I do seem to recall most of them support this.

And the problem with UBCs is getting compliance. If I sell my gun to somebody without getting a background check done, nobody will know about it until and unless it's used in a crime... at which point, it's too late to save anybody, isn't it?


But we can give it a shot, as long as you can figure out how to do it without mandatory registration. The system is in place and the FFLs abide by it already, so the framework is there.

During the revolutionary war guns were registered so that the militia leaders could know how many and which militia members could be called up.

Your paranoia should not interfere with the safety of American Society.

i.e., gun bans and "involuntary buybacks," better known as confiscation, anything even remotely resembling registration is a political non-starter.

While you may believe this is a feature, and not a bug, the vast majority of guns rights supporters will not even enter discussions with anyone proposing such draconian gun control, to say nothing of the fact that UBC legislation is almost always accompanied by other wish list gun control items like "assault weapon" bans, magazine limits, etc., that are certainly not supported by firearm owners and others, irrespective of NRA advocacy.

how a UBC can work without registration.

but you oppose them anyway.

But you'd oppose that just like we would, even though it would decrease gun violence.

Some measures are too ridiculous to be considered, obviously.

I personally think every school should teach every individual gun safety, which WOULD decrease gun violence, but you and many of your colleagues would oppose that anyway.

I personally think a huge suicide prevention campaign would do a ton to reduce gun violence, but you and your colleagues call that an 'nra talking point'.

More and more people are seeing that with you folks, the means (gun control) is far more important to you, than the ends (actually reducing gun violence).

That tipping point is already here.

...with failing to register a gun, right?

Possessing a gun, yes. Failing to register a gun, no. 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate.

And it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. Bans are proposed all the time. There are people out there grimly determined to remove as much firepower from the public as possible, in as incremental a fashion as needed.

So excuse me for not trusting Chuck Schumer or Diane Feinstein or Michael Bloomberg.


The problem YOU face is that UBC with registration is DOA. Your side's accomplishments in Australia pretty much kills anything that resembles registration.

You want gun owners to trust the same government that crushes whistleblowers, massively spies on as aspects of its citizens as technologically possible regardless of legality or constitutionality. That uses that information in God knows what ways, but doubtless involves blackmail, subpoenas, investigations, prison, trials, threats of lost jobs and families, and professional disrepute.

Sorry.


And wouldn't lower the crime rate. It would, however, put more Republicans and their crime-increasing socio-economic policies in power.

where Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin ordered firearm confiscation. The video of the officers stealing the firearm of an elderly woman who was high and dry with plenty of water and food, while aired by Fox, was shown nationwide. When property is taken, particularly with no receipt by officials, that is classified as theft. To my everlasting horror, these two Democrats issued orders in direct violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments. We are the party of laws, not police state thuggery. Oh, and note that when an injunction objecting to the seizure of weapons was made in Federal district court, the City of New Orleans, in its response, stated that no weapons were seized, nor were any held, even though vidoe was shown nationwide of the Chief of Police stating that only police could have firearms and over 1100 weapons were videoed held in a repository. Nope, gun control proponents were totally and perfectly honest about this issue. Of course, these statements were made by politicians and their subordinates, and a politician would NEVER EVER lie or misconstrue the truth now (cough Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al).

So pardon my absolute conviction that registration lists would never be used for confiscation as much a fairy tale as Aesop's fable, only with less truth involved in the fables.

And unlike 99.9% of gun control advocates, I put my money where my
mouth (or keyboard) is...

Every time it has come up, they can't control themselves and the gun control wing (I'm looking at you DiFi) demands adding every bell and whistle assault weapon ban, magazine restrictions, bayonet lug control, registration et. al. on any UBC bill until even Harry Reid won't vote for it.

They can't help themselves.

Plus, it's another automatic fund raising letter to all of us; "... just $3 from you can help me save lives on the streets of (fill in the blank city name here) ...".

It is the other stupid shit like bans and registration we object to.

Its never enough though, is it?

Each time they get what they want, they come back asking for something else they've had on their list for decades.

I've yet to see one of them answer this question (other than the honest banners):

How much gun control is enough?

A repeal of the 2A along with complete confiscation of all firearms and mandatory jail time for convictions of firearm possession. That would be enough for me.

That you would support something that would inevitably lead to violent unrest and bloodshed in order to advance an astoundingly short-sighted and ultimately useless agenda is rather telling.

I think you are simply making excuses to justify your fears and gun idolatry.

If the (literally) millions of gun owners who would resist confiscation were willing to commit bloodshed w/o such a law being enacted, they'd already be doing so, and the annual death toll from gun crime would go from 11k to a hundred times that number. Your assertion makes about as much rational sense as your infantile telepsychoanalysis.

The irony in your thought process is amazing. So a gun nut, tremendously enraged by his loss of freedom to own his 500 guns, would willingly commit a crime and intentionally lose all of his other freedoms? All of those freedoms mean less than owning a gun? That is illogical to say the least. It makes no sense, but that is par for the course for gun nuts.

If a vigorously-pursued confiscation law is passed and acted upon, there will be widespread violent resistance. And yes, at first, those who resisted would lose their freedom (and likely their lives, as well). But such actions on the part of those enforcing the confiscation would be rather like our nation's idiotic actions in the Middle East: they'd only increase the level of resistance. The less than 750,000 LEOs with arrest powers in the US are not remotely capable of suppressing that resistance, once the ball got rolling (and don't fool yourself: a big chunk of law enforcement wouldn't follow orders to conduct confiscations in the first place...rank-and-file cops overwhelmingly support civilian gun ownership).

I really don't think you comprehend how strongly a big chunk of gun owners feel about this...

Think about the societal and political change necessary to repeal the 2A and adopt bans and confiscations. Somehow in that society according to the pro-gun crowd, every single gun nut is trigger happy and soon to be a criminal while law enforcement would still support the old days where the 2A was still alive and in effect. Talk about living in the past!

When our society reaches that point - and it is coming, even if it is 40-50 years away - those most unwilling to give up their guns are the ones most in need of having their guns removed. Where's a time machine so I can travel to that far more civilized society?

There are few, if any, signs of such a change (assuming you're not naive enough to believe those hilariously off-target "gun ownership is shrinking" polls).

Long before such a shift in societal paradigms concerning guns takes place, I expect the union as currently constituted to fragment, USSR-style. I'd expect something like 6-10 regional polities to be the result, and I'm living in one ("Cascadia&quot that would be highly unlikely to move in a direction away from civilian gun ownership...mostly because we don't have any real need to do so.

So I have to give you credit for honesty.

...I agree, UBCs might be a good idea. Some folks object because of the requirement for registration be needed to ENFORCE the UBC law. I look at a publicly available BC system as a tool lawful gun owners can use to assure the person to whom the sell can be known as not prohibited. I fundamentally trust my neighbor and believe that making it easier for folks to do the right thing is always of benefit to society.

The speed limit is such a law. Sure there are cops out running speed traps ( http://www.speedtrap.org/ ) but having posted speed limit is an aid to any driver less familiar with the certain section of road who wants to remain safe.

I don't expect UBCs to eliminate unlawful trafficking, I just expect it to make it easier and less costly for a gun owner who wants to sell a gun to be sure about the prospective buying.

without a repeal of large chunks of NFA, GCA, and of course the Hughes Amendment. We also need national carry reciprocity. I think it's foolish to support UBCs without compromise from gun control advocates. As soon as UBCs are a matter of law then what comes next? Licensing, registration, rifle bans, ammo restrictions, taxes, lengthy waiting periods, training, fingerprint submissions, DD 214 reviews if applicable, copies of your vital records, trips to notary publics for various government forms, multiple trips to the local PD for the application, purchase, and registration process, approved product rosters, and various forms of tomfoolery associated with the background investigation including interviews with your employer, friends, family, and physician, along with CLEO sign off. That's just on the buyers side, think about what they will do to FFLs.

Look at what's involved with buying a firearm in NYC, and that's the intermediate term vision for gun control advocates. Here's the "easy" process for a hunting rifle or shotgun, notice that it could take one year to complete. http://newyorkcityguns.com/getting-a-nyc-rifleshotgun-permit/

And NYC isn't the center of the universe despite what New Yorkers think.

There is nothing wrong with universal background checks or mandatory waiting periods for first time buyers.

We've given enough in terms of restrictions on the right. It's time to start pushing for repeals on the nonsense gun control. I view UBCs as the bargaining chip.

We've got more states being progressive about guns than ever before.

I see this as the time to put the pedal to the metal. No more capitulating to gun controllers. I view "progressive" as meaning in favor of restoring key portions of our 2nd Amendment rights.

3% wannabes?

Those clowns are worse then the open carry loons.

I agree with you on the national carry.

With the largest portion of gun deaths being suicide. Do you think a waiting period for first time purchases might help?

doesn't suggest any noticeable decrease in the overall rate of suicide or homicide in association with waiting periods. There has been some cherry picked statistical analysis that indicates a correlation between firearm related suicide rates for those 55 and older and waiting periods...but no such correlation with the overall suicide rate has been noted. The same can be said of FOID programs and the overall suicide rate.

Japanese citizens are essentially prohibited from owning guns, yet they have a much higher suicide rate. Lots of other countries do too.

I consider waiting periods a form of prior restraint against a constitutionally protected right. I liken it to receiving government approval before engaging in activities protected by the 1st Amendment.

I lived in a big city and had to wait a month while it got slow walked through. Then I moved out to suburbia and that did't happen. It also has the potential for abuse just like safe storage laws.

They say 22 veterans kill themselves every day. I'd like to see a study on those numbers done. I wonder how many of those that were committed with a firearm that was purchased within a week. That should be pretty easy info to get since they are prob tied to the VA.

You view UBC's as a bargaining chip. I was a NRA member, certified instructor, shot IPSC when it was just getting started. I left because they went from a gun safety group to a"pry it from my cold dead hands" group. I still teach some classes and I am seriously thinking of joining again. Maybe if enough of us start sounding off they may change back.

Your 1st Amendment right isn't going to turn someones head into a canoe. A lot of people hate any type of government involvement when it comes to firearms. I can understand that. Without some rules and regulations someone is just going to shit in your meat.

And speaking of meat. Doe season starts today (we can kill 3 a day here) I'm off to the stand. I've got a week to get 4-5 in the freezer. That is what we eat all year.

Have two does so far.