Just between us for a moment. This is one of the areas I feel we are incredibly vulnerable to new legislation.
Many people are calling for ‘universal background checks’. And I actually don’t have a problem with the idea. Seriously. I don’t. Here is why.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing a background check as a private individual. There are dozens or more websites that make it easy to do. Here is a service that I am familiar with.
Now I know this is not as complete as what may be available from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS it is something that already available to everyone.
But that isn’t what the anti rights cultists are wanting is it? They want a law, a punishable offense, stating that everyone has to go through the government system and to outlaw transactions and transfers between individuals without that check.
Think about that for a second; something as common as a family member buying a firearm for someone in the family will suddenly be illegal unless they complete a background check. Spouse won’t be surprised with a new hunting rifle or concealed carry pistol on Christmas, Children won’t find that unexpected first rifle hidden among their birthday gifts. I couldn’t buy my brother’s SKS without there being a record of it someplace.
Don’t fall for the characterization of “universal background checks” — the reality is simply ‘outlawing private transactions’. We already have states that require this; can anyone show evidence those states have a lower crime rate?
In the days since Obama spoke to the nation about gun violence and put forward proposals to address it, lawmakers in both parties have signaled support for stricter background checks — mostly Democrats, but some key Republicans, too — and the White House has made the proposal a top priority. Public support for universal background checks is extremely high, possibly even at 92 percent, per a recent CBS News/New York Times poll.
If you agree that we shouldn’t have a law; I suggest calling your Senator, emailing them, contacting their local and Washington D.C. offices and letting them know how you feel.
We’ve compromised enough, let’s make sure this proposal goes down in defeat eh.
And what I was trying to say was, that if you want some perspective on this, there are a number of issues related to this that we could begin to talk about and think about.”
Newsflash guys, We’ve been having that conversation. Like thousands of other blogs, I’ve been talking about it for a while. And so, to a very limited extent have anti-rights cultists blogs. And in newspapers, and in homes, in offices around the country, and in churches. We’ve also have been having that conversation in state and federal legislative offices.
You’ve just ignored it because it doesn’t fit your idea of discussing it ( you tell us what restrictions you want and we’re just supposed to nod while pass yet another ineffective law ).
So, once again to all those who want to talk about it — Let’s have that discussion. Here, now, out in the open where comments won’t be moderated out of existence for just disagreeing with the author, where people won’t be banned.
But there are some conditions, I promise they aren’t too onerous.
If you make a claim about fact then you have to provide evidence or a link to evidence that supports your claim. If you make a comment then you have to discuss that comment. No drive by trolling.
Let’s talk about
Domestic Violence- the issue raised recently.
If you want to talk, are you willing to discuss the issue of due process?
.
.
Because the issue of false accusation is real and people should have a chance to be heard before their rights are deprived. And I said people, because men are also victims of domestic violence and make false accusation (rarer but still happens).
Let’s talk about the fact that domestic violence isn’t an every day occurrence in every marriage; only 1 in 10 couples experience it. Are you willing to admit that not every marriage, not every divorces involves domestic violence but you want to put in place restrictive laws just in case?
Are you willing to talk about the factors behind domestic violence and how to solve them; not just how you want to pass another gun control law?
If so, let’s talk.
Do you want to talk about background checks?
Let’s talk about background checks and how you want to ‘end the gun show loophole’? But the discussion needs to deal with specifics; exactly how you are going to enforce it, what will the criteria be for allowing or not a sale. Let’s talk about how much it is going to cost and how is going to pay, eh. How about a proposal that Mayor Bloomberg reaches into his pocket and funds a system for background checks — he wants to reduce ‘gun violence’ surely he can make it free to everyone if he is serious, right?
Let’s also talk about how the system is flawed and frequently generates false negatives. How are you going to insure that people are actually not deprived of their rights by mistake?
Then we can move onto the fact that most firearms in America are not registered so it would be impossible to know if they’ve been sold or not. So logic (I’ll stop for a moment so you anti-rights cultists can look up the word — ready, let’s continue)dictates there will need to be another law mandating universal registration of firearms and owners. But I’ll insist on evidence that gun registration will reduce crime, can you provide it? Canada just scrapped their registration scheme because it was an utter failure. Please provide an example where it has worked.
Let’s talk about “May Issue Permits” and Concealed Carry in general.
Many anti-rights cultists has predicted (time and time again) blood in the streets every time another state improves Concealed Carry laws. And every time they have been wrong but let’s talk. I’m willing. But come armed (pun intended) with actual facts, eh. Because we have the history and statistics to show that Concealed Handgun License holders are more law abiding then their non-carrying counter parts.
So there has to be a little give and take; if we go for may issue, are you willing to reduce the number of prohibited places we can carry?
If we agree to even greater burdens to get a license (e.g. training) are you willing to agree that Carry Licenses should be recognized by every state? What are you willing to give up?
Let’s talk about permits to own or enhanced background checks.
Many antis want to include medical and psychology requirements to background checks; so let’s talk about how that will work. Given the number of doctors willing to certify disability for a minimum amount of money, how are you going to prevent the same industry popping up for firearms?
If you say you’ll have a list of approved doctors/shrinks; how many hours a day are they going to have to work? Have you thought about that.
Let’s talk about “Assault Weapon Bans” or Bans in General.
Oh yes, I know that you “say” you don’t want to ‘ban’ guns — but it would be a lot more believable if we didn’t have people (Diane Fienstien, Piers Morgan and thousands of others) calling for confiscation and complete bans daily.
It would help if you hadn’t fully supported the gun ban in Washington D.C.; fought so hard to keep the ban in Chicago, or laud the countries that ban firearms like Japan.
But enough of your lies, I’ll try to keep a straight face as we talk about how you want to just ban a few guns.
Let’s talk about what makes an ‘assault weapon’ — is it the bayonet lug, the pistol grip, or the magazine size?
By the way, just exactly how many people are you willing to let be killed before the killer has to change magazines? 3, 5, 10? What moral or ethical considerations went into that number as opposed to 30?
And what is the motivation behind the assault weapon ban? To save lives, eh. Guess not since last year less than 350 murders were committed with rifles.
Not just assault rifles, not just semi-automatic rifles – all rifles according to the FBI. Even if you throw in shotguns, other firearms and unknown type of firearms; that brings the total to 2,363 – approximately 60% of the number of people who drown each year. So if you were really interested in saving lives you would be teaching swimming not trying to pass another law.
So if you want to try to ban assault weapons despite all that then you’ll have to discuss how those firearms aren’t protected by the 2nd Amendment
It would be the height of insanity to insist that firearms that bare remarkable resemblance in control, operation and caliber to that used by the military today would not ” contribute to the common defense” or not “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
And then we will talk about how I was trained on the use of the M-16 in the Air Force but now as a civilian you say I can’t have anything resembling it. Yeah, that is a lot of common sense isn’t it.
And that brings up my last point in this little invitation — it is a right.
Sorry, you can’t blame the inanimate object, you can’t say it isn’t the same as other rights. It is.
Yes, every right has restrictions on it — normal people call this responsible behavior — and carry punishment for breaking those restrictions.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is no difference. It is true we can’t misuse them to murder, to rob any more then we can falsely use our right of free speech to libel or commit fraud. But like fraud and libel, punishments for a person illegally carrying a firearm have already been established. So if you aren’t blaming the inanimate object, why would you push for laws against using an object in a crime?
So keeping that in mind, please tell me how requiring a person (in Texas) to spend up to $200 or more to exercise their right doesn’t create a disparate impact like requiring people to spend $26 to exercise their right to vote. It takes a vivid imagination to say it is common sense to require people to spend money on one right then claim they shouldn’t have to spend money on another.
You want to talk, fine. Let’s go again….but frankly folks we’ve been talking and you anti-rights cultists have been sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet yelling “I don’t have to listen to you” for years now.
So….which of you gun control advocates actually want to talk about it?
USA TODAY’s editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals. If our country doesn’t change, it could very well come to that one day.
Maybe it is just me but it seems the anti rights cultists are running out of things to smear gun owners with.
Okay….If I had to name a gathering of antis, I would probably say they were a “clutch” — as in a ‘clutching pearls’
So what do we call a gathering of gunnies?
The reason I ask is the Club had its annual awards banquet on Saturday. Haven’t seen the official attendance info yet but about 240 tickets were sold. Add to that the Masters of Ceremony – Dave Fulson and a guest; the program Speaker – Steve Hall of Texas State Rifle Association.
We filled up the banquet hall in a neighboring city and enjoyed a great dinner (steak was a tad tough, green beans were great and mashed potatoes excellent), gave away a huge number of door prizes and had a silent auction to raise money for some of our activities.
Most of the door prizes were donated by businesses and individuals — outside of the club. While some donations were from club members most came from companies willing to support the 2nd Amendment and our activities providing outreach.
The club recognized the Sportsman of the Year for 2010 and puts its money where its mouth is. The winner receives a lifetime membership to the club.
Why I wasn’t in great danger.
Now given that Texas is still a Concealed Carry ONLY state, I can not positively aver how many firearms were in the room (other than the Colt Umex .22 lr, a CZ 20 gauge semi, a Mossberg .410 and a Savage .22 lr given away) but I would be safe in saying that the concentration of firearms was greater than average in that room.
So why wasn’t I in great danger?
I mean there was a cash bar, there were many people carrying, there was fierce bidding and competition on the silent auction items — really wanted one of the 4 laser sites up.
Because people matter. Values and principles matter — not firearm availability.
And this, in my opinion, will be why gun control advocates lose in the end.
They have to convince many people that their friends, family, neighbors, teachers, professors, barbers, coworkers and casual acquittances and strangers aren’t trust worthy.
And that is an uphill battle they can not win; not win the evidence and the anecdotes are against them
This comes to mind as Texas considers changes to current law such as Campus Carry.
Sorry to ramble on but please join the discussion.
First, I realize I’m late to the debate but that is nothing unusual.
Reading the comments over at Breda‘s and the variousposts around the web I see the 2nd Amendment community is bickering among itself — again.
So much for our monolithic NRA dominated & controlled agenda,eh.
So I thought I would weigh in with my thoughts.
Scene 1 — a library in a fly0ver country small town
Guy walks into the library carrying a small handgun openly displayed in a tasteful holster. Is mannerly, polite, very discrete.
Finds his books, checks out and leaves without anyone really noticing.
So — how did he advance our rights?
Nothing really changed; no one learned anything, no one’s opinion was changed or even challenged.
Scene 2 — a library in a fly0ver country small town
Guy walks into the library carrying a small handgun openly displayed in a tasteful holster. Is mannerly, polite, very discrete.
A patron/worker notices the firearm and makes a “Man With GUN!!!” call to the cops. The cops show up, checks out the situation and the man finishes his visit by checking out some books and leaving.
Cops talk to the patron/worker and informs them it was a completely legal exercise of his rights.
So — how did he advance our rights?
Well, someone learned — from a credible source that was legal, saw a polite man detained for exercising his rights.
Pro- maybe an opinion is changed. Con — maybe an opinion is formed that even the cops are cautious and are afraid of a man with gun.
Scene 3 — a library in a fly0ver country small town
Guy walks into the library carrying a shotgun barrel down by a sling over his shoulder.
Is a complete jerk. Goes where he wants to, makes an effort to be seen.
A patron/worker notices the firearm and makes a “Man With GUN!!!” call to the cops. The cops show up, checks out the situation and the man finishes his visit by checking out some books and leaving.
Cops talk to the patron/worker and informs them it was a completely legal exercise of his rights.
So — how did he advance our rights?
Well again, people learned that it is legal. Con — he might have turned off a few people.
What is the difference?
We would put a spirited defense of the person in the first two scenes and rightfully so.
So why aren’t we putting up such a spirited defense of the person in Scene 3?
Why aren’t we defending the “Right to Be a Visibly Armed Jerk*”?
Let me be frank…I do think that being polite in the long run is very helpful to our cause.
Heck some people don’t think we should even Open Carry because we might offend someone. Others say we should limit where we Open Carry because we might offend someone.
My take on the situation is we shouldn’t be throwing 2nd Amendment advocates under the bus regardless of which side they take.
Period.
Because, seriously? You come into my library carrying a shotgun and acting like an asshole, I’m going to call the cops on you too.
That being said — what is the difference in the scenarios?
Are we saying that people don’t have a Right to Be a Visibly Armed Jerk?
That our 2nd Amendment rights depend on the display of our manners?
Walking into a library with a shotgun might find me about to draw on you out of fear you could be a maniac spree killer. Why in God’s name would you want to carry a shotgun in there?!
Isn’t that falling into the same mentality as the antis who say that ANYONE other than cops carrying a gun ‘could be a maniac spree killer’ and there fore isn’t to be trusted?
“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” — George Bernard Shaw
If we don’t defend the 2nd Amendment rights the same way we defend the 1st Amendment rights we are going to lose.
I don’t agree with the decision to Open Carry a Shotgun in a children’s area of a public library….but I will defend his right to do so.
I am not questioning anyone’s credentials on supporting the right to keep and bear arms. I’m think that everyone in the discussion is solid on that issue.
I am questioning our tactics.
I think we are missing a golden opportunity to discuss the issue.
The Library incident happened — people didn’t like it, people were nervous.
So we need to ask them a simple question:
And then?
Guy walked into the Library carrying a shotgun
And then?
Guy was a jerk.
And then?
The police were called
And then?
They let him go.
So you are saying the guy broke no law, people got upset over an inanimate object yet the guy hurt no one, right?
Or
Hey did you hear about the Whack Job in the Library
Yeah, heard people freaked out and the cops were called. And then?
What do you mean?
Well and then what happened after the cops were called.
Nothing.
So the guy broke no law, people got upset over an an inanimate object, had bad manner yet managed to control himself and not go on a murderous rampage?
Folks….we need to take advantage of the jerks of the world instead of castigating them.
We need to challenge the perceptions of those who would object to the exercise of a fundamental right — regardless if it with the firearm we would pick or not.
Just my opinion and you know what they say about Opinions.
A survey of 450 police chiefs in cities over 250,000 around the country found that the majority supported gun control regulations, such as tightening background checks, even at the expense of making it a little harder for law abiding citizens to get guns (62% of respondents), in the name of public safety.
Citation: Thompson, A., JH Price, JA Dake, and T. Tatchell, “Police Chiefs’ Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30(4) (April 2006):305-312
If we surveyed several hundred/thousand/million people and it was okay with them if we made it harder for you to blog, to speak in public, to write, to express your opinion in any way — what difference would it make?
Would you agree to the limitations that the people approved?
Never mind the fact that Joan has repeatedly talked about how many of her gun owning friends support ‘reasonable restrictions’; therefore we should bow down to her desires.
So the question stands to the Antis (I’ll include a ping back to Baldr’s blog as I usually do).
Do your rights depend on the vote of the majority?
And I’ll end this with this
Lady –“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
Benjamin Franklin – “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
A survey of 450 police chiefs in cities over 250,000 around the country found that the majority supported gun control regulations, such as tightening background checks, even at the expense of making it a little harder for law abiding citizens to get guns (62% of respondents), in the name of public safety.
Citation: Thompson, A., JH Price, JA Dake, and T. Tatchell, “Police Chiefs’ Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30(4) (April 2006):305-312
Recent Comments