Spitballing


PDA






bdevr
November 14, 2012, 12:03 PM
Please do NOT come to my house and shoot me for this. I think that it's time for RESPONSIBLE gun owners to be honest with ourselves.

A: There IS a gun problem in this country. Not with the guns themselves, but with certain people owning them that SHOULD NOT
B: There is most certainly going to be new legislation coming our way. What it may entail is anyones guess

So with that being said, perhaps the pro-gun side needs to beat the liberals to the punch. What if the NRA (or whoever) puts out a plan first? Something that actually makes sense? We could give an inch before they take a mile? I for one do NOT want to give up ANY rights, but I fear that they will be taken whether I like it or not.

This forum has the numbers in terms of member to make some noise with an online patition of sorts.

Some ideas off the top of my head:
-Rather than an assault weapon ban, maybe a more extensive background check & safety course to buy? Much like a CCW. Existing being grandfathered of course
-Close the [deleted] "gun show loophole". Let them have a small victory
-New laws regarding private party sales? The way things are done here in NV even scare me

Obummer has 4 more years whether we like it or not. So we can either serve ourselves a small plate of poop or have a truckload of manure force fed to us...

If you enjoyed reading about "Spitballing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Spats McGee
November 14, 2012, 01:00 PM
Not just "no," but a most emphatic "no." (To use the emphasis that I would normally use in that response would violate the forum rules.)

A: There IS a gun problem in this country. Not with the guns themselves, but with certain people owning them that SHOULD NOT
B: There is most certainly going to be new legislation coming our way. What it may entail is anyones guess

If, as you assert, the problem is that some folks who should not own guns do, how will restricting the folks that should be allowed to own guns fix that problem?

Even if there is an argument to be made that restrictions on law-abiding gun owners would prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning firearms, why should I willingly subject myself to it? I am neither mentally ill nor a criminal.

Gun owners gave an inch in 1934, in 1968, and in 1994. When did the anti-gun lobby give up anything? (For a great example on how this "compromise" on gun control works, take a lood at this post (http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html) from The LawDog Files.) What makes you think the anti crowd will stop at an inch this time?

Please do NOT come to my house and shoot me for this. I think that it's time for RESPONSIBLE gun owners to be honest with ourselves.
I am being honest. I'm not interested in coming to your house to shoot you. However, I am also no longer willing to pretend that the police will be able to respond in time to my distress call if I have a home invasion or carjacking. I am unwilling to pretend that FEMA will always be able to distribute food and water in the event of a tornado, or that looters will never show up on my doorstep in the event of natural disaster. I have a wife and daughter who depend on me for food and safety, and my ability to protect them is non-negotiable.

Being politically honest, I think that gun control is radioactive for most politicians. Over the last few years, and (IMHO) in particular since 9/11, we've seen a huge surge in gun sales, CCL permit issuance, and lots of restrictions being loosened. Is there some danger of more gun control coming down the pike? Absolutely, but I've quit playing along. I'm not interested in appeasing the anti-RKBA crowd any more. We tried it their way. It didn't work.

So with that being said, perhaps the pro-gun side needs to beat the liberals to the punch. What if the NRA (or whoever) puts out a plan first? Something that actually makes sense? We could give an inch before they take a mile? I for one do NOT want to give up ANY rights, but I fear that they will be taken whether I like it or not.
OK. Here's my plan: We write our legislators and tell them that we won't tolerate any more infringements on our 2A rights, that criminals and the mentally ill have an awful track record as far as abiding by the laws, and that their silly gun control laws haven't worked. Further, tell them that we don't even care if they would work, that our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not to be bargained away any longer.

-Rather than an assault weapon ban, maybe a more extensive background check & safety course to buy? Much like a CCW. Existing being grandfathered of course
Fine. Right after they start running background checks and safety courses for folks to exercise their rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, no.
-Close the [deleted] "gun show loophole". Let them have a small victory
There's no such thing as a "gun show loophole." Sales at gun shows have to follow every law applicable to every other gun sale.

-New laws regarding private party sales? The way things are done here in NV even scare me
What sorts of "new laws?" Requiring background checks? Registering all firearms? Seriously? No. See my points above.

[Obama] has 4 more years whether we like it or not. So we can either serve ourselves a small plate of poop or have a truckload of manure force fed to us...
I'm done with voluntarily eating poop. I've reached the point where, if the anti crowd wants me to eat it, they're going to have to shove it down my throat.

plunge
November 14, 2012, 01:05 PM
definitely no

bdevr
November 14, 2012, 01:15 PM
I appreciate the honest feedback. To be clear, I do not want ANY of what I suggested. I am just fearful of what may come. I hope that I am dead wrong and that we can stop them from cramming new legislation down our throats.

del4
November 14, 2012, 01:21 PM
Well said Spatz.

To paraphrase some general, if you are not gaining ground you are losing it. Any good activist should live by this rule. They will gladly take your concessions and still demand more. In the mean time we will only lose ground. As spats mentioned, we have conceded before.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

blarby
November 14, 2012, 01:31 PM
I'm not interested in appeasing the anti-RKBA crowd any more. We tried it their way. It didn't work.

True.

the pro-gun side needs to beat the liberals to the punch

A large portion of the problem itself- IMNSHO. Classifying "liberals" as "tyrants" is neither winning any elections :rolleyes: nor actually and factually truthful.

Party-mandering does not work in this equation any longer. As :

Being politically honest, I think that gun control is radioactive for most politicians.

A large part of that being that guns are no longer a red/blue issue.

Given the "actual" electoral maps of this election, there really isn't a lot of solid red OR blue anymore. Its all shades of purple. The faster and more readily we realize this, and stop excluding potential allies with such statements, the better off we will be.

Admit it red guy- you have blue in you. Admit it blue guys, we have red in us. Maybe this is one of the focal issues that makes us the most purple- thats a source of unity, not a separator, and should be viewed as such.

Obummer has 4 more years whether we like it or not.

And quite the mandate that people like what he has to say. This isn't bush/gore. He rushed through on a wave of sentiment. Consider that.

I do say with certainty that this thread has about as much chance of staying open as a green party candidate has of winning a presidential election in our lifetime if something other than such banter continues. If a sig line is offensive enough to warrant removal, this whole "liberals are the death of us" thing reeks of the same political "overtones" that we're supposed to NOT DISCUSS OR ENCOURAGE, yet somehow comes up in damn near every thread of this nature, and no one says or does anything-perhaps except me.

TALK TO THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE THE LAWS.

Write your senator.

Write your house rep.

Write your mayor- he talks to both.

Let them know how you feel.

Write to the president- tell him you don't support any new laws until we fix the old laws.

Need help with the last one ? : http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=684228

Like it or not YOU and ME define the next four years as much as anyone or anything else, simply by action or inaction. This republic still fears its people- and what we have to say and believe. You vote with your voice and deeds as much as your ballot.

You want to change the world ?

DO IT.

Stop blaming a group of people ( who aren't the issue ) for your woes.

Go after the specific sources of issue with intelligent and laser-like precision.

Carpet-bombing doesn't win wars anymore. JDAMS do.


Note ( added after two PM's) : The below map is an overlay showing votes by district, using population density and color rationality, not just using one or two colors for each district. Follow the link in the map, it will take you to a full explanation.

Old Fuff
November 14, 2012, 01:38 PM
Are there people who have guns that shouldn't? Sure there are. There are in fact a lot of folks that have a lot of things one might wish they hadn't.

So to solve this "people problem" we should pass laws, right? Wrong!

People, and particularly criminals, who shouldn't have (whatever) are not usually the kind that pay any attention to laws, and obtaining the forbidden through illegal means doesn't bother them at all.

Now from where you are at, take a close look at two neighbors, California and Arizona.

Califorina has all kinds of laws, such as waiting periods before taking delivery, a ban on semi-automatic rifles that simply look like military weapons, and on large capacity magazines that fit in them. An ordinary resident can't buy moden handguns at an auction, only licensed dealers, and residents can't buy a handgun unless it on an approved list. I could go on and on.

In Arizona we have none of this. At age 18 a young adult with a clean record can buy a handgun from another resident (but not a dealer, thanks to a federal law) and carry it either openly or concealed without a license or permit. The can also buy any of the above mentioned rifles that are prohibited in Califorina. Arizona residents can go to a gunshow and buy or trade among themselves with no required paperwork.

So we in Arizona should be near overcome with violence and crime, right? As previous restrictions were repealed, one-by-one no additional gun-related violence happened.

California should by all rights be be crime-free so far as firearms are concerned, but they aren't - for obvious reasons.

While the president and his party may propose new legislation, it is highly unlikely that it will be passed. The Republicans still control the House of Representatives, and without House support no legislation can be passed.

Even on Wall Street advisors are recommending they're clients buy stock in companies such as Smith & Wesson and Sturm-Ruger - and they opine that new gun control legislation "is unlikely."

As for the NRA. What they will be doing is looking at the election coming up in 2014 - not 2016, and taking the Democrats control of the U.S. Senate away.

Can't be done? Already has been, in 1996.

Nushif
November 14, 2012, 01:52 PM
Oh boy, usually I don't delve into these, but let's for a second.

"Please do NOT come to my house and shoot me for this."

I'm not in the habit of shooting people I disagree with, no worries. Even though I do wear a hoodie an awful lot. >.O

"I think that it's time for RESPONSIBLE gun owners to be honest with ourselves."

What you're creating here is an instant assumption on your end that anyone nt agreeing with you must not be responsible. So .... not leaving any room for meaningful discourse, no?

"A: There IS a gun problem in this country. Not with the guns themselves, but with certain people owning them that SHOULD NOT"

So, my background here is a German one. A German one coming from the mildly more than center left. This makes me pretty darned far left here and yes, I have been indoctrinated by this during my childhood like you have been by your own parents. BUT:
What we have is a violence problem. Not a gun problem. Now, in my opinion this come from a gross lack of education, social equality, and disenfranchisement from our political system for anyone working in a less than stellar job alongside a true lack of chances for a large chunk of our youth.

As you can see, we do inherently agree. Except for the fact that you're blaming guns. I'm blaming gross inequality, which leads to violent and socially disenfranchised people. In short, folks that don't buy into the societal contract that working together is a good thing. The same people that have no problems illegally procuring a gun and committing a crime with it are the same ones that seem to think they can make it in this world purely by their own wits, strength and whatnot, so what value does another human have when they're not directly helping? None. THAT is a problem. Not the stolen Glock loaded with .380s in the guy's right hand.

"B: There is most certainly going to be new legislation coming our way. What it may entail is anyones guess"

There always is, but there's no point talking about what to do about something we don't even know.

"So with that being said, perhaps the pro-gun side needs to beat the liberals to the punch. What if the NRA (or whoever) puts out a plan first? Something that actually makes sense?"

You mean common sense gun control? And would this include input from "liberals" who are in the NRA as well? Or are they not allowed to talk?

"We could give an inch before they take a mile?"

Why? I am genuinely asking this ... why?
We're winning! WINNING!

Several states have broadened private gun ownership laws, allowed CCW, CCW in national parks is legal, and "Gun control" is radioactive in the political community.

"I for one do NOT want to give up ANY rights, but I fear that they will be taken whether I like it or not."

Again, I am not so sure. We are winning. Compare this to oh ... the 80s and we're most definitely better off.

"This forum has the numbers in terms of member to make some noise with an online patition of sorts."

I don't know, to be honest. Isn't the minimum like 25k signatures? No clue, to be honest.

"Some ideas off the top of my head:"

I like ideas. 8)


"-Rather than an assault weapon ban, maybe a more extensive background check & safety course to buy? Much like a CCW. Existing being grandfathered of course"

Course to buy .... so making guns more expensive? OR a bigger check which would mean wait times and .... more expensive?

"-Close the [deleted] "gun show loophole". Let them have a small victory"

Care to outline this mysterious "guns how loophole?" Because I have to do the same tests as if I went to the shop and bought it.

"-New laws regarding private party sales? The way things are done here in NV even scare me"

Frankly whether unrecorded private sales scare you isn't my concern. This is about property rights. And even in my little lefty ideal world those don't get infringed on. If I choose to sell a gun that is mine ... what makes this different from a car? Or a house, or a book?

"Obummer has 4 more years whether we like it or not. So we can either serve ourselves a small plate of poop or have a truckload of manure force fed to us..."

You're being both childish and petulant here. The President's name is Obama. And as outlined before gun control is radioactive, the third rail, a "No-Go" or however you wanna call it.
Should he choose to go full steam on this, not only would he make every other democratic politician commit suicide as well, but he would also damage the party irreparably. the presidency is a big deal, but the survival of the party is bigger. You may have made the guy a huge evil boogeyman, but the rest of the political world looks at him as a temporary chief of the executive branch. And they do have to look to the future. and they know full well that if they push for gun control there won't be much of that.

It's on us to keep gun control the third rail in politics. But it already is there. Now stop panicking.

sawdeanz
November 14, 2012, 01:56 PM
The only instance I feel that the NRA should get involved in anti-gun legislation is when it is educating law makers who otherwise have no idea what they are doing. What comes to mind is the anecdote about armor piercing ammunition and how as written the bill could be construed to include all rifle ammunition until the NRA pointed this out and rewrote the bill to be more specific. I don't know how accurate that story is but it is an example of how actual compromise/cooperation could work to get things done.

Sam1911
November 14, 2012, 02:02 PM
A: There IS a gun problem in this country. Not with the guns themselves, but with certain people owning them that SHOULD NOTNot really. A few, sure, but many if not ALL of those who "should not" are already legally prohibited, so we do NOT need any further legislation on this issue. There is no acceptable way to legislate the statistically insignificant number of people who we all would agree should not have guns due to some un-acted-upon mental trouble into the prohibited camp. We've discussed it a million times and unless we're willing to accept "guilty before the (a) crime" that's just not possible.

B: There is most certainly going to be new legislation coming our way. What it may entail is anyones guessThere is ALWAYS more proposed legislation coming our way. The difference is that these proposed laws have largely muted into political background noise in the last two decades. They aren't "sticking." They don't become anything. There is no political will, or social interest, in enacting any of them. All the high-profile public shootings we've had, even recently, have done NOTHING to advance the anti- side's goals. It's become more or less a dead issue. So there will be new proposals coming, but there is really no reason to believe there are any new LAWS about to be enacted.

So with that being said, perhaps the pro-gun side needs to beat the liberals to the punch. What if the NRA (or whoever) puts out a plan first? Something that actually makes sense? We could give an inch before they take a mile? I for one do NOT want to give up ANY rights, but I fear that they will be taken whether I like it or not. You don't negotiate from a position of strength. That's giving up "something" to gain "nothing." And these folks can't be negotiated with anyway. There is no "halfway" point they'll accept as a place to stop fighting. All a compromise gives them is a bit of free gain. Akin to a football team holding its opponant on their 20 yard line, and saying, "Allright, we'll give you 30 yards. We'll let you walk back to the 50 yard line, but you have to promise not to try to take any of our side of the field." Silly. It just doesn't work that way. "A little" isn't their goal.

-Rather than an assault weapon ban, maybe a more extensive background check & safety course to buy? Much like a CCW. Existing being grandfathered of course No, no, and NO. My CCW didn't require an extensive background check, and there was no safety course. If I --and every one in my state-- can be trusted to CARRY a gun in public absent those things, we don't need to have MORE restrictions, checks, and courses just to buy guns.

-Close the [deleted] "gun show loophole". Let them have a small victory There IS NO gun show loophole. Can you even define what you're talking about? Explain this loophole to me. If you can explain it, then you should understand how very very dumb that suggestion even is.

-New laws regarding private party sales? The way things are done here in NV even scare me They SCARE you? :rolleyes: Private citizen owns property. Private citizen sells property to another private citizen. Period. Same as it has been done for centuries, and same as it is done is almost all the states. Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Please don't clutter up the board with it, but sit down ask yourself to come up with the plan that would make that happen, be enforceable, and be the minimum gross intrusion into gun owners' rights. (Hint: It can't be done.)

Let's not do any such thing. Let's keep fighting as hard as we possibly can, and see if we can't continue advancing the trend we're in, rather than turning and tucking our tails between our legs, whimpering that our masters don't beat us any more.

beatledog7
November 14, 2012, 02:19 PM
bdevr:

Whom do you propose should not own a gun beyond those who already are prohibited? People you deem unsafe? Nice precedent. How about we remove cars from the driveways of everyone we think is not such a good driver? Or curtail free speech for anyone who stutters or says something we don't like?

We must not compromise on 2A. Where bad gun laws exist we must follow them respectfully while we try to get them changed/repealed. But that's not compromise: that's just being lawful.

Bovice
November 14, 2012, 02:51 PM
So your response to the threat of harsh legislation is appeasement?

They tried to appease Hitler. Look where that went!

If we were all as willing as you to give up points to the other team, this forum would be long gone since nobody has any guns anymore.

This thread should be deleted, it isn't what I think THR is about and we certainly don't want one bad apple to spoil the bunch via our forum.

Nushif
November 14, 2012, 03:06 PM
Wow! Godwin's Law in less than a page?

bdevr
November 14, 2012, 03:09 PM
I was just trying to start an honest conversation about something. I am on the pro-gun/anti-gun law side of this arguement. Before this thread gets closed because it has turned into pure banter. Let us all look at the recent scorecard.
I am NOT in favor of new gun laws. I WAS also not in favor of:
-4 more years for Obama
-Obamacare
-The trillion + in stimulus spending
-Bank bailouts
-Auto bailouts
-99 weeks of unemployment
-The dream act

I could keep going all day. If you agree with the above, then wake up and realize you are losing. Argue with me all you want. Post whatever statistics you want. You don't have to change my mind as I'm already with you. But my freinds, I fear that you are just pissing into the wind...

blarby
November 14, 2012, 03:12 PM
Ok, now we're into la-la land. Enough.

JShirley
November 14, 2012, 03:15 PM
Foolish monikers like "Obummer" make the poster look foolish, and the membership here look stupid. THR is supposed to showcase gun owners at their best, and childish names don't help convince anyone that gun owners can actually be thoughtful people.

If you enjoyed reading about "Spitballing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!