Compromise

[Mad Jack]

Alright, I'm new here so if this is not the correct place for policy discussion, please direct me to the correct place.

In light of the recent shooting and the momentum behind the gun control lobby at the present time, it is almost impossible for even the likes of the NRA to hold everything in place. Compromise is needed, and we need to be the ones who propose it first or risk an unfavorable law, like an AWB, being shoved down our throats. The question is, what would be a favorable compromise?

My answer is this: create a nationwide licence that you receive at no charge when you have a background check. You can then display this licence, provided it is recent, that will allow you to buy firearms. This applies to both private sale and to sales by licensed dealers. This would close the "Gun show loophole" without making gun shows illegal, and it would be more comprehensive, covering all private sales. Further, it would be a political victory for the Democrats who have been striving so hard to close the loophole and typically back off after a victory like this, while not infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners.

What are your opinions of this?

 

[printcraft]

 

[Mad Jack]

Believe it or not, that neither helps, nor tells me anything specific.

 

[Double T]

We have a nationwide license, it's called the 2A and was paid for in full by all the patriots of the revolutionary and every war that we have been in.

It's just that we have all those damned elected officials that think they can further infringe without "infringing".

 

[eldirector]

What are your opinions of this?

No compromise.

 

[Double T]

Also, the momentum behind the gun control "lobby" is a handful of people who pay the liberal media and have them in their pocket to create fear mongering.

Is it working?

 

[printcraft]

Believe it or not, that neither helps, nor tells me anything specific.

Oh, no, that was pretty specific.

 

[Double T]

Does this help?

 

[Mad Jack]

Here is the thing, despite being new here I remember something about the NRA selling us out in '94. We all know how that went.

That said, I don't like the idea of compromising, but if it averts another AWB I'll bite the bullet.

 

[Double T]

Here is the thing, despite being new here I remember something about the NRA selling us out in '94. We all know how that went.

That said, I don't like the idea of compromising, but if it averts another AWB I'll bite the bullet.

You go ahead and hand em over first. Let's see how that's played out historically...

 

[TaunTaun]

Welcome to Ingo. Generally we greet members in the new member area, but hello anyway.

My opinion is: Not just no. Hell no.
And here is the why: Do you require a check from the federal government to see if a person buying a new car is legally liscenced? What if the car out of the local classifieds? Homicides involving cars is, let's just say, a tad higher than firearms. When they start screaming about national drivers liscence checks, then maybe I'll consider the argument valid.

Second point, what do you define as "more comprehensive"? We already run our names through the NICS background check at local gun stores. We have ourselves voluntarily finger-printed and additional background checks run to get a LTCH. We then volunteer to pay more tax money to get them. And if we go for something like a NFA item, we pay even more taxes. To the end of my point. When do they checks not ALREADY work? I heard about one gun dealer that should have lost his FFL a while back and the gov't never rescinded it, and he was still being shipped firearms while him being a felon. We hear about more violations of this standard background check, and gun control laws already in place. But the person(s) commanding these violations are generally as follows in no particular order: DOJ, ATF, FBI, et al.

As far as an AWB goes. Not a SINGLE gun used by the Newtown shooter would have been classified as an assault weapon. And what is an assault weapon anyhow? By most media definations, it equates to "Scary-looking weapons."

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Viper1973]

Constitutional carry isn't going to be a reality for years....

1. In my opinion, anything 31 rounds or more should be banned - they don't work anyway and make guns ridiculously heavy.

2. Make background checks available to everyone (even individuals) and required for all gun sales. Maybe a website you can go to. Gun shows could still continue, private sales could continue, but the nut job could still get denied.

3. Check on the psych status of permit applicants. Maine already does this. If you have a mental health record your doctor has to also sign off on a permit application.\

4. Though it would be a pain, I'd even consider that a permit be required for all long gun purchases as well. That way the individuals background is repeatedly checked throughout the application and ownership process in the event their status would change.


Personally, I'd like things to stay as they are. However, the other side will not tolerate that. Therefore, there will have to be reasonable compromises on both sides.

 

[quicksdraw]

As I have replied every other time this topic has come up, since the massacre, not only NO, but HELL NO!!
Our ancestors compromised in '34 and got screwed. We compromised in '68 and got screwed. We compromised in '94 and got screwed. Anyone seeing a pattern here?

 

[Mad Jack]

Do I hate gun control? Yes, most definitely. Do I also recognize the inevitability of dirty politics? Yes. I'm not proposing we register everything or ban anything. I'm suggesting that we hold those who buy firearms in private sales to the same standard we hold those who buy from licensed dealers.

 

[TaunTaun]

Here is a big item that I would like to see passed by congress:

Insurance companies can not discriminate against businesses or private property owners so that firearms are essentially not allowed on the property, or in the possession of it's employees/caretakers.

Past that, it's a private property issues and won't dictate to a person who has bought and paid for land/buildings that they can't do what they want on the property, even if it includes being an easy target.

 

[eldirector]

Constitutional carry isn't going to be a reality for years....

1. In my opinion, anything 31 rounds or more should be banned - they don't work anyway and make guns ridiculously heavy.

2. Make background checks available to everyone (even individuals) and required for all gun sales. Maybe a website you can go to. Gun shows could still continue, private sales could continue, but the nut job could still get denied.

3. Check on the psych status of permit applicants. Maine already does this. If you have a mental health record your doctor has to also sign off on a permit application.\

4. Though it would be a pain, I'd even consider that a permit be required for all long gun purchases as well. That way the individuals background is repeatedly checked throughout the application and ownership process in the event their status would change.


Personally, I'd like things to stay as they are. However, the other side will not tolerate that. Therefore, there will have to be reasonable compromises on both sides.

1) that's your opinion, but not mine. 31 rounds of .22LR isn't all that heavy, and they still go down range.

2) The states that have required background checks have more shootings that those that don't. Seems like this needs to go the OTHER way.

3) Indiana already does this. So does Connecticut, Oregon, and Colorado. Doesn't seem to make a difference, does it?

4) Long guns are already checked when through a dealer. The long guns used in these recent shootings were purchased through a dealer. Once again, IT DOES NOT WORK.

So, I think you for your opinion, but I absolutely disagree with it in the strongest way possible.

Edit: it appears as though you want more restrictions on ME as long as they don't impact YOU. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

 

[TaunTaun]

Maybe we should require background checks on all theives who steal weapons from houses and such. You know, make it illegal....

It worked well with alcohol a few years back...

And it works really well with drugs now.

 

[Mad Jack]

Maybe we should require background checks on all theives who steal weapons from houses and such. You know, make it illegal....

It worked well with alcohol a few years back...

And it works really well with drugs now.

What are you on about? If you are a felon you shouldn't be able to buy a weapon, but if you go to a private seller then you can. This idea simply helps enforce laws that are already on the books.

 

[Double T]

What are you on about? If you are a felon you shouldn't be able to buy a weapon, but if you go to a private seller then you can. This idea simply helps enforce laws that are already on the books.

The point is that it is already illegal and no more pen and paper rules are going to fix the facts that criminals do not operate within the confines of legality.

 

[Mad Jack]

On a more favorable note, this could also function as the first step, if not the realization of, a nationwide concealed carry licence.