Says whom?
King Hussein has nothing to lose and even less time to lose it. The nutjob-in-chief wants to leave a legacy. I doubt he cares how.
To answer my previous question, I believe the answer to be 1952.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Gun Control - A what-if scenario
- Thread starter endus
- Start date
Says whom?
King Hussein has nothing to lose and even less time to lose it. The nutjob-in-chief wants to leave a legacy. I doubt he cares how.
To answer my previous question, I believe the answer to be 1952.
Interesting, cool, I like these too.
You read a lot of bravado on gun boards, but almost everyone has some level that they'd be willing to accept or even trade for better consistency and elimination of the more retarded laws.
What I take from you and Beansie's posts is that reform of the NFA system WOULD be another requirement, but complete elimination of the very idea of the NFA WOULD NOT be a deal breaker.
I talk about this stuff with liberals sometimes and I like to see if I can convince the sides to get to some common ground. The NFA stuff will be tough to argue since it's more technical, but I agree with you completely. SBR and suppressors are pretty silly restrictions.
It isn't about what gun owners want in a direct sense, it's about gun politics. The whole thing is over when the pro gun reps and senators get enough hate mail from constituents about this. The fudds aren't going to do much, either. Look at the reaction to national reciprocity. Even that is only partially supported on a national level. Most pro gun pols don't want to piss anyone off, they'd rather do nothing than make a decision that would piss off a ton of constituents.
Yeah but you're only worried about complying because of 2 states (NY, NJ) maybe 4 if you have no license in MA or CT. States you can just ignore and drive through with FOPA. That's like what... 2% of the land mass of the US? (not even). Not worth losing a shitload of ground over. Not to mention there is no guarantee that they won't keep trying to **** gun owners, particularly people from out of state.
Don't fool yourself- they'll never shut up until they get a complete gun ban. They'll always be bitching about something. Look at the UK as an example, now they're cutting the points off of knives and shit like that over there. Everything is banned but they're still bitching. Besides, why would you want to concede something that only a tiny minority wants? Antis are a pack of yipping, ankle biting Chihuahuas right now, at best.
-Mike
The problem with trading is nearly everything you can "trade away" is a VERY dangerous trade. It's not just about saying "oh lets do UBC on all private sales" there will always be some garbage attached to that, some piece of shit. Some crap that makes innocuous things illegal that are not currently illegal. (like private gun sales between two adults in a free state).
-Mike
- - - Updated - - -
That shit costs money. What is he going to do, twirl around and make a budget materialize?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Is he going to hypnotize congress into funding anti gun shit at the federal level? That's rich. Loosen the tinfoil a bit. -Mike
There's that word again.
There's no point in shutting down talking points if talking is not their intention.
How can you find common ground with people who really have no clue what they are talking about (95% of anti's have no clue on gun laws and guns themselves) and want to ban everything but muskets.
They will never be content until guns are banned.
AllaSnackbah
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,245
- Likes
- 11,350
dont we already have national reciprocity? something in the bill of rights or something idk, thats the one i follow when i travel.
AHM
NES Member
There's at least one alternative to a nationwide reciprocity mechanism. A Federal license could be implemented in parallel to all other Federal/State/Local regulations (as opposed to just eliminating them). It could allow the holder to bypass any lesser regulations - like LEOSA on steroids for normal people. There's always the minor detail of passing it, of course.
But an important downside of a Federal license is the risk that a later Congress could screw around with it, as outlined here:
Worse, a snake pit like the Mass. legislature could lash out in spite and gut the state licensing scheme, forcing residents to go Federal. That would be fatal if the Federal scheme was subsequently weakened, leaving people no alternative safe harbor even in the laws of their own state.
This notion of keeping the license unweakened with a supermajority rule made me realize something:
Folks are pining for a right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the US Constitution. If only we had that...
But the nation could get healthy gun rights without involving Congress - via case law or an amendment. Either a few more significant SCOTUS wins in the sequence Heller, McDonald, ... (May prove to depend on who names replacement justices).
-or-
Replacing the Second with an amendment that says what we want it to mean.
NJ, NY, CA, MA, CT, HI all have a fair degree of suck. Add a few more of your least favorite states to the list. But we don't need 50 states - we only need 38. An amendment could be pure poison to as many as 12 stateloads of moonbats, and it wouldn't matter a whit.
So here's an important question:
Q: What could one put in a "2A V2.0" that the voters of 38 states would be willing to pass?
This highlights how important it is to keep gun rights healthy in the flyover states.
But an important downside of a Federal license is the risk that a later Congress could screw around with it, as outlined here:
Worse, a snake pit like the Mass. legislature could lash out in spite and gut the state licensing scheme, forcing residents to go Federal. That would be fatal if the Federal scheme was subsequently weakened, leaving people no alternative safe harbor even in the laws of their own state.
This notion of keeping the license unweakened with a supermajority rule made me realize something:
Folks are pining for a right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the US Constitution. If only we had that...
But the nation could get healthy gun rights without involving Congress - via case law or an amendment. Either a few more significant SCOTUS wins in the sequence Heller, McDonald, ... (May prove to depend on who names replacement justices).
-or-
Replacing the Second with an amendment that says what we want it to mean.
NJ, NY, CA, MA, CT, HI all have a fair degree of suck. Add a few more of your least favorite states to the list. But we don't need 50 states - we only need 38. An amendment could be pure poison to as many as 12 stateloads of moonbats, and it wouldn't matter a whit.
So here's an important question:
Q: What could one put in a "2A V2.0" that the voters of 38 states would be willing to pass?
This highlights how important it is to keep gun rights healthy in the flyover states.
Obama may have little to lose, but the democratic party has a lot to lose.
While it is technically possible to implement a form of "universal" background check which cannot readily be perverted into a firearms and firearms owner registry, but of course the actual long-term goals of UBC proponents would not be served by such a solution, so it'll never happen.
So no, the president can't and won't just make up new laws on a whim.
While it is technically possible to implement a form of "universal" background check which cannot readily be perverted into a firearms and firearms owner registry, but of course the actual long-term goals of UBC proponents would not be served by such a solution, so it'll never happen.
Nothing. At this point, there is no proposed "reform" possible that wouldn't be perceived as a trap. They could offer up repeal of the Hughes Amendment and interstate private sales in exchange for a truly anonymized UBC, and nobody would trust them.
You are wrong. Obama knows how far a president can go with Executive Actions and Executive Orders (not the same thing), and will not grossly overstep the boundaries. Obama's favorite directive, the "executive action" must be couched as directions to Federal agencies to act on existing laws, cannot make new law. And the more powerful Executive orders, while having the full force of law, are limited in scope to areas where the President has power, either granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution or delegated by congress.
So no, the president can't and won't just make up new laws on a whim.
Yes, Obama wants to leave a legacy, but I doubt he wants that legacy to be the USSC greatly reining in the power and scope of the Executive branch!
How about earlier this year, when the Supreme Court upheld a hold on Obama's immigration "Actions"? Or if you want truly struck down, most recent was 2001 when the Supreme Court overturned President Clinton's Executive Order 13155.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,500
Federally mandated reciprocity affects all states. Just imagine all the tourists to the big apple going armed.
MachineHead
NES Member
Federally mandated reciprocity with no quid pro quos would be a good start.
Give us something with us having zero intentions of giving anything up.
Give us something with us having zero intentions of giving anything up.
you know....the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the people from the government. Basically that is the line up to an which the government is allowed to go. They can't cross it. Yet time after time politicians, people and scotus have slipped though that line like a hot knife through butter.
It's time we take back our rights and undo these infringements.
As a first step...maybe take your suggestion. But as the ultimate step I would like any and all gun control repealed. Only part of your initial step I disagree with is that you specify concealed carry. That is an infringement on my rights to bear arms. The government should not be dictating how i carry a firearm. But since it's an interim step towards a total repeal I could live with it for say....six months.
I would also like machine gun bans eliminated as well.
It's time we take back our rights and undo these infringements.
As a first step...maybe take your suggestion. But as the ultimate step I would like any and all gun control repealed. Only part of your initial step I disagree with is that you specify concealed carry. That is an infringement on my rights to bear arms. The government should not be dictating how i carry a firearm. But since it's an interim step towards a total repeal I could live with it for say....six months.
I would also like machine gun bans eliminated as well.
How about civil rights monitors. For every state that the liberals want investigated for whether their policies on voter ID are violating certain people's civil rights, a state with strict gun control must be investigated for whether its policies are violating civil rights. Bonus points if said monitors must be background checked to ensure they don't come from an area of "known undue bias" [CA,MA,NJ,NY]
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
I am sure the moonbats would LOVE reading about how their state and policies are being investigated for violating people's rights.
No, I totally understand. Im just curious how gun owners feel about what they might want or trade. I've talked in a lot of threads about what I think the Republican party should/could do to win, even though I don't vote Republican (I vote Libertarian, before anyone starts crying)...so I understand that wants and ideologies cannot be separated from political realities, but sometimes I find it interesting to talk just about one or the other.
The fact that a lot of people here are/were MA residents makes it even more interesting, because I view MA as somewhat of a worse case scenario. The, "assault weapon" nonsense is better here than in CA, but the weird shit with pistols, the discretionary licensing, etc. does provide a good example of what can go wrong.
CT and RI have some wacky laws about, "assault weapons" too, though I believe? Concealed carry in NY would also be a fairly big deal for anyone who goes there often enough.
I agree that its a small portion of the land mass, but on the other hand you have a fuuuuuuccckkkiiiiingggg shitload of fudds out there in freedom land that don't really know how good they have it. Polls on the subject are never going to be reliable, but we can confidently say there is a contingent of gun owners out there who either would accept, or even actively want, more gun control.
Packaging something palatable where we would get some wins out of the deal might be a way to avoid a greater evil. Or, maybe it wouldn't...that's what the thread is about.
I think advocates of a total gun ban....ones that would be willing to go to the political mat for it...are pretty few and far between. I think we're different than Britain. Restricting "assault weapons" in an actually meaningful way is a serious political danger, though.
Originally, I was going to try to insert some provision where these points would, "settle' the gun control debate for some length of time, but you can never guarantee that. That and the problems that could arise from licensing are the two best arguments against this, in my view.
Rob you missed the point: Most of the op's "want" list does not currently affect most of the country in any way. Thus, why would they ever agree to national reciprocity when it would only erode their current rights?
Who cares about NYC, luckily they only get a vote or two in the senate.
If we can't have something like FOPA actually work then how do we expect national reciprocity to work? Every liberal state would have their own pet interpretation of what it meant.
In essence nothing would change: The only reason we need reciprocity is the policy of those liberal states.
Agree. That's definitely one of the things I'm getting from this thread.
I think this is another very good point, and its something I really stress in conversations with liberals. In line with what rlee said, I think their unwillingness to understand what they are talking about shows that a reasonable compromise is not what's on their minds.
I saw some talking head show where the liberal guy got corrected on magazine vs. clip and literally in the next sentence he said he used "clip" again. They actively TRY to remain ignorant.
I think if there was more intelligent rhetoric from the left they might make some headway on their agenda - their ignorance undermines what they are trying to do.
- - - Updated - - -
What do you mean?
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,165
- Likes
- 170
documented transfers? You want me to document when I hand a friend my new handgun when we take it out to shoot for the first time? Uh no.
I might be willing to consider universal background checks (of transfers of ownership only) as a token gesture IFF
a) it was absolutely illegal for any agency or group to keep records of the background checks and all forms of registration of guns and/or gun owners was banned nationally.
b) marijuana convictions or use was completely removed from the suitability requirements
c) all of OP's positive offers were secured
d) suppressors were removed from the NFA
I'm willing to allow due process of law to prevent violent criminals from buying guns above the counter to satisfy the people who think that this does any good in return for the aforementioned concessions from the authoritarians. However, licenses for gun ownership are absolutely a non-starter for me. Either something is a right that can't be denied without due process or it's a privilege, and gun ownership is not a privilege.
a) it was absolutely illegal for any agency or group to keep records of the background checks and all forms of registration of guns and/or gun owners was banned nationally.
b) marijuana convictions or use was completely removed from the suitability requirements
c) all of OP's positive offers were secured
d) suppressors were removed from the NFA
I'm willing to allow due process of law to prevent violent criminals from buying guns above the counter to satisfy the people who think that this does any good in return for the aforementioned concessions from the authoritarians. However, licenses for gun ownership are absolutely a non-starter for me. Either something is a right that can't be denied without due process or it's a privilege, and gun ownership is not a privilege.
Yeah and they spread that disinformation into the head of every liberal ear they can turn. I was having a conversation with a friend (after he posted a link about RFK giving a speech in Rosenburg, OR and "nothing" had changed since then, he did find it interesting when I pointed out the article made no mention of the GCA of 1968), and he asked me what I thought about closing the "online purchase loophole" and I was just really confused about what the heck he was talking about. He then went on to say that it should be harder to buy guns online than it is to maybe buy cocaine online.
I sent him a link to a gunbroker listing and just asked him if he knew what the part at the bottom about having to ship to an FFL meant. Explained that, and then pointed out it will at best be equally difficult to buy a gun online without a background check as buying cocaine online because once someone is willing to break the law they will sell you ANYTHING you will pay for. I pointed out if you paid the guy who would sell you a gun without a background check enough he would probably be willing to procure a lion, kidnap a person, and then build an unpermitted structure to lock both them in to fight to the death for your entertainment. I don't think he appreciated that unlike his ridiculous statement, mine was the truth.
Id only agree if the NFA registry and the post 86 bans on MG's were abolished. You want a compramise? This is it. Im sick and tired of bending over and getting nothing in return, save for the "oh, well you get to keep this (until the next shooting anyway)"
Last edited:
I was reading a good writeup by a professional thinker re: VW and he brought up a really good point. Most people today don't really understand how things work. Do you really *know* how a diesel engine works, or why diesel cars get better mileage? It's not because they are more efficient, it's because diesel is more energy dense, and volume(mpg) is not an accurate way to compare a diesel vs gas engine wrt energy efficiency.
The application to the gun discussion (and lots of other subjects) is that the world has become much more complex than many people's ability to comprehend in a detailed and meaningful way, yet people still want to think they understand things. Consequently, they apply models and information that is not only inadequate, but is actually inaccurate.
The application to the gun discussion (and lots of other subjects) is that the world has become much more complex than many people's ability to comprehend in a detailed and meaningful way, yet people still want to think they understand things. Consequently, they apply models and information that is not only inadequate, but is actually inaccurate.
I can see the headlines now. "Local community firearm forum supports background checks for all gun sales"
You know how the media never takes things out of context
You know how the media never takes things out of context
that's not totally untrue. plenty of people here would have no problem with the second amendment being trampled further. 52 people currently.
Varmint
NES Member
It'd die within about 5 minutes of introduction because the anti states would vote against it (they'd lose control within their urban fiefdoms) and at least 20-30 or so, very solid pro gun states would never suck for the 2 requirements you just mentioned, particularly the whole "license" business, whereas in like 40+ states such a special license is not required. That's a pretty bad concession that clearly poison pills the whole thing.
The license thing is especially bad because it also implies you'd have to have the license to even possess the gun you just bought. Nobody in their right mind wants to have MA's poop cast nationwide.
ETA: Another problem with this proposal is like 75% of the country is already getting the first 4 things you mention "for free, by default" so why would anyone want to give anything up for it? It's like some indians trading land for blankets with smallpox on it and a handful of glass beads.![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
-Mike
True, I voted yes but only cause I live in MA. This would suck for most of the country.
Change the poll to be MA/CA/CT only, then you'd get more Yes's.
Similar threads
