Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: today on MHP [View all]
 

branford

(4,462 posts)
17. I support UBC's so long as there are protections against registration lists and the cost is minimal.
Sat Jan 9, 2016, 03:43 PM
Jan 2016

I support them because most gun sales already have them, they're usually performed within minutes and add no significant administrative burden, time or expense to the transaction, and it mostly eliminates the need to define who is a "dealer" under the BATFE rules.

However, UBC's are still a solution in search of a problem. They would not have stopped any of the mass shooting over the last decade or two, nor the vast majority of all other gun crime, accidents, or suicide. Calls for UBC's in response to such shootings are totally disingenuous, and little more than "not letting a crisis go to waste." That's why proposed UBC legislation is almost always combined with other gun control wish list items like "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits, and similarly the reason why such legislation is rejected out of hand.

Gun rights proponent are not stupid. We recognize a strategy of incrementalism by gun control advocates. Just as abortion rights advocates always (and quite correctly) strenuously oppose all seeming minor and ancillary abortion "safety" regulations because they know the intent of the sponsors and their ultimate goals, it's entirely unsurprising that many gun right advocates react the same way to "gun safety" proposals, particularly when advocated by the same people who routinely and historically have demanded far greater restrictions on firearms, including both President Obama and Secretary Clinton and their support for the Australian system as a model for American gun control, i.e., prohibition and confiscation.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

today on MHP [View all] Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 OP
What's dishonest is using this one example SecularMotion Jan 2016 #1
as I have said many times Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #2
You just said you supported background checks SecularMotion Jan 2016 #3
yes, because it is true Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #4
Your claims are ridiculous and your questions are irrelevant. SecularMotion Jan 2016 #6
but that how the pundits Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #7
I'll offer a counter question. flamin lib Jan 2016 #10
many collisions are stopped Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #11
No, Ducky, admit it. Your arguments are specious. flamin lib Jan 2016 #12
this is about background checks, nice try at Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #13
Your case could be bolstered by an example or two ... DonP Jan 2016 #8
my guess is he will not respond Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #9
He posted more in this thread than in his own group for a month n/t DonP Jan 2016 #14
I know, lol Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #15
You can support background checks while detailing the reasons why they're ineffetive, GGJohn Jan 2016 #5
Says the anecdote king. krispos42 Jan 2016 #16
yes, indeed so Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #19
I support UBC's so long as there are protections against registration lists and the cost is minimal. branford Jan 2016 #17
good response, thank you Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #18
As a purely practical matter, I believe UBC's are chip I could see being bargained away branford Jan 2016 #20
Bargained? Yes. beevul Jan 2016 #27
There is NO logic in the position that no gun measure is worth considering unless 100% effective in hlthe2b Jan 2016 #21
so who is saying that? Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #22
I won't give you the time it would take to spew back your gungeon posts... but they are there. hlthe2b Jan 2016 #23
typical, just posting insults Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #24
Nice strawman argument. branford Jan 2016 #25
Generally, it's the anti-gunners that expect 100 percent effectiveness beardown Jan 2016 #26
And if they don't get it, they push another law! Makes perfect sense. Eleanors38 Jan 2016 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»today on MHP»Reply #17