August 20, 2019
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.
To read about the simple, elegant idea the author has in mind, go here https://townhall.com/columnists/benlanglotz/2019/08/20/the-guncontrol-compromise-the-left-will-never-accept-n2551937 and I predict you will say "why didn't I think of that?"
Of course, the Left won't accept it because it doesn't give them a path to confiscation. But it will certainly expose them.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:21 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 4 kb.
The record will be kept. Only the "verification number" will be visible, but the detailed identity of the person checked and the weapon purchased will be maintained in a database, even if the government claims otherwise. If you think otherwise you are an idiot.
Posted by: Bill H at August 20, 2019 04:14 PM (vMiSr)
It says, and I quote directly, 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.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at August 20, 2019 09:40 PM (aR/F+)
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can give you a really good price on.
Yes, I read that part, but I wasn't stupid enough to believe it. The government would have the name of the purchaser and would just discard that name? Sure. And pigs may fly, but not on this planet.
Posted by: Bill H at August 20, 2019 10:50 PM (vMiSr)
I fear they will start to say WE are "red flagged" just for being conservative, much like the Soviets used to do. Remember the Missouri Fusion Center issuing "domestic terrorist" warnings to Missouri police about people flying Gadsden flags, or having pro-life bumper stickers? This system will eventually flag all of these types of people.
It's a good idea but I fear it may wind up morphing into something else.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at August 21, 2019 12:52 PM (3Y+ie)
She gave us each a form to fill out and, after we did so and handed them back in -- along with $5 each for processing (IIRC), she said "You'll get a response in 7 to 10 days."
About ten days later, in the mail, we got cards that would enable us to buy pistols, good for five years (again, IIRC). We couldn't get a whole truckload of 'em at once, but we could get more than one over a period of time.
That was it. No tie-in to a specific pistol ID or type. We were just declared OK to buy. It could have stopped right there.
But eventually we did buy a couple of pistols, and because we had the cards we were able to take them home right then, because the cops had done the heavy lifting; the dealer didn't have to. He had to register the sale but by law, that information had to be deleted after a short time.
The only difference here is that it would be a matter of being able to say "somebody has asked about so-and-so;" not that an actual background check has been performed. In neither case has an actual gun been bought. And we might have decided not to buy -- might have decided not to spend the money.
You see?
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at August 22, 2019 10:04 AM (uRBJl)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at August 22, 2019 11:17 AM (X1YeO)
Yeah. When we applied "way back when," they could have come after us, and if we hadn't bought the guns we could have said 'what guns'? and put the onus on them. Let them tear our house apart to look for them and... had to put it back together ourselves, of course.
We aren't to that point yet. Pray God we aren't.
But you and Bill H. are STILL missing the point of the article, which is a proposed end run around the background check that won't leave fingerprints.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at August 22, 2019 11:16 PM (S3Uvu)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at August 23, 2019 07:04 AM (PnO6z)
And there goes your firearms registry, out the window!
Why, the FBI might have to hire more people to answer the phone. Or they might have to automate the system (Ha!).
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at August 23, 2019 10:02 AM (FamR2)
37 queries taking 0.2754 seconds, 168 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
