Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

[Skiprr]

That said, the NRA, as good as they have been on many gun issues, has long had a history of compromising on our rights.

I strongly disagree. Other than the 1968 FOPA which gained far more than it conceded, please describe for me the NRA's "long...history of compromising on our rights."

BTW, here's a report resulting from the NRA's backing of that controversial 1968 FOPA, a report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

I am a Patron Member of the NRA; I am not unbiased. I have been a member for decades. I believe this organization to be our best bastion against federal infringement of our Second Amendment rights.

Again, explain to me me how the NRA has a long history of compromising our Second Amendment rights.

[mgood]

Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back.

BINGO!!!

Shall-issue concealed carry in 44 states would contradict that notion.

It is always worth fighting for liberty. I do agree it is preferable to keep a right than have to win it back.

Concealed Carry permits, period, are an example of the erosion of our 2A rights. God-given rights, only affirmed by the document, not granted by government. As a citizen of this land, you would think that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means six states, the District of Columbia, and countless territories and principalities are already an exception. We already know that one's permit (government approval) in a certain state does not grant them a right to bear arms in another state without a reciprocity agreement (government approval). The whole licensing system is an infringement on our rights. If you are poor and are just scratching by and happen to live in a rough area, how do you figure spending $85 on a course, another amount for the state, and simply waiting 4-6 for the process to run aren't infringing upon his ability to keep and bear arms?

Or, take MA as an example. They have a licensing process there called a "License to Carry". It cost upwards of $300, take 6 - 9 months to finish the process, and the local police chief can tell you to pound sand. And, by the way, in Massachusetts, you need the license just to own a weapon. How that doesn't infringe on the 2A, I don't know.

I agree that we should not have to have the government's permission to bear arms (CHL).
BUT having CHL is better than where we were in 1995, which was no concealed carry.
If we took the all-or-nothing stance, we would still be unable to legally carry.

[Jumping Frog]

I believe what is being inferred to here is the notion that "doing something" whether it is right or wrong, just to appease public sentiment, whether they (general non-gun owning public) understand the issue or not, compromising for appearances sake is not something I support...

Yes, having 44 states on the "shall issue" column is a good thing, but that is not what this particular discussion is about...

I never expressed support for universal background checks. I simply addressed the statements that "Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back."

[Jumping Frog]

Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back.

BINGO!!!

Shall-issue concealed carry in 44 states would contradict that notion.

It is always worth fighting for liberty. I do agree it is preferable to keep a right than have to win it back.

Concealed Carry permits, period, are an example of the erosion of our 2A rights.

So is the glass half full or the glass half empty?

Your statement was "Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back." I was addressing that statement, and only that statement, as being defeatist and inaccurate.

Personally, I support the notion of Constitutional Carry. But one also has to recognize that before shall-issue concealed carry, there was no right to carry at all in most of those states. So instead of looking at concealed carry as an erosion of our rights, I look at concealed carry as substantial progress in the war to win back the rights that have long been lost.

You can't honestly be saying you would rather go back to the years before concealed carry in Texas when there was no legal way for an ordinary citizen to carry a handgun?

[stevie_d_64]

Your statement was "Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back." I was addressing that statement, and only that statement, as being defeatist and inaccurate.

Personally, I support the notion of Constitutional Carry...I look at concealed carry as substantial progress in the war to win back the rights that have long been lost.

You can't honestly be saying you would rather go back to the years before concealed carry in Texas when there was no legal way for an ordinary citizen to carry a handgun?

Ok, Lets look at Constitutional Carry (as you put it)...I believe the original intent of the Second Amendment is clear, not a lot of ambiguity there, except for those that wish to destroy individual freedoms and their ability to resist tyrrany...

Concealed carry laws only brought back (under extreme protest from those very type of folks that took it away "un-Constitutionally") what was lost with some restrictions (infringements) and conditions...That we took as a victory...

I can dig it...But why did we lose the right to keep and bear arms in the first place??? So that we could, years later, politically revive our original right to keep and bear arms, just because we wanted too???

I'm not denegrating the effort to get back this capability, I have always had that nagging little voice in the back of my head telling me "why did we lose it in the first place", and why a successful fight to fend off such an un-Constitutional effort not made???

And no, there is no need to recant the effort and return to the days before 1995 when we finally had a governor with the hutzpah to sign the bill...We would have had it in 1993, but we had a senile old biddy (my opinion and intended insult) who believed we Texans were too stupid to carry guns in the first place...

We lost it years before any of us were born, and in a political environment that is NOWHERE near the volatility/hostility is it now with the Fabian socialist waiting for their useful idiots to get these things done for them and their ultimate agenda...The fight to keep the right was, and should have been, a lot better to protect it and not lose it back in the day...

This is just my observation, and my opinion...

[Jumping Frog]

I can dig it...But why did we lose the right to keep and bear arms in the first place??? So that we could, years later, politically revive our original right to keep and bear arms, just because we wanted too???

I'm not denegrating the effort to get back this capability, I have always had that nagging little voice in the back of my head telling me "why did we lose it in the first place", and why a successful fight to fend off such an un-Constitutional effort not made???

You should google the "racist roots of gun control" and spend some time reading.

The first gun control laws were all aimed at disarming minority segments. In parts of the South, the portion of the population with the mentality that had "colored-only" and "whites-only" lunch counters also didn't want to be repressing a population who happened to be armed. In the north, for example, the Sullivan Law in NYC was aimed at the Jewish and Italian immigrants by the existing thugs in office who were predominantly Irish. Prior to 1960, most convictions for carrying illegal weapons were blacks, while ordinary law-abiding white citizens were virtually never charged (unless they were also committing other illegal acts at the same time, like robbery).

When the gun control movement gained steam in the 1960's, that is when all these existing laws started getting applied to a wider audience. Now you could be that middle-aged white barbershop owner who played poker with the local JP, yet still find yourself facing a weapons charge.

It was no different than now in this sense. The Ruling Class now certainly isn't going to charge that TV guy Gregory for the illegal magazine in Washington DC, or charge other members of the Ruling Class. These laws as aimed at controlling the masses. When the original gun control laws were passed, they were also passed with the intention of the Ruling Class exerting control over the "unwashed masses".

[stevie_d_64]

@Jumping Frog...

Yep, I understand and know that part of the history of this issue, that is what started it all...

And I am pretty sure most understand what is the driving force these days, that puts at risk our right to keep and bear arms now...

What we do about that threat is up to the individual...We can be passive, creative, innovative, or whatever moniker you want to hang on your approach to the matter...

I think we put too much trust into those we expect to defend these basic principles, because at the end of the day, if they fail, who is left???

Oh yeah, us...Almost like a one degree of separation from freedom to slavery...

Doesn't give you a warm and fuzzy does it???

[Jumping Frog]

What we do about that threat is up to the individual...We can be passive, creative, innovative, or whatever moniker you want to hang on your approach to the matter...

We are 100% in agreement here. In that regard, I've done more than some people, less than others. I've donated money, spoken with politicians, responded to "calls for action" via email, voice, and snail mail, testified in front of legislative committees, held protest signs in front of state houses and newspapers, and joined in open carry marches.

However, the most important one is my mind is acting as an ambassador for the gun culture in my everyday life. The only true way to safeguard our rights is to maintain a solid majority of voters supporting the Second Amendment, and those hearts and minds are convinced one person at a time.