Would You Be Opposed To This

[rvb]

Before you get slammed for appearing to be willing to compromise I'll say that I think I get your point. Let me state it in a typical tasteful Ortega manner: If you are about to be neutered by a thug in an alley and you have no escape be sure you do something to also move him from the bass to the alto section of the choir. Is that about your point?

From Merriam-Webster:
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

The anti's are redefining the term. They want the definition to be if they threaten many new restrictions then our 'compromise' should be to accept some [but not all]. What is their concession? Nothing. They know they can come back later for the piece they don't get now; they aren't conceding anything, just gaining less...

However, if we look at the '86 FOPA, we really did compromise by allowing an MG ban amendment to be snuck in at the 11th hour. We need to turn that strategy on them.... Put pro-gun amendments in their legislation, even at the last minute. Make them give up something too.

I'm not saying I want new legislation... I'm saying that we need to make them put their $ where their mouth is. If they want universal background checks, remove silencers and SBRs/SBSs from the NFA perview. If they want 10-round mags, repeal the -86 MG ban and/or import ban. THAT is the definition of compromise.

Such a strategy is two fold.... First, such amendments may mean that some politicians might vote against it even if they support new gun control like a universal background check... A strategy of including these compromises could be used to BLOCK new legislation!! Second, if gun control legislation is passed and our rights are further eroded, we would be reducing that erosion be re-gaining some rights.

Let's learn from the anti-gun tactics... Look to the FOPA example and turn the tides.

I don't WANT to give up rights to gain others..... But we need to 1) prevent the antis from redefining the term "compromise" and 2) turn their own political games against them in an effort to BLOCK new restrictions.

-rvb

 

[Cpt Caveman]

SO a murderer should be able to legally buy a gun?

Its actually pretty easy to determine who shouldnt be allowed. When you commit a serious violent crime, you have just forfeited your rights.

I dont understand why there is nothing but pushback when I say this. No one ever complains that a criminal has his right to FREEDOM taken away, when hes incarcerated, but start telling me the constitution doesnt say certain people dont have the right to bear arms.

ITS OBVIOUS that some people have forfeited their rights. The 2A included.

Now heres the problem. How does a shop owner know the man hes selling to, has chosen to commit a violent crime, and thus, lost his right? Telepathy?

Some kind of check is required. Like the one we have. I say dont throw it out, just update it to make it more effective.

Anyone trying to push some background check that means you have to register your firearm, hasnt arrived at the most logical outcome, because they have another agenda.

Violent felons are one thing. Being under the arbitrary whims of a bureaucrat's gavel is giving them too big a hammer. Too much leverage. They will simply stop allowing anyone to buy a gun, eventually. Once they have the power to decide on an individual basis for each and every fire arm transaction made in this country , they will hold your ability to defend yourself and your family in their hands. They can decide to preclude you from buying a gun. Simple as that.

And YOU gave them the tool to do it!

Why don't you work towards the problem instead of away from it. Legal gun owners aren't the problem. Its the violent criminals that need more restrictions on their lives , not us.

 

[Scutter01]

However, if we look at the '86 FOPA, we really did compromise by allowing an MG ban amendment to be snuck in at the 11th hour. We need to turn that strategy on them.... Put pro-gun amendments in their legislation, even at the last minute. Make them give up something too.

We didn't "allow" it. There is strong evidence that the amendment was accepted in spite of the voice vote against it. Here's a discussion about it:

NFA Owners Association • View topic - 1986 FOPA Hughes amendment vote footage located

Here's a video of the vote if you'd like to decide for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

 

[gdunn]

I am opposed and you should be ashamed to call yourself an American.

Shame on him for having an opinion different from yours? That's a ridiculous position to take. For such an avid defender of the second amendment you might want to take some time to read the one immediately proceeding it.

 

[Grelber]

Shame on him for having an opinion different from yours? That's a ridiculous position to take. For such an avid defender of the second amendment you might want to take some time to read the one immediately proceeding it.

"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."

And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."

Stephen Crane

The only other thing I can remember from american literature class is that the hot ladies sat toward the front.

 

[gdunn]

"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."

And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."

Stephen Crane

The only other thing I can remember from american literature class is that the hot ladies sat toward the front.

I think I will take the hot lady advice from this exchange and consider myself better for it. In case I find myself enrolled in college someday...

You didn't notice where the sleazy ladies sat, did you?

 

[quake]

Any type of universal background check equates to registration, and is about the worst thing I can imagine for the survival of the 2A.

If a 4473 is required for every transfer, then the feds will next want to inspect your home to see if you actually have the weapons you bought to make sure you didn't sell them illegally (because of course, criminals won't submit to universal background checks!). We have already seen bill in CO proposing exactly that. And of course, they will eventually decide you don't "need" certain weapons, and come to confiscate them--at which time you can't say that you lost them or they will prosecute you for not reporting the weapon as stolen or lost...they know exactly which guns you own, and that equates to registration. Registration has always, always has led to confiscation.

That all fits my definition of tyranny. Just think it through man...

This is absolutely, positively 100% correct. New universal background checks and other measures that have been discussed WILL lead to eventual registration. Registration WILL lead to eventual confiscation. Just as soon as the Government decides that we do not "NEED" certain types of firearms and other weapons.

Think it wont happen??? Isn't this what our very own Vice President is alluding to??? Joe Biden says that you do not "NEED" an AR to defend your home. Hmmmm. Where do you think this is going folks???

Netsecurity and others on here are spot-on with this. If new universal registration is passed, and the Government eventually deems Americans do not "NEED" (there's that damn word again) certain types of weapons, there will eventually be a knock at your door. "Your papers, please." Does that sound familiar to anyone???? Well, your not going to want to surrender your weapons to them, so what are you going to tell them?? That you sold the gun?? Well, thanks to the universal registration that's not possible, because there would be records. So, you either surrender your weapons or you go to prison for being in violation of the law. They have you either way....

Folks this is what the antis have been dreaming and scheming about for years. If anyone feels otherwise and believes this isn't the "snakes" intentions, that is your right to do so. But I feel sorry for you. Your already falling into the trap....

 

[danielson]

Violent felons are one thing. Being under the arbitrary whims of a bureaucrat's gavel is giving them too big a hammer. Too much leverage. They will simply stop allowing anyone to buy a gun, eventually. Once they have the power to decide on an individual basis for each and every fire arm transaction made in this country , they will hold your ability to defend yourself and your family in their hands. They can decide to preclude you from buying a gun. Simple as that.

And YOU gave them the tool to do it!

Why don't you work towards the problem instead of away from it. Legal gun owners aren't the problem. Its the violent criminals that need more restrictions on their lives , not us.

Isnt that what I just said?

Theres a difference between running a check on a gun purchaser, and running the same check, then recording their information into a database.

Whats wrong with having a database of violent felons, and just making sure the guy buying your gun isnt on it?

I think you guys keep misunderstanding me here.. I am against firearms registrations, and never said I was. Ive maintained there is a difference between background checks and "universal background checks"

Personally, I would keep the current NICS check, look at ways to improve its accuracy, and make it available for a private citizen to run a check on the person buying their firearm. Loophole closed... Then all you need is the pro 2A to get out and inform the public that all avenues of legal gun purchase are covered by a violent offender check.

There is nothing wrong with this. The only people on the list, have chosen to give up their anonymity, and have that stigma for life. They must break the law, to obtain a firearm.

AND DONT START *****ING ABOUT TAX CHEATS NOT BEING ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILIES..
Everytime I bring this up someone takes it that direction. If there are NON VIOLENT offenders on that list, they need to be removed, period.

 

[TopDog]

Isnt that what I just said?

Theres a difference between running a check on a gun purchaser, and running the same check, then recording their information into a database.

Whats wrong with having a database of violent felons, and just making sure the guy buying your gun isnt on it?

Because the justice dept has already told the King that a Universal background check system will not work without a registration component.

I think you guys keep misunderstanding me here.. I am against firearms registrations, and never said I was. Ive maintained there is a difference between background checks and "universal background checks"

Personally, I would keep the current NICS check, look at ways to improve its accuracy, and make it available for a private citizen to run a check on the person buying their firearm. Loophole closed... Then all you need is the pro 2A to get out and inform the public that all avenues of legal gun purchase are covered by a violent offender check.

There is nothing wrong with this. The only people on the list, have chosen to give up their anonymity, and have that stigma for life. They must break the law, to obtain a firearm.

AND DONT START *****ING ABOUT TAX CHEATS NOT BEING ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILIES..
Everytime I bring this up someone takes it that direction. If there are NON VIOLENT offenders on that list, they need to be removed, period.

What everyone seems to be missing is this. The agenda as voiced loudly, clearly and frequently by the Liberal Democrat's is the end game is complete and absolute disarmament of the American citizens. Any step - any step at all towards any new infringement whatsoever is only and only a step towards the Democrat's eventual goal of complete disarmament. No more compromise, not one more single step towards disarmament.

 

[danielson]

What everyone seems to be missing is this. The agenda as voiced loudly, clearly and frequently by the Liberal Democrat's is the end game is complete and absolute disarmament of the American citizens. Any step - any step at all towards any new infringement whatsoever is only and only a step towards the Democrat's eventual goal of complete disarmament. No more compromise, not one more single step towards disarmament.

I never said anything about a new step. I never mentioned further infringing.
Cpt caveman seems to think otherwise, I was informing him of the truth.

The checks Im referring to are already in place, we can go tit for tat trying to decide whether or not they are constitutional, but we would just agree. But theres a thing called reality, and the existing check is not going away. So we need to look foreward. I see two options. We can agree to embrace the current check and refining it, without further infringement of law abiding citizens' rights. Or we can be all over the place, not agree on anything, and watch our rights get infringed further.

 

[rvb]

We didn't "allow" it. There is strong evidence that the amendment was accepted in spite of the voice vote against it. Here's a discussion about it:

NFA Owners Association • View topic - 1986 FOPA Hughes amendment vote footage located

Here's a video of the vote if you'd like to decide for yourself:

[vid]

I didn't say we "allowed" it. I said we should use the same tactics if push comes to shove. If they can "force" a compromise, so can we...
You can't win the game if you don't play it, despite what you think of the game.

-rvb

 

[Brian 45]

We all need to be careful. They want to bait and switch on the Constitution. While they ask what is wrong with this law or that idea, they get us to forget that to change the Constitution they have to have an amendment and follow the process. Since they know that won't happen then they start wanting to pass laws for background checks, then maybe registration, then they have what they really want. We are all Americans and if we have questions we should ask. Better to ask than to go off on our own and mess up.

 

[danielson]

god, Washington needs an enema. bad.

The problem is, if we get hip deep in a revolution, guess whos gonna take advantage?

Man, we are definitely in it...

 

[Grelber]

I think I will take the hot lady advice from this exchange and consider myself better for it. In case I find myself enrolled in college someday...

You didn't notice where the sleazy ladies sat, did you?

Political science 101.

 

[seadoodr.]

NO MORE NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS........ Lets make tougher laws for criminals that commit crimes instead of making things tougher for law abidding citizens.

 

[TopDog]

I never said anything about a new step. I never mentioned further infringing.
Cpt caveman seems to think otherwise, I was informing him of the truth.

The checks Im referring to are already in place, we can go tit for tat trying to decide whether or not they are constitutional, but we would just agree. But theres a thing called reality, and the existing check is not going away. So we need to look foreward. I see two options. We can agree to embrace the current check and refining it, without further infringement of law abiding citizens' rights. Or we can be all over the place, not agree on anything, and watch our rights get infringed further.

I know you don't want a new step. But if the background check system is changed in any way, at all, it's going to be to get registration part of the change, straight from jackass's mouth. So while we are wanting common sense it does not exist in the minds of the Democrats, they only have tunnel vision to the the goal of disarmament.

 

[m4lover]

wait, you're serious?

 

[bloodandgutsmurphy]

wait, you're serious?

I was uneducated on this issue. I just thought about this idea since it is done often here in the classifieds for pistols. I have since found out that universal background checks or my idea will not be beneficial to gun owners.

 

[danielson]

Yea, I use the congress.org deal, but I hope our people have our backs. Because registration is not necessary, and wont make criminals stop getting guns.

I would like to be able to use NICS for personal sales though.. How pissed would you be if you sold someone you didnt know a gun, and they robbed/killed someone with it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yea, I use the congress.org deal, but I hope our people have our backs. Because registration is not necessary, and wont make criminals stop getting guns.

I would like to be able to use NICS for personal sales though.. How pissed would you be if you sold someone you didnt know a gun, and they robbed/killed someone with it.

You can use it, go to your local FFL that is willing to do one.