Coburn BG Check Proposal

[Li'l Beaver]

NO WAY JOSE! No infringement of the 2nd Amendment is the only thing I will support.

How is this an "infringement"?

The entire permit process and background checks are an infringement on our 2A rights. That being said the government already has all the laws they need if the Criminal Justice System and the Law Enforcement agencies will simply do their jobs in an unbiased manner!

[Holland&Holland]

Well, you can't get what you want. According to your logic, someone could bring forth a suppressor bill, or a reciprocity bill, and you'd oppose it because someone might attach a magazine limit to it.

A more open NICS system is good for *everyone*. It's ridiculous beyond belief that pro gun people would even consider opposing this, much like a suppressor or a national reciprocity bill.

Oh wait... FFLs might oppose it because they'd lose business. So I guess it's not good for everyone.

That is not my logic, that is your logic assuming you know what I would and would not oppose.

[Heffay]

That is not my logic, that is your logic assuming you know what I would and would not oppose.

I'm trying to figure out your logic for opposing something that benefits us. Maybe you can clarify it a bit better?

[Holland&Holland]

That is not my logic, that is your logic assuming you know what I would and would not oppose.

I'm trying to figure out your logic for opposing something that benefits us. Maybe you can clarify it a bit better?

How does it benefit us?

[Heffay]

How does it benefit us?

Because I want a way to sell a gun to someone I don't know and be able to do a NICS check on them without going through an FFL.

This opens up NICS to everyone. How is this a bad thing for us in *any* way? It's like saying you don't want to have reciprocity, because you never plan on leaving the state. Therefore nobody should have it.

[Erud]

How does it benefit us?

Because I want a way to sell a gun to someone I don't know and be able to do a NICS check on them without going through an FFL.

I don't know that it really matters what you want. Clearly, background checks don't prevent criminals from getting guns. Also, people that can pass a background check can still commit crimes, or their guns can be stolen, etc by others who will. Life is dangerous.

If you are that concerned, the obvious answer would be for you to not sell any guns to people you don't know. Don't need any new laws for that.

[Heffay]

I don't know that it really matters what you want. Clearly, background checks don't prevent criminals from getting guns. Also, people that can pass a background check can still commit crimes, or their guns can be stolen, etc by others who will. Life is dangerous.

If you are that concerned, the obvious answer would be for you to not sell any guns to people you don't know. Don't need any new laws for that.

I guess I can't think of a single scenario where someone would want to sell a gun to someone they didn't know that well.

[Mn01r6]

How does it benefit us?

Because I want a way to sell a gun to someone I don't know and be able to do a NICS check on them without going through an FFL.

This opens up NICS to everyone. How is this a bad thing for us in *any* way? It's like saying you don't want to have reciprocity, because you never plan on leaving the state. Therefore nobody should have it.

To be fair, I think Obama could open up NICS to everyone with an executive order...he just won't because it won't further his goals.

[Erud]

I don't know that it really matters what you want. Clearly, background checks don't prevent criminals from getting guns. Also, people that can pass a background check can still commit crimes, or their guns can be stolen, etc by others who will. Life is dangerous.

If you are that concerned, the obvious answer would be for you to not sell any guns to people you don't know. Don't need any new laws for that.

I guess I can't think of a single scenario where someone would want to sell a gun to someone they didn't know that well.

Yes, yes, my comment was directed towards you, not everybody. You are the one wringing your hands with sorry over it. If it scares you, don't do it. No new laws needed.

[Heffay]

Yes, yes, my comment was directed towards you, not everybody. You are the one wringing your hands with sorry over it. If it scares you, don't do it. No new laws needed.

I can understand your concern. Senator Coburn is a notorious gun-grabber and anything he proposes should be automatically opposed out of principle...

[Holland&Holland]

How does it benefit us?

Because I want a way to sell a gun to someone I don't know and be able to do a NICS check on them without going through an FFL.

This opens up NICS to everyone. How is this a bad thing for us in *any* way? It's like saying you don't want to have reciprocity, because you never plan on leaving the state. Therefore nobody should have it.

No, once again you are wrong. Here is my logic, NICS is bad, the law should read, get rid of NICs. Simple.

[Erud]

Yes, yes, my comment was directed towards you, not everybody. You are the one wringing your hands with sorry over it. If it scares you, don't do it. No new laws needed.

I can understand your concern. Senator Coburn is a notorious gun-grabber and anything he proposes should be automatically opposed out of principle...

And your point would be what, exactly? That he is a generally pro-2A senator so I need to support every stupid idea he comes up with?

Like I keep trying to explain to you, we don't need any more useless laws just to make you feel good about selling your guns.

[ex-LT]

How does it benefit us?

Because I want a way to sell a gun to someone I don't know and be able to do a NICS check on them without going through an FFL.

This opens up NICS to everyone. How is this a bad thing for us in *any* way? It's like saying you don't want to have reciprocity, because you never plan on leaving the state. Therefore nobody should have it.

One word. Incrementalism

Most gun owners look at what has happened to our rights in the past and have enough sense to realize that the anti Second Amendment crowd isn't going to be happy with voluntary checks. If you can't see that, you're one of three things: Naive, Blind, or a troll.

[Heffay]

One word. Incrementalism

Most gun owners look at what has happened to our rights in the past and have enough sense to realize that the anti Second Amendment crowd isn't going to be happy with voluntary checks. If you can't see that, you're one of three things: Naive, Blind, or a troll.

It's incrementalism in the way that getting a suppressor bill passed is incrementalism.

[ex-LT]

One word. Incrementalism

Most gun owners look at what has happened to our rights in the past and have enough sense to realize that the anti Second Amendment crowd isn't going to be happy with voluntary checks. If you can't see that, you're one of three things: Naive, Blind, or a troll.

It's incrementalism in the way that getting a suppressor bill passed is incrementalism.

No, like others have said, it's one more step in the erosion of our 2A rights by those who would prefer that private gun ownership be outlawed. This proposal was put forth to appease the anti-2A crowd, and I will GUARAN-DAMN-TEE you the anti-2A crowd won't stop at voluntary background checks. In fact, I'll wager $100 right now that if Coburn's proposal/bill is passed and signed into law, the anti-2A crowd will come back with a proposal to "strengthen" the law by requiring that all private party sales go through the process before President Obama leaves office. Then, because there won't be any way to confirm that the check took place, they'll want registration of all handguns and EBRs.

If that isn't incrementalism, nothing is. I stand by my previous statement. If you can't see the incrementalism, you're naive, blind or a troll.


I know how to use emoticons, too.