Gun Control - A what-if scenario

[wahsben]

Many concessions have already been made and it's never been enough.
Those who continue to compromise will continue to be compromised.
Also as someone else had said on another forum years ago: Compromise is failure on the installment plan.

 

[Rider]

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.

You are falling for a fallacy. You allow your enemy to define the field of battle and rules of engagement, then you act suprised when you lose every game.

Like I said in an earlier post: How about if you simply repeal the ineffective gun laws and enact national reciprocity(which only gun control states want) without any strings attached? Eliminate huge amounts of pointless bureaucracy and save money, without making the world more dangerous.

This seems a lot like negotiating with a home invader where he proposes not to rape your wife if she consents to have sex with him.

 

[sig shooter]

licensing a constitutional right? **** that noise!

 

[bigblue]

that's not totally untrue. plenty of people here would have no problem with the second amendment being trampled further. 52 people currently.

How do you get 52?

 

[atilla]

How do you get 52?

it's up to 60 now.

 

[jibbr71]

How do you get 52?

 

[Whutmeworry]

I might be willing to consider universal background checks (of transfers of ownership only) as a token gesture IFF .......

.......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.

Except that you WON'T satisfy people who think that background checks work, specifically becase they DON'T work.

I've said it repeatedly on this forum and I'll say it again. Our government is DELIBERATELY not doing it's job, which is to keep KNOWN violent people removed from from free society. By instituting a background check system (which by definition only works to flag those people the government ALREADY KNOWS are a danger to society), the government is telling it's people FLAT OUT that it is unwilling to do it's job. The people of this country need to understand this, and to demand the government REMOVE THESE VIOLENT PEOPLE FROM SOCIETY, UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY ARE NO LONGER A THREAT TO FREE PEOPLE!!!

It's so simple, and yet very few people understand that we aren't even having the right debate. It should be about STOPPING VIOLENT CRIME, and not about guns at all.

Now with regard to stopping people who suddenly "snap' but have no prior record of violence, there truly is no way to prevent this from happening in the first place. It is simply a risk that is inherent in a liberty-loving free society. That said, the damage caused by such individuals can be minimized when law-abiding citizens have the means to shoot back and aren't legally restrained from doing so.

 

[Realtor MA]

Unless I'm missing something that is an improvement for people in MA. Realistically I agree that it could never happen,

 

[Badcat22]

hmm thought-provoking poll! I have only been in the firearms game for about 5 years, and although I do not have anything to hide and are therefore not opposed to having a background check/jump through hoops for what I want (two form 1s and a form 4 will attest to that), I am nervous about any sort of registration process for rifles w/box mags/etc... Case in point- my folks are from NY and the SAFE act "mandated" the registration of all ARs built prior to...I forget the date. The gov't DID NOT, however, say what they were going to do with that registration list...that worries me. Sounds like a great segway to potentially find out WHO has the "assault rifles" and other scary things to take them away at gov'ts convenience.

My follow up question: are those with "assault"/regulated weapons grandfathered in? Or would they be required to retroactively register?

 

[Varmint]

You are falling for a fallacy. You allow your enemy to define the field of battle and rules of engagement, then you act suprised when you lose every game.

Like I said in an earlier post: How about if you simply repeal the ineffective gun laws and enact national reciprocity(which only gun control states want) without any strings attached? Eliminate huge amounts of pointless bureaucracy and save money, without making the world more dangerous.

This seems a lot like negotiating with a home invader where he proposes not to rape your wife if she consents to have sex with him.

Why do you think people compromise? If they could get everything they wanted, nobody would compromise.

 

[Rider]

Why do you think people compromise? If they could get everything they wanted, nobody would compromise.

right, but as I said, a compromise where you take everything that you want and give me nothing that I want isn't a very good deal - for me.

 

[Periphery]

Why do you think people compromise? If they could get everything they wanted, nobody would compromise.

People don't live in reality apparently. For simply being realistic they get angry and foam at the mouth.

 

[Varmint]

right, but as I said, a compromise where you take everything that you want and give me nothing that I want isn't a very good deal - for me.

Well, as we said, it's a good deal for MA residents, sucks for free staters.

You know it's a good deal for MA cause the enemy would never agree to it.

 

[jibbr71]

People don't live in reality apparently. For simply being realistic they get angry and foam at the mouth.

Only when people want to mess with my rights. Don't try to take stuff away from me, or deny me the right to take care of myself, and I'm an exceptionally reasonable and realistic person.

 

[atilla]

People don't live in reality apparently. For simply being realistic they get angry and foam at the mouth.

aren't there pairs of leather boots you could be off tonguing?

 

[Varmint]

Only when people want to mess with my rights. Don't try to take stuff away from me, or deny me the right to take care of myself, and I'm an exceptionally reasonable and realistic person.

Everyone here agrees with this. The point is, if you refuse to compromise, you don't necessarily get everything you want. Look at Mass, do you see our laws going away any time soon? I don't. So refusing to compromise gets you nothing in Mass.

 

[jibbr71]

Everyone here agrees with this. The point is, if you refuse to compromise, you don't necessarily get everything you want. Look at Mass, do you see our laws going away any time soon? I don't. So refusing to compromise gets you nothing in Mass.

I get what you're saying in principal, but I won't compromise. I won't support any rule, law or politician that aims to strip me of any of my civil liberties. Now, if those things are voted in by the people, or the legislature, then the question becomes about compliance

 

[Varmint]

I get what you're saying in principal, but I won't compromise. I won't support any rule, law or politician that aims to strip me of any of my civil liberties. Now, if those things are voted in by the people, or the legislature, then the question becomes about compliance

Well in Mass, the OP's deal isn't a compromise, it's a win-win (we already have licensing, and it's not shall issue).

On the Federal or free-state level, it's a lose-lose. A compromise would be something like: eliminate NFA regulations in return for licensing and/or private background checks.

OP should really change the question.

 

[jibbr71]

Well in Mass, the OP's deal isn't a compromise in MA, it's a win-win (we already have licensing, and it's not shall issue).

Right, and that's precisely the problem with any sort of plan that is any more restrictive than con carry; No matter how little you give up, Alaskans and Vermontians get screwed. Give up a little more, and people from a whole lot more states, NH and ME included, get screwed. It's a non starter, and something that should be left to the states to begin with. Even at that, the only question at the state level should be how many ranges they allow.( I needed something)

 

[Rider]

Well, as we said, it's a good deal for MA residents, sucks for free staters.

You know it's a good deal for MA cause the enemy would never agree to it.

I think you missed my point, which is that I reject the playing field and the rules of engagement. There is no deal to be had. Compromise requires me to get something I want in exchange for something the other person wants. You are continuing to redefine the playing field and the rules, such that now some people get something they want and everybody gets something nobody wants.

I refuse to play the game on these terms.

The idea that you would gladly compromise the rights of everybody in order to improve your personal situation is objectionable, imo. A de facto national gun registry is not a fair trade for you being able to buy a new AR with collapsing stock.

 

[Periphery]

aren't there pairs of leather boots you could be off tonguing?

Shouldn't you be whacking it to Ayn Rand?

 

[atilla]

Shouldn't you be whacking it to Ayn Rand?

already did thrice this morning. who is john galt?

you're not contributing anything to this thread, sorry not sorry your butt still hurts after the pig-pile yesterday.

i'm happy to continue statist-shaming you today unless you've been fully TRIGGERED and i need to back off.

 

[Varmint]

I think you missed my point, which is that I reject the playing field and the rules of engagement. There is no deal to be had. Compromise requires me to get something I want in exchange for something the other person wants. You are continuing to redefine the playing field and the rules, such that now some people get something they want and everybody gets something nobody wants.

I refuse to play the game on these terms.

The idea that you would gladly compromise the rights of everybody in order to improve your personal situation is objectionable, imo. A de facto national gun registry is not a fair trade for you being able to buy a new AR with collapsing stock.

Don't put words in my mouth. I already said it's only a good deal for nanny states and sucks for everyone else. So no, I would not support this on a Federal level.

 

[Periphery]

already did thrice this morning. who is john galt?

you're not contributing anything to this thread, sorry not sorry your butt still hurts after the pig-pile yesterday.

i'm happy to continue statist-shaming you today unless you've been fully TRIGGERED and i need to back off.

Ain't no butthurt here, just mocking you for being nuts! Don't confuse it.

 

[Rider]

Don't put words in my mouth. I already said it's only a good deal for nanny states and sucks for everyone else. So no, I would not support this on a Federal level.

You said it was win-win for MA. But it is not, unless you think that the negative impact this would have on non-nanny states' rights is irrelevant. I think it is relevant.

 

[Varmint]

You said it was win-win for MA. But it is not, unless you think that the negative impact this would have on non-nanny states' rights is irrelevant. I think it is relevant.

I would only support it if it's a Mass bill, not affecting any other state. Is that clear enough? Jeez.

 

[atilla]

Ain't no butthurt here, just mocking you for being nuts! Don't confuse it.

deez nuts.

i'd rather be nuts than a state-fellator.

 

[Periphery]

deez nuts.

i'd rather be nuts than a state-fellator.

Yeah I forgot if you're for anything other than a no government world you're a "state fellator". That's insanity. Sorry, some of us live in the real world not in fantasy land where we think non-existent hypothetical universes exist.

 

[atilla]

Yeah I forgot if you're for anything other than a no government world you're a "state fellator". That's insanity. Sorry, some of us live in the real world not in fantasy land where we think non-existent hypothetical universes exist.

because the folks like you are too afraid of that world.

then again some men are bred to follow others.

it's sad, really.

 

[Periphery]

because the folks like you are too afraid of that world.

then again some men are bred to follow others.

it's sad, really.

Afraid of something that can't and will likely never exist (especially not in your lifetime) which is a world with no government in perfect harmony? That makes sense. It makes as much sense as believing in a world as real as Middle Earth and mocking anyone who lives in reality. It means you're off your rocker, so rather than continue this nonsense...