Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Coburn implies that he will not support UBC if it entails record keeping

  1. #1
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495

    Coburn implies that he will not support UBC if it entails record keeping

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2LwV1Rs9N

    Would UBCs be conducted via an honor system wherein the buyer shows the seller his concealed carry permit? If so, what are gun owners in Illinois and the various may issue hell holes supposed to do? Even if UBC passes in a form that ostensibly does not entail backdoor registration, it would seem to involve unfairness, along with a violation of liberty. I want us to completely demoralize these tyrants by not even allowing them to have a hollow, symbolic law passed (such as UBC sans any record keeping).

  2. #2
    Regular Member optiksguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Town of Herndon, VA
    Posts
    69
    It doesn't matter what law says, it's naive to think that any information contained in a background check sent to the government in electronic form is not being stored.

    Even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no information is retained, it's not clear to me why the government should be involved in how I dispose of my personal property. If the government is involved, it's not really a 'private sale', is it?

  3. #3
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by optiksguy View Post
    It doesn't matter what law says, it's naive to think that any information contained in a background check sent to the government in electronic form is not being stored.
    I have heard that one version of UBC would involve simply showing your concealed carry permit to the seller, with no information transmitted via telephone or the Internet.

    Even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no information is retained, it's not clear to me why the government should be involved in how I dispose of my personal property. If the government is involved, it's not really a 'private sale', is it?
    I completely agree.
    Last edited by minarchist; 02-25-2013 at 11:58 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    I have heard that one version of UBC would involve simply showing your concealed carry permit to the seller, with no information transmitted via telephone or the Internet.



    I completely agree.
    Sounds good to me.... But it should then be a RIGHT to have a CWL. Once you are age 21 you should only be denied one if you are positively disqualified (Violent Felony, Mental health danger determination by a court). The processing fee should be no more than $50. No training required. A pamphlet on legal carry and use in your state should be provided with the license and an updated one with each renewal (every 5 years). Gun safety should instead be taught Eddie-Eagle style in schools, and where possible there should be an opportunity for students to actually fire a .22 rifle at a range.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Show a CWP to prove what, that you are a good guy. Is the CWP in lieu of a background check? What would be the requirements for a citizen in a state such as AZ? Are we to compel the citizens of AZ to take a step backwards in our works to restore liberty?

    Entertaining the notion that a debate on a universal background check system is even reasonable is anti-liberty. We entertain no such notions if the discussion is private or retail vehicle sales. The implications are disturbing and profound when self proclaimed gun rights advocates entertain such anti-liberty discussions.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    ...But it should then be a RIGHT to have a CWL...
    Since "L" stands for "license," that sentence essentially says that we have a right to a license!?!

    No. You have a right to carry. A right to carry without a license! If that is OC only, without permission to conceal, so be it. But it is the right to CARRY that should be unfettered and unlicensed.

    In Ohio (similar to Alabama) we almost have that. The only things that stand in the way are carry in a car requiring a license and GFSZ.

    Anyway, I just had to point out the internal contradiction of saying that we have a right to a license.

  7. #7
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Show a CWP to prove what, that you are a good guy. Is the CWP in lieu of a background check? What would be the requirements for a citizen in a state such as AZ? Are we to compel the citizens of AZ to take a step backwards in our works to restore liberty?

    Entertaining the notion that a debate on a universal background check system is even reasonable is anti-liberty. We entertain no such notions if the discussion is private or retail vehicle sales. The implications are disturbing and profound when self proclaimed gun rights advocates entertain such anti-liberty discussions.
    discussing the news != endorsing the content of the news

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    discussing the news != endorsing the content of the news
    It is news that there is a UBC debate. It is anti-liberty to engage in the debate. It is not anti-liberty to discuss the news coverage of the UBC debate. I would hope that the distinction is now clear to those who may have held a similar view to yours.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It is news that there is a UBC debate. It is anti-liberty to engage in the debate. It is not anti-liberty to discuss the news coverage of the UBC debate. I would hope that the distinction is now clear to those who may have held a similar view to yours.
    It is not anti-liberty to say that UBC in any form would involve some degree of infringement of our liberties and then to state opposition to any form of UBC. That would be pro-liberty.

    Where, precisely, is our disagreement?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •