User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:43:42 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol don't forget to buy some lime, helps get rid of the dead burglars quicker. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol you call this fantasyland in the OP where you can buy mini guns at wal mart but have to do a background check to sell your neighbor a 10/22 supporting background checks? Crazy people who think we're going to trade all the current gun laws for UBCs? Yeah. These are the kind of people who will trade away all sorts of rights for some delusional perceived victory. That's too kind. They're gun grabbers, chipping away at gun rights. I love limes. Goes great with a gin and tonic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:43:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So are you saying that you don't believe that the people pushing for "sensible gun control" want more than what they are letting on? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol you call this fantasyland in the OP where you can buy mini guns at wal mart but have to do a background check to sell your neighbor a 10/22 supporting background checks? Crazy people who think we're going to trade all the current gun laws for UBCs? Yeah. These are the kind of people who will trade away all sorts of rights for some delusional perceived victory. That's too kind. They're gun grabbers, chipping away at gun rights. Awww bless your heart... So are you saying that you don't believe that the people pushing for "sensible gun control" want more than what they are letting on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:44:10 AM EDT
[#3]
No more fucking "compromising". That's just a fancy way of saying fuck the gun owners.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:45:01 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So are you saying that you don't believe that the people pushing for "sensible gun control" want more than what they are letting on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol you call this fantasyland in the OP where you can buy mini guns at wal mart but have to do a background check to sell your neighbor a 10/22 supporting background checks? Crazy people who think we're going to trade all the current gun laws for UBCs? Yeah. These are the kind of people who will trade away all sorts of rights for some delusional perceived victory. That's too kind. They're gun grabbers, chipping away at gun rights. Awww bless your heart... So are you saying that you don't believe that the people pushing for "sensible gun control" want more than what they are letting on? I have a feeling he is not talking about people who are for "sensible gun control" but about people in this thread that say they would consider that trade. As I've said, in hypothetical fantasy land if the deal was on the table, and the deal was: NFA repealed and all items become regular firearms in exchange for UBC's with a family exemption, I would accept that. If we can get as far as repealing the NFA, the chances of eventually getting rid of UBC's would be possible too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:46:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People who want sensible gun control are going to agree to over the counter machine guns and suppressors? That's their "trap"? What alternate planet has a Internet connection to arfcom? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol you call this fantasyland in the OP where you can buy mini guns at wal mart but have to do a background check to sell your neighbor a 10/22 supporting background checks? Crazy people who think we're going to trade all the current gun laws for UBCs? Yeah. These are the kind of people who will trade away all sorts of rights for some delusional perceived victory. That's too kind. They're gun grabbers, chipping away at gun rights. Awww bless your heart... So are you saying that you don't believe that the people pushing for "sensible gun control" want more than what they are letting on? I was focusing more on the "compromise for UBC's" message that the OP was sending, which I have seen hinted in multiple threads, and from several gun owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:46:50 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is hypothetical. I would never trust them to honor a deal in real life. You might consider not alienating people who share common goals as yourself by not threatening them on the Internet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol you call this fantasyland in the OP where you can buy mini guns at wal mart but have to do a background check to sell your neighbor a 10/22 supporting background checks? Crazy people who think we're going to trade all the current gun laws for UBCs? Yeah. These are the kind of people who will trade away all sorts of rights for some delusional perceived victory. That's too kind. They're gun grabbers, chipping away at gun rights. This is hypothetical. I would never trust them to honor a deal in real life. You might consider not alienating people who share common goals as yourself by not threatening them on the Internet. People here want to violate my rights all the time with common sense compromises on gun control. I'd really like to alienate them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:47:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for what it's worth, I became a life member of the TSRA around the time of your thread. not sure I posted in there, but I think I did. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
(Sigline) "NRA Life Member, TSRA, MS Carry, NYSRPA, Oregon Firearms Federation, VCDL" Hey, Thanks. We're gonna need it.  Absolutely man. Started a thread hoping to encourage others to do the same.
This one on being compromising pussies is already on pace to pass it up ten fold, and my thread on helping out fellow gun owners is months old.  for what it's worth, I became a life member of the TSRA around the time of your thread. not sure I posted in there, but I think I did. . Gun owners getting together and organizing can do some great stuff. Thanks for being a part of that.
Too bad some folks would rather play hypotheticals about what we should or could give up next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:48:57 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was focusing more on the "compromise for UBC's" message that the OP was sending, which I have seen hinted in multiple threads, and from several gun owners. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Awww bless your heart... So are you saying that you don't believe that the people pushing for "sensible gun control" want more than what they are letting on? I was focusing more on the "compromise for UBC's" message that the OP was sending, which I have seen hinted in multiple threads, and from several gun owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:17:39 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sadly, SCOTUS denies that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." Until they change their minds, this is the world we must live in. Shall-issue is a minor step, but a step in the right direction. The sunset of the AWB on the Federal level was a turning point. SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government. They have no special right to rule over us. The legislative branch should impose the will of the people. Problem is we are ‘lead’ by a bunch of weak-kneed pussies that care more about the next election than doing what is right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:51:59 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People here want to violate my rights all the time with common sense compromises on gun control. I'd really like to alienate them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol you call this fantasyland in the OP where you can buy mini guns at wal mart but have to do a background check to sell your neighbor a 10/22 supporting background checks? Crazy people who think we're going to trade all the current gun laws for UBCs? Yeah. These are the kind of people who will trade away all sorts of rights for some delusional perceived victory. That's too kind. They're gun grabbers, chipping away at gun rights. This is hypothetical. I would never trust them to honor a deal in real life. You might consider not alienating people who share common goals as yourself by not threatening them on the Internet. People here want to violate my rights all the time with common sense compromises on gun control. I'd really like to alienate them. On the scale of things you don't want, UBCs are a substantively worse idea than individual licencing is. Both you don't want, but UBCs are the worst idea ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 3:00:29 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eventually. People on here think they're going to get more of their freedoms and gun rights back. Gullible. Only reason I give money to this site, and the NRA is to try and keep what we have. I would say in 20-40 years it'll be almost gone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors!  Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. They can take my guns from my cold dead hands, let them try. Eventually. People on here think they're going to get more of their freedoms and gun rights back. Gullible. Only reason I give money to this site, and the NRA is to try and keep what we have. I would say in 20-40 years it'll be almost gone. Fuck that noise. I'm tired of the do nothing approach. I'm not satisfied with the status quo. I want new MGs. I'm going to have to deal with the NFA. I don't give a damn about a feel-good background check before I sell a gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 3:08:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They don't have to. They make the gun illegal. Let's say I build an AR15 this weekend in NY. Okay so now I have a gun that is a felony to own. So now what? I can go in my cellar and caress it. I can't even sight it in without risking prison time, if I shoot a burglar with it, prison time. Other than zombies starting to wander the countryside and society collapsing you can't do anything with it unless you have a pretty high tolerance for risking incarceration That shit only works in the anti states like CA and NY. Try that in Texas or Florida and the state will enact a law countering the federal law. If the Feds want to enforce it, they better bring air support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 3:10:03 AM EDT
[#13]
The Senetinelese People have never compromised and they are still around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 3:59:00 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 4:06:59 AM EDT
[#15]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 4:07:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Propaganda, how does it work? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Like I said. its a hypothetical question. I feel the Hugh's amendment should be repealed anyway along with the 1968 GCA, the 1934 NFA and 1938 NFA. I just don't understand how 85% of American's to include gun owners support universal background checks. Propaganda, how does it work? Came here to post this. If I took a "non-scientific poll of 1000 Americans", I guarantee you I could find overwhelming support for over the counter machineguns and light armored vehicles. It's all in who you call. Even if I couldn't, I could keep trying until I did. And then, even if I still didn't, I could still massage the data to support my conclusion. Just like they do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 4:12:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act already prevents the formation of a registry BTW. "No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors! Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act already prevents the formation of a registry BTW. "No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation." Yeah, and that stopped it in CT where a federal judge ruled that the gov't "had a compelling interest" despite being a violation of federal law. Stopped it in NY. Stopped it in MA, Stopped in CA, Stopped it in IL, Stopped it in MD, Stopped it in DE, Stopped it in....you know what? Fuck it. Whatever. I'mma do what I want. Go ahead. Make me a felon. You wouldn't like me if I was a felon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 4:16:53 AM EDT
[#18]
NO. Repeal NFA, Hughes and GCA '68, then we will "look" at UBC or GTFO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 4:42:40 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Im tempted, but I say no. No more deals. Im done. Fuck them, fuck their family, fuck everyone they ever met. I'm with this...fuck them and the whore they came out of....I should be allowed to.own a fucking tank...not beg to be "allowed" to own silencer |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:15:39 AM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:40:21 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Here is a hypothetical question. Just suppose it were possible to have done as an amendment to a bill and have it pass would you be ok with universal back ground checks being instated at a federal level if at the same time they deregulated suppressors and repealed the Hugh's amendment to the Firearms Owner's Protection act of 1986 banning the production of new made machineguns for civilian ownership? I wouldn't be too upset if those amendments were put on to such a bill as a "poison pill" the way the Hugh's amendment was put on the FOPA. Either it wouldn't pass or we would get some cool benefits out of an otherwise crappy deal IMO. What do you guys think? This is because you don't understand what "universal background checks" are. They are universal registration. Which is the single worst thing that could happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:41:55 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They can take my guns from my cold dead hands, let them try. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors! Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. They can take my guns from my cold dead hands, let them try. The point is that if they don't know what you have, they can't take it. UBCs allow them to know, and thus take, everything you have. UBC can't be enforced without registration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:48:41 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If NFA items only required a NICS check, the MG registry was opened, and I could legally carry concealed in every state and territory of the United States, then maybe. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:50:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a feeling he is not talking about people who are for "sensible gun control" but about people in this thread that say they would consider that trade. As I've said, in hypothetical fantasy land if the deal was on the table, and the deal was: NFA repealed and all items become regular firearms in exchange for UBC's with a family exemption, I would accept that. If we can get as far as repealing the NFA, the chances of eventually getting rid of UBC's would be possible too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol you call this fantasyland in the OP where you can buy mini guns at wal mart but have to do a background check to sell your neighbor a 10/22 supporting background checks? Crazy people who think we're going to trade all the current gun laws for UBCs? Yeah. These are the kind of people who will trade away all sorts of rights for some delusional perceived victory. That's too kind. They're gun grabbers, chipping away at gun rights. Awww bless your heart... So are you saying that you don't believe that the people pushing for "sensible gun control" want more than what they are letting on? I have a feeling he is not talking about people who are for "sensible gun control" but about people in this thread that say they would consider that trade. As I've said, in hypothetical fantasy land if the deal was on the table, and the deal was: NFA repealed and all items become regular firearms in exchange for UBC's with a family exemption, I would accept that. If we can get as far as repealing the NFA, the chances of eventually getting rid of UBC's would be possible too. How can UBC be enforced without .gov knowing every singe weapon you own? UBC is for stupid people. It's sleight of hand. Look over there, while I steal your wallet. UBC is universal registration. It is the first step to confiscation. Every time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:06:38 AM EDT
[#25]
Nope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:08:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. FPNI again. I would be good with restrictions on the first amendment before any more on the second. The first really needs a IQ test before your allowed to make statements that have potential nation wide impact. Some of us wouldn't be posting much
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:09:03 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And Canada. Make Canada allow US citizens to carry in Canada and you got a deal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If NFA items only required a NICS check, the MG registry was opened, and I could legally carry concealed in every state and territory of the United States, then maybe. lol. I have been within miles of Canada many times but have never had the misfortune to actually cross the border even when I moved to Alaska. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:10:01 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, everyone above me got in while I was typing. makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Edit: except that guy. Fuck that guy. Amen, brother. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:31:48 AM EDT
[#29]
I just wish they would pass a law making the ATF the sole agency allowed to keep any form of firearm records, then defund it entirely.
Wouldn't take no longer long to slam dunk a case for doing away with NFA and GCA with something like that in his corner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:33:04 AM EDT
[#30]
No. It's a tarp!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:34:06 AM EDT
[#31]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:51:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
No. Tired of these fucking threads they pop up all the time. AGNTSA. I go off base for a week+ and when I get back (to internet) this shit is still going on |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:01:55 AM EDT
[#33]
Fuck ubc's, why compromise on anything?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:02:08 AM EDT
[#34]
retarded
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:02:49 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Here is a hypothetical question. Just suppose it were possible to have done as an amendment to a bill and have it pass would you be ok with universal back ground checks being instated at a federal level if at the same time they deregulated suppressors and repealed the Hugh's amendment to the Firearms Owner's Protection act of 1986 banning the production of new made machineguns for civilian ownership? I wouldn't be too upset if those amendments were put on to such a bill as a "poison pill" the way the Hugh's amendment was put on the FOPA. Either it wouldn't pass or we would get some cool benefits out of an otherwise crappy deal IMO. What do you guys think? NO MORE COMPROMISING. FUCK THAT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:03:33 AM EDT
[#36]
No.
No. No. No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:07:39 AM EDT
[#37]
Deregulate Suppressors.
Open the NFA to new machineguns. Implement national reciprocity for CCW. Make businesses who do not permit CCW on their private property eligible for lawsuits resulting from incidents that occur there. Remove CCW restrictions from public property. THEN we will discuss your background check proposal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:31:11 AM EDT
[#38]
What the fuck does the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution say? Fuck anything other than what it says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:31:52 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With gun owners like this who needs the libs. We are our own worst enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:18:08 AM EDT
[#40]
In the current political climate, guns are too polarizing for compromise. In any case, the antis are dealing in bad faith, since their ultimate aim is total confiscation (they hold up Australia and Britain as examples to be emulated). A negotiation cannot take place when there is such a lack of trust between the two sides. Each side, in a negotiation, has to give something in order to gain something. The antis are unwilling to give anything.
I have a suggestion: Introduce a freestanding bill to, say, repeal the Hughes Amendment. Let the antis support it as a sign of goodwill. Then we can talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:19:23 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Deregulate Suppressors. Open the NFA to new machineguns. Implement national reciprocity for CCW. Make businesses who do not permit CCW on their private property eligible for lawsuits resulting from incidents that occur there. Remove CCW restrictions from public property. THEN we will discuss your background check proposal.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:38:47 AM EDT
[#42]
We don't compromise to get our rights back. The anti's will just take them away again. We fight to get them back and keep them .
When a kid tries to get a cookie that he has been told he cant have and mom catches him, mom doesn't say no then give a little piece of the cookie. The kid will keep coming back to try again. What does he have to lose? He knows he will at least get a piece of cookie. Now what a good mother does is slap the hand and put him in the corner for such treachery. He gained nothing and got punished. He then realizes that he has something to lose when he tries and fails. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:41:11 AM EDT
[#43]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:42:12 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  Yep. I know a lot of "thing is 'Murica, that would NEVER happen here" types. People just don't get it. It probably can, and will. Not today, not tomorrow. But within the next couple of decades, it more thank likely will. With universal background checks, every gun you own (after it is passed) will have traceable transaction forms to go with them. That is not fucking tinfoil, that is the truth. And the left has already pointed at countries that have successfully accomplished mass forfeiture/confiscation as their goal. So you can sit there and woefully think that since our flag has stars and stripes on it, that we are immune to that, and there will never be an issue with allowing he government to track every firearm transaction made. But if you do, you are no different than the people that say "who needs that" in reference to "assault rifles" and the like; IE) the same type of people that allowed places like England and Aussie to have the laws that they have. But, like I said, this is America. That would never happen here. They respect the 2nd amendment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors! Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. They can take my guns from my cold dead hands, let them try. Eventually. People on here think they're going to get more of their freedoms and gun rights back. Gullible. Only reason I give money to this site, and the NRA is to try and keep what we have. I would say in 20-40 years it'll be almost gone. Yep. I know a lot of "thing is 'Murica, that would NEVER happen here" types. People just don't get it. It probably can, and will. Not today, not tomorrow. But within the next couple of decades, it more thank likely will. With universal background checks, every gun you own (after it is passed) will have traceable transaction forms to go with them. That is not fucking tinfoil, that is the truth. And the left has already pointed at countries that have successfully accomplished mass forfeiture/confiscation as their goal. So you can sit there and woefully think that since our flag has stars and stripes on it, that we are immune to that, and there will never be an issue with allowing he government to track every firearm transaction made. But if you do, you are no different than the people that say "who needs that" in reference to "assault rifles" and the like; IE) the same type of people that allowed places like England and Aussie to have the laws that they have. But, like I said, this is America. That would never happen here. They respect the 2nd amendment. At the very least, we could offer this as a "Hey, here's a gun control law that WE put forward! We're trying to compromise! What, you don't like it? Well, fuck you then, we tried." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:44:24 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:47:16 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Here is a hypothetical question. Just suppose it were possible to have done as an amendment to a bill and have it pass would you be ok with universal back ground checks being instated at a federal level if at the same time they deregulated suppressors and repealed the Hugh's amendment to the Firearms Owner's Protection act of 1986 banning the production of new made machineguns for civilian ownership? I wouldn't be too upset if those amendments were put on to such a bill as a "poison pill" the way the Hugh's amendment was put on the FOPA. Either it wouldn't pass or we would get some cool benefits out of an otherwise crappy deal IMO. What do you guys think? I like the way you think… Conservatives, particularly on the gun control issue, don’t know how to compromise. As a result, compromise has become a dirty word. That’s because compromise has been about giving the Left half of what they want in hopes they will go away. Problem is that they come back in a couple years and want the other half so we compromise again and give the three fourths of what they originally wanted. True compromise is when you give up something to get something. There are a lot of changes I want in US gun laws. (and I’m talking realistic changes) I would love to see short barreled rifles be considered pistols which could be purchased by anyone 21 and over with no taxes or additional regulations. A repeal of the Hughes Amendment would be great, as would deregulating suppressors. (Maybe require them to have serial numbers and treat them like a separate handgun.) I want to see firearms ownership declared a basic civil right and protected by Federal Civil Rights law. This should include Federal criminal charges against state officials or police officers who violate the Second Amendment. I want a removal of the import bans. Now, would I be willing to accept the universal background checks for all of those things? Maybe. Universal background checks could be really bad depending on how the bill was worded. If I let an adult relative house sit for me overnight and there is a gun in the house, have I transferred it to him? How about if I loan a firearm to a well know friend for some reason? Taken to the extreme this could mean I have committed a felony if I let someone shoot one of my rifles at a range while I am standing right there. But if you allowed for non-commercial transfers where I loan a firearm. And if you put exemptions in for family, and more exemptions for gifts to friends, then I probably would accept them if I got all of the things I mentioned above. In any case, that’s the way we should play the game. If Liberals demand universal checks then we should ask them what they are willing to give us in order to get them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:47:41 AM EDT
[#47]
Logically, a real compromise like the OP mentions should be acceptable. However, any push for gun control has never once been an actual compromise. It has just been more restrictions, and gun owners getting to eat it. Then they eventually push for even tighter restrictions. So at this point I don't trust anyone who wants more gun control. So fuck them and fuck their universal background checks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:53:16 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Deregulate Suppressors. Open the NFA to new machineguns. Implement national reciprocity for CCW. Make businesses who do not permit CCW on their private property eligible for lawsuits resulting from incidents that occur there. Remove CCW restrictions from public property. THEN we will discuss your background check proposal. I'll still say "hell no" to UBC, because it is defacto registration. Right now I can buy or sell a firearm from (or to) a friend, relative, neighbor, or complete stranger and the state does not know anything about the transaction, which is how it should be. It's none of the government's business what firearms I own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:53:17 AM EDT
[#49]
U
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the way you think… Conservatives, particularly on the gun control issue, don’t know how to compromise. As a result, compromise has become a dirty word. That’s because compromise has been about giving the Left half of what they want in hopes they will go away. Problem is that they come back in a couple years and want the other half so we compromise again and give the three fourths of what they originally wanted. True compromise is when you give up something to get something. There are a lot of changes I want in US gun laws. (and I’m talking realistic changes) I would love to see short barreled rifles be considered pistols which could be purchased by anyone 21 and over with no taxes or additional regulations. A repeal of the Hughes Amendment would be great, as would deregulating suppressors. (Maybe require them to have serial numbers and treat them like a separate handgun.) I want to see firearms ownership declared a basic civil right and protected by Federal Civil Rights law. This should include Federal criminal charges against state officials or police officers who violate the Second Amendment. I want a removal of the import bans. Now, would I be willing to accept the universal background checks for all of those things? Maybe. Universal background checks could be really bad depending on how the bill was worded. If I let an adult relative house sit for me overnight and there is a gun in the house, have I transferred it to him? How about if I loan a firearm to a well know friend for some reason? Taken to the extreme this could mean I have committed a felony if I let someone shoot one of my rifles at a range while I am standing right there. But if you allowed for non-commercial transfers where I loan a firearm. And if you put exemptions in for family, and more exemptions for gifts to friends, then I probably would accept them if I got all of the things I mentioned above. In any case, that’s the way we should play the game. If Liberals demand universal checks then we should ask them what they are willing to give us in order to get them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here is a hypothetical question. Just suppose it were possible to have done as an amendment to a bill and have it pass would you be ok with universal back ground checks being instated at a federal level if at the same time they deregulated suppressors and repealed the Hugh's amendment to the Firearms Owner's Protection act of 1986 banning the production of new made machineguns for civilian ownership? I wouldn't be too upset if those amendments were put on to such a bill as a "poison pill" the way the Hugh's amendment was put on the FOPA. Either it wouldn't pass or we would get some cool benefits out of an otherwise crappy deal IMO. What do you guys think? I like the way you think… Conservatives, particularly on the gun control issue, don’t know how to compromise. As a result, compromise has become a dirty word. That’s because compromise has been about giving the Left half of what they want in hopes they will go away. Problem is that they come back in a couple years and want the other half so we compromise again and give the three fourths of what they originally wanted. True compromise is when you give up something to get something. There are a lot of changes I want in US gun laws. (and I’m talking realistic changes) I would love to see short barreled rifles be considered pistols which could be purchased by anyone 21 and over with no taxes or additional regulations. A repeal of the Hughes Amendment would be great, as would deregulating suppressors. (Maybe require them to have serial numbers and treat them like a separate handgun.) I want to see firearms ownership declared a basic civil right and protected by Federal Civil Rights law. This should include Federal criminal charges against state officials or police officers who violate the Second Amendment. I want a removal of the import bans. Now, would I be willing to accept the universal background checks for all of those things? Maybe. Universal background checks could be really bad depending on how the bill was worded. If I let an adult relative house sit for me overnight and there is a gun in the house, have I transferred it to him? How about if I loan a firearm to a well know friend for some reason? Taken to the extreme this could mean I have committed a felony if I let someone shoot one of my rifles at a range while I am standing right there. But if you allowed for non-commercial transfers where I loan a firearm. And if you put exemptions in for family, and more exemptions for gifts to friends, then I probably would accept them if I got all of the things I mentioned above. In any case, that’s the way we should play the game. If Liberals demand universal checks then we should ask them what they are willing to give us in order to get them. Uummmmhh silencers require a serial number currently and are considered a firearm. Thanks for playing "I'm uninformed and possibly a plant (green covered in leafs type, not some secret squirrel thing)" but your input will be regarded with suspicion from here on in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:56:52 AM EDT
[#50]
So, would you be willing to be ass raped, if they took you to a really fancy dinner first? Basically.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
