply end with "theft of firearm reported by owner". (Because - big surprise - gun crimes are most often committed by criminals, not law-abiding gun owners.)
And that's assuming the database isn't corrupted, either accidentally or purposely. I remember reading years ago, that ATF had lost a bunch of their own records, regarding lawful owners of automatic weapons. (Tough luck for those gun owners!) And I think we all remember how Canadian gun owners dealt with mandatory firearms registration - they overwhelmed the government system, by registering every "gun" they owned (glue guns, grease guns, staple guns, etc.)...
There is only one compromise I would accept and I would oppose it too.
The Constitution says that Congress is responsible for arming the militia and the Dick act says that all adult males are the unorganized militia.
They can have universal background checks when there is no point to them because every non-felon has been issued an M-14 by Congress.
I want this to happen with out the compromise but I would accept the compromise after opposing it if it passed because if everyone owned a gun it wouldn’t matter if they knew.
O’Bummer handed out O’Bummer phones, I want my Trump gun.
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.