Skip to main content

View Diary: Some House Republicans appear ready to back universal background checks for gun purchases (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, it was about background checks for every... (9+ / 0-)

    ... transaction, including resales by private parties.

    •  I went down thru more of the thread (7+ / 0-)

      you're right on that, but as I understood it that was one of the loopholes in the regulation that was put forth. No check if I want to sell my pistol to my friend or gift it.

      I've said here before, the idea that there won't be private sales without checks really does begger belief. "Here's my shotgun Frank, $150. Fine, here ya go." It will happen and that just common sense, don't you think?

      On the private sales front it's a bit like selling an 1/8 oz of pot, I doubt people buy a tax stamp. But selling a couple of kilos is dangerous and only those who are willing to go down for it will do it.

      Background checks on all retail purchases that actually work will cut down on a big chunk of the flow but I think there will still be guns bought and sold outside of the law.

      One thing that would help is to be as smart about the regulations as possible. Don't restrict non violent felons or someone who can buy medical marijuana. If we make them too restrictive we might as well make only sales on Mars legal.

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:53:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anyway, looks like you spoke too soon regarding (8+ / 0-)

        ... the feelings of all RKBA members here:

        Why I oppose Universal Background Checks - A turning point

        •  I'm unfamiliar with this member (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, PavePusher

          All I can say is I thought we were pretty much in agreement as of a couple weeks ago. I think most of us still are, if bad.

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:30:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Looks like the rest of the members are staying out (5+ / 0-)

            ... that diary.


            No "I support" or "I disagree."

            Radio silence.

            •  Well, we're over here (6+ / 0-)

              mucking about in MB's diary :)

              "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

              by high uintas on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:43:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A number of members seem to be going off the rails (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, FogCityJohn

                ... at this point.

                All kinds of talk about "confiscation" and other somewhat paranoid ramblings going on both in this diary and in noway2's diary.

                •  I haven't gone over there but (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, gerrilea, PavePusher

                  I don't see anyone going "off the rails" here. You speak of the idea of confiscation as an abstract. It's not if you truly want to stop all gun violence there really is only one way, take away all the guns.

                  Hell, back in the 80s when I was very anti-gun that seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I would have signed on.

                  "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                  by high uintas on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:13:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But that's an unreasonable fear. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, FogCityJohn, alain2112

                    Who is going to confiscate guns? I don't get the paranoia.

                    It seems that the NRA has been successful in driving fear into gun owners that the government is coming to get their guns.


                    •  Maybe they read it on dailykos (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      high uintas, PavePusher, Cedwyn

                      Where there is a great body of agreement that we live in a police state/dictatorship/tyranny. just like the RW says every day. just search police state here
                      And there's also a body of agreement among people here that guns should be confiscated. Not everybody for sure, but some of themore vociferous ones
                      (search gun control)

                      Happy just to be alive

                      by exlrrp on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:02:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  If they ban guns and don't take them away in some (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

             still have 310 firearms on the streets.  Enough for every man, woman and child in this country.....So Sure, people are going to freak when you talk "bans" and "registration".

                      •  And how would that ever pass? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Banning guns?

                        •  It won't pass. I'm glad. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          •  So why should people "freak" when someone says (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FogCityJohn, a2nite

                            ... "ban?"

                          •  Because some are not as politically in tune as we (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, KVoimakas

                            are....they hear ban and have no idea the political wall that is there.

                            Another view... I think a lot of people don't understand the value other people place on the 2A and how they consider it a right, an important right.  I certainly do.  

                          •  Because the ones that get upset about it are the (0+ / 0-)

                            ones who might actually comply with it.  Those who won't wouldn't care.  If we are going to have a prayer of addressing the gun violence problem, we're going to have to get past the stereotypical views.  The NRA and Ted Nugent don't represent the majority of gun owners, but they sure as hell are visible.

                          •  I don't understand. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            The "ones who might actually comply with it?"

                            I just got a comment from ban nock that he is concerned about confiscation.

                            I don't understand how any rational, thinking gun owner (which I assume most people who post here who belong to RKBA here are) can live in fear of confiscation.

                            How or when is that going to happen?

                            Not to mention the fact that here two opposing notions coming from many of the RKBA folks here:

                            1. There will be no laws that permit confiscation.

                            2. Fear of confiscation.

                            I don't get how these two opposing notions can both be true.

                            Do you think confiscation could become a political reality anytime in the foreseeable future? In your lifetime?

                          •  I asked you this in your diary yesterday... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... and received no response.

                            How can you simultaneously declare that gun control will "never happen" at the same time you fear government confiscation?
                            Here is the full thread.
                          •  I think part of your confusion stems from (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bailey2001, Bob Johnson

                            what appears to be equating fear with concern.  While similar, they are not the same.  Fear is a pure emotion, stemming from the emotional centers of the brain.  Fear also impedes cortical thinking.  Concern is more logical and a response to things that reason says could happen.  In our daily lives we do many things because (bad or undesirable) things could happen, like wearing seat belts, but it doesn't mean we fear being in a car accident.

                            I am concerned about confiscation.  I do not fear it.  I do not believe that confiscation will occur, but I also realize that it could occur.  Hence, there is the need to be ever vigilant in preventing it.

                          •  Exactly....I too do not think it will happen, nor (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            do I think it could pass.  However, that is my views today.  Could that change?  Absolutely.  

                            A few months ago, I would have said the same about a AWB or universal background checks.  A few months ago, I wouldn't have thought either one of them could have become even a discussion during this Congress.  Things change, and my concerns the discussions and debates raise new topics.

                            Make no mistake that there are plenty of people who really do want to ban guns.  We all know this.  There are plenty of people in this country who want to repeal the 2A.  We all know this too.   Confiscation would be a victory in the eyes of people who wish every gun to be removed in this country.

                            So at anytime the debate can change courses and events could move in that direction, political climates can no one can say with any certainly that confiscation would never happen.  It could become a reality in a few years, a decade from now or even in the near future.  No one knows for sure but I definately remain ever vigilant in that regard....should the mood of debate change courses.  If that is called fear then label me fearful.  I consider it this point anyway, even though right now, today, I think it has an almost zero chance of happening.  

                          •  Okay, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

                            Look, if the subject didn't come up after Newtown, it is unlikely to come up anytime soon.

                •  There is no registration tied to this....and we (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, Cedwyn

                  already do background checks.  

                  Now if they start talking about registration....that's when I would have a problem with it.

              •  Do you think the government is out to confiscate (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, Over the Edge, FogCityJohn

                ... your guns? Or that registration of gun ownership will lead to confiscation?

                •  Had to go put a pot roast on (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, PavePusher, noway2

                  I believe that if there was a road to confiscation it would be thru registering the guns. I have read comments here advocating banning guns, so yeah some people would like to. I am not a gun owner. I'm an advocate for the 2nd amendment (and all the others).

                  "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                  by high uintas on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:07:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But what are the realistic chances of the... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    ... government confiscating guns?

                    So you agree with maxomai that the slippery slope is registration and that it opens the door to confiscation?

                    •  Right now I think the chances are slim (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, PavePusher, KenBee, noway2

                      But I have no idea about the future. At one point in time we thought banning alcohol was a good idea, now not so much. Did we learn anything for that mistake?

                      We are very vulnerable to intense emotional reaction and propaganda. This Diary is a good case study for what the government, as in we the people are capable of agreeing to if the climate is right.

                      Tell me I'm wrong.

                      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                      by high uintas on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:33:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  goverment confiscating guns: zero chance (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      high uintas, KenBee

                      well, maybe not absolute zero but the next thing to it. Somewhere between absolute aero and .000000567.
                      I live in Linn County Oregon. virtually no chance at all.
                      (google Sheriff Tim Mueller)

                      no chance at all for registration here either. And we already do background checks at gun shows.

                      I'm in RKBA and I'm all for reasonable gun control. Oregon already has it

                      Happy just to be alive

                      by exlrrp on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:06:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  and many of those in rkba saying that have (0+ / 0-)

                        said it since before many of these other people came along...but that will never be recognized honestly.

                        Now it's rkba agreeing with their ideas. coopted what we used to call it.

                        This machine kills Fascists.

                        by KenBee on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:24:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  No Bob, you'll see what you want to see. (8+ / 0-)

          There's three versions of anti-gun posters here on Dkos.

          1) Honest.  Twigg for example.  Hates guns, wants them all gone, willing to work on a reasonable solution with nearly anyone who will listen.  Knows he won't live to see the day that guns in the hands of anyone but the military and a few, very few select police, will happen.  Works towards "better".

          2) Dishonest.  There's a two page list of Kossacks for this one.  
          Meme:  "Now, we're not coming for your guns, other than the 'assault weapons'."  Now, is operative, not dismissive.

          Press them on a definition and you'll read this:
          "Assault weapons now, and that means anything other than a five shot revolver, or a muzzle loader.  
          Sooner or later, BHO will appoint SCOTUS Justices, and we'll get around Heller vs. DC and take the fucking handguns too."

          So "reasonable compromise" is read: "Fuck you, we're taking them all.".

          3) Heartfelt emotional.  
          "Think of the Children."  
          "IF just ONE life is saved."

          These are the people I have difficulty arguing with.  They really mean (for the most part, a few are category 2 persons) what they say.
          They're hoping that Gun Control will fix what years of failed domestic policy hasn't.
          That failed communities, schools, families can be remedied by Gun Control.  Urban renewal didn't do it.  Housing Authorities didn't do it.  The War on Drugs certainly didn't do it.
          Maybe a ban on guns will.  If not, WE TRIED.  Sometimes trying is the best you can do, as there's just too much to cope with.

          If the criminals and cops still have guns?  Well, at least there's less guns someplace else.  If hangings, cuttings, jumping and overdoses take the place of gun suicides?
          At least it's not gun suicides.  Mental Health care is so expensive, so hard to "fix".

          At least WE TRIED by outlawing the guns.

          I want to hug those people, not smash them in the face.  
          As it's like your child finding out Santa existed, just not in the exact form expected.
          Santa was an ideal, not a tangible outcome.

          •  So let me see if I follow... (9+ / 0-)

            You suggest that there are three types of "anti-gun" posters here:

            1. Those who want to ban/confiscate all guns and are honest about it.

            2. Those who secretly want to ban/confiscate all guns but are pretending/lying that they don't.

            3. Soft-hearted but naive people who want to save children, etc.


            The paranoia evidenced in your distinctions is clear.

            What about people here (probably the vast majority) who respect the Second Amendment and would like to see limits on magazine capacity, for example, or simply a more beefed up background check system?

            I guess they'd fall into your second category of "liars" because what they really want, ultimately, is confiscation/ban.

            Good lord...

            •  That's How I See the Problematic RKBAs... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, sidnora, FogCityJohn, mrblifil

              I don't mind hunters.

              I don't mind gun enthusiasts taking the kids to the range or skeet-shooting.

              I don't mind people who keep a handgun /shotgun / 22 (hopefully unloaded, with bullets in a separate drawer) for protection for their family.

              I believe that gun-owners who think they need an arsenal to protect themselves from their government are a bit insane, and they are the ones pushing this argument so far out into cray-cray land.

              Yes, meaningfully reduce arsenals in the homes of America.  Make the shooter have to re-load after six shots.  Make it so he can't fire bullets as fast as his finger can twitch.

              Why does this all seem so hard?

              Because you are arguing with deluded people.  As you say, its when you mix in a little paranoia with the reason that you get statements such as "registration enables confiscation", without any follow-up, such as you are trying to provide, which is "but the government will never do that."

              They cannot hear that last part.  Their neurons seem to freeze on the first part.

          •  4) People pushing reasonable strategies (6+ / 0-)

            that actually work.
            I have a three-part proposal:
            1: Mandatory background check on all sales, so that people who can't have guns can't get them easily.
            2: Registration, so that the change in title (like with cars) can be used to make sure the background check took place.
            3: Magazine cap at 10 rounds.

            1&2 cut down on the black market. Step 3 makes mass shooters slightly less lethal over the course of the event (more reloading, more chances to take the person down).

            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

            by Hayate Yagami on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:16:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  tipped for conversation (4+ / 0-)

              I agree with item #1.  Totally.

              Item two will work, only-if by some extraordinary measure, we go door-to-door and conduct an inventory.
              Otherwise, it exempts millions of firearms in existence.
              Vehicle titles have been the law since... 1969?
              If I want to buy a Packard V-12 there's no title exchange, despite the power of that automobile.

              Item three?  We're actually better with people having malfunctioning large magazines, than many small magazines of known reliability.  Loughner was tackled with a malfunction, not an out-of-ammunition situation.

              If he knew he was empty, and possed three 10-round magazines instead of that stupid 30-rounder?
              click-click bang.
              You'd need proverbial Super Man speed:  "Faster than a speeding bullet"

              •  re #2: (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bluesee, JayBat, a2nite, 43north

                I'd settle for grandfathering in older weapons if it meant that we could start registering the new ones. Certainly not a perfect solution, but I'll gladly take a that over not moving  at all.

                "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                by Hayate Yagami on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:51:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  One can be okay with universal background checks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas

          and still think they won't work.  Criminals can and will still buy them illegally, as they do now.  Unless you put a monitor in every garage, living room and back alley in the country....private sales will still remain private.

          But if this passes, I'm okay with it.  I have to do a background check now to buy a gun, and I will do one in the future, if I need to.  It makes no difference to me, as I am legal to own one.

        •  Your referring to my post and I do support (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, zett

          background checks, just not in the way that most are thinking of it.  The focus has been on a per-transaction check which I think ultimately won't achieve the goal unless it were accompanied by registration, which I don't support.  I think that there is a better way through expanding the permit system.  I am planning on writing a post about this subject soon.  In a nutshell, I would advocate you need a permit to have a gun, buy ammo, etc, and the permit is where the background check is done.

      •  A problem with limiting it to dealers is all those (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        guys whom the hunters usually never see, who traffic guns between states, trading on the non background checks in the purchase states, and no registration of transfers in the receiving states. With universal background checks, ATF will be able to pick up those who routinely traffic guns interstate, over time.

      •  That's why I personally want registration (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, JayBat

        first off, it'd be as burdensome as what hundreds of millions already do with their cars without even thinking about it.
        Second, it cuts down on chances of straw buying. "Guns found in crimes seem to keep going through this guy. Hmmmm..."
        Third, it makes the mandatory background check work. Just like with cars, if you sell it, even the "Here's my shotgun Frank, $150. Fine, here ya go." case would need to go through the process of changing the ownership over to Frank, and there's where you can put the background check.

        "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

        by Hayate Yagami on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:09:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site