What *could* pass?

While it's technically possible to implement private sale background check in a way which does not facilitate confiscation, every proposal the democrats are willing to support lacks any such safeguards.

Just because MA/NJ/IL/CA have caved on Universal Background Checks gunowner registration, doesn't mean the rest of us should go without a fight.

And that's what "Universal Background Checks" really are all about -- registration. First of gun owners, and then (because without it UBC cannot be enforced) of guns owned.
I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.
 
Teachers in MA CCW guns in school???

I don't believe it. Especially if a public school.
I don’t think he means they carry in school (which is currently illegal). But they may carry out of school and therefore might consider carrying in school or at least have a gun locked nearby.
 
I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.
Are you completely fvcking daft???
 
I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.
Without a registry how do you enforce universal background checks?
 
I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting we require all teachers to carry.

Requiring teachers to carry is ludicrous. However, allowing a teacher who is comfortable and feels capable of carrying should be allowed. Since the teacher would be carrying to do the police's job in a more immediate fashion, it seems reasonable that in the context of school defensive activities, teachers should be granted the same qualified immunity that the fuzz is. Doesn't seem to be a legit reason why a teacher could grease a school shooter and not go home with his firearm.

But this is Assachustts. The police would arrive a day late and land on the teacher with both feet.

In retrospect, maybe teachers and guns isn't a good idea.
 
Don't you worry your pretty little head about it.

Anyone here who wants to tell themselves nobody carries in schools can go ahead and keep right on telling themselves that. Just like how nobody else in the world carries "unlawfully," either...
Without a registry how do you enforce universal background checks?
Explain that more. Registry of what? There is already a registry of criminals. Many in fact. Also various registries of people who are certified insane or on terrorist watch lists or whatever.
 
Explain that more. Registry of what? There is already a registry of criminals. Many in fact. Also various registries of people who are certified insane or on terrorist watch lists or whatever.
Registry of guns? Not needed if your goal is just to block criminals from obtaining guns legally.
 
Since the teacher would be carrying to do the police's job in a more immediate fashion, it seems reasonable that in the context of school defensive activities, teachers should be granted the same qualified immunity that the fuzz is.

This is where you and I differ.

If I'd wanted to be a cop, I'd have joined the PD. If I wanted to be a soldier, I'd have stayed in the army. Now I'm just a teacher and a family man interested in protecting my life and the lives of those in my care, whether it's my family at the supermarket or my students in class.

I don't want to be a cop. I don't want training in how to track down a shooter. I want to secure my classroom, which in my mind includes having a gun just in case. I want to be able to escape when I see an opportunity, which ALICE gives me. I would intend to do nothing more than use my gun to defend me and mine, just like my license says I can anywhere else in the Commonwealth.

You can keep QI. I hate it and want nothing to do with it. I don't want to "do the police's job;" I just want to do mine, as a citizen.
 
I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.

There you go again with the gun violence faggotry, I swear there's been a fire sale on sock puppets this month...... 🤣

Also you're right about one thing- I don't care about kids dying from school shootings. It's statistically insignificant. On the other hand I have friends who have lost children to things like cancer, drug overdoses, and even suicide or DUIs..... in other words, things that actually kill children. Media doesn't talk about those things much because they don't have a violent criminal they can masturbate to live on the news over. (Aka fear porn) and MSM are biggest peddlers of that smut around.

BTW the left runs most of the MSM, so who do you think really determines the narratives? The only thing we"re saved by is that public distrust of media has grown drastically. Nobody believes that white redneck bullshit. Gun control is a big dump city thing. In the real world nobody else cares about it. (Or wants it).
 
Last edited:
Registry of guns? Not needed if your goal is just to block criminals from obtaining guns legally.
Yes, guns…. Say you live in a free state and there’s no licensing or required background checks done for private sales. Now say that free state passed some UBC crap, how is the government making sure that when you sell your gun to Joe Blow privately, Joe is undergoing a background check?
 
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Concealed means concealed.
I'd be shocked at any female teacher that can CCW.

In my school they always wore tight sexy clothes.

With my favorites, I was adept at noticing a lower than normal basil temperature just based on her nipples.

Sometimes there were no VPL's. Visible Panty Lines.

Unless she has more rolls than a naked sushi bar, no hot teacher can CCW without getting noticed.
 
Why do certain people act like there is more to do in regards to gun laws? Like there isn't a shit ton of gun laws already on the books? "Oh, we have to give a little". They already have enough and need to be reminded of that

+1 billion

I can't think of another right on the BOR that has more federal and state laws associated with it than the 2nd amendment...... even the bullshit where they let the government wantonly violate the 4th amendment is less complicated....
 
+1 billion

I can't think of another right on the BOR that has more federal and state laws associated with it than the 2nd amendment...... even the bullshit where they let the government wantonly violate the 4th amendment is less complicated....
The courts have upheld that it is constitutional for the government to charge a fee to exercise 2A rights; something not applied to other rights (except in MA where you must pay a fee to confront your accuser in a traffic violation case).
 
Potato head (last June): ‘you need F-15s and nukes to take on the US government.’

Two months after he said that the US Government was chased out of Afghanistan by goat herders armed with AK-47s and driving pickup trucks. No F-15s or nukes required. They know they have no legitimacy. They know what a determined insurgency can do (should it ever come to that here). They're afraid. Unlikely this regime will get away with banning the only type of civilian weapons with any military potential (AR-style ‘assault weapons’) but they won't stop trying. It's mostly to rally their NPC bots for the latest Current Thing.

They can all Kiss my ass and Beacon Hill can Fk off as well. Actually I don't mind becoming an unindicted felon as it puts me on a level playing field with dotgov and the rest of society.

That removes the stigma they hold over my head...
 
I'd be shocked at any female teacher that can CCW.

In my school they always wore tight sexy clothes.

With my favorites, I was adept at noticing a lower than normal basil temperature just based on her nipples.

Sometimes there were no VPL's. Visible Panty Lines.

Unless she has more rolls than a naked sushi bar, no hot teacher can CCW without getting noticed.


You're remembering a website, not a school[laugh]
 
Yes, guns…. Say you live in a free state and there’s no licensing or required background checks done for private sales. Now say that free state passed some UBC crap, how is the government making sure that when you sell your gun to Joe Blow privately, Joe is undergoing a background check?
Well, I thinks it implied in Universal that it has to be Federal and uniform. So private sales would have to do done at an FFL and include a background check. Any sale of him without a background check would be illegal. But that could still be done without the government knowing you made the transfer. So there is no need for a registry of guns or gun purchasers. There obviously needs to be a registry (or multiple) of people who are blocked. But again there are algorithmic ways for the holder of that list to interface with FFLs without the FFL having access to the unencrypted list or the government to know who they just declined. There is a separate concern of actually trying to arrest those people who were declined because presumably they broke the law in applying. The government would essentially lose that option. But who cares? Why does that even need to a crime. There would only need to be a crime if they get a gun and if they do that legally, it’s the governments fault.
 
Well, I thinks it implied in Universal that it has to be Federal and uniform. So private sales would have to do done at an FFL and include a background check. Any sale of him without a background check would be illegal. But that could still be done without the government knowing you made the transfer. So there is no need for a registry of guns or gun purchasers. There obviously needs to be a registry (or multiple) of people who are blocked. But again there are algorithmic ways for the holder of that list to interface with FFLs without the FFL having access to the unencrypted list or the government to know who they just declined. There is a separate concern of actually trying to arrest those people who were declined because presumably they broke the law in applying. The government would essentially lose that option. But who cares? Why does that even need to a crime. There would only need to be a crime if they get a gun and if they do that legally, it’s the governments fault.
I know about this because I founded a startup which tried to do a similar thing that allowed insurance companies to pay for rides home for drunk people do they wouldn’t drive. That was before Uber. They would agree to paying for the ride without actually knowing who they gave a free ride to. It was all done on an app without a trusted third party.
 
Well, I thinks it implied in Universal that it has to be Federal and uniform. So private sales would have to do done at an FFL and include a background check. Any sale of him without a background check would be illegal. But that could still be done without the government knowing you made the transfer. So there is no need for a registry of guns or gun purchasers. There obviously needs to be a registry (or multiple) of people who are blocked. But again there are algorithmic ways for the holder of that list to interface with FFLs without the FFL having access to the unencrypted list or the government to know who they just declined. There is a separate concern of actually trying to arrest those people who were declined because presumably they broke the law in applying. The government would essentially lose that option. But who cares? Why does that even need to a crime. There would only need to be a crime if they get a gun and if they do that legally, it’s the governments fault.

97B4373F-98E1-42CF-AF6D-5A7424929AB6.jpeg
 
Back
Top Bottom