1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Negotiate, do not concede.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by k_dawg, Feb 3, 2013.

  1. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    Negotiate, do not concede.

    I oppose the mandate for 100% background checks for private purchases and transfers. I honestly believe that it invariable leads to registration, and from registration to banning. Chicago. Washington DC. New York City. The proof is obvious.

    However, I also understand the political realities.

    It may be that they will be able to force 100% background checks. If so, we should be able to use it to help the tens of millions of American's whose Second Amendment Rights are already infringed.

    Mandate that the NICS standard applies to private ownership of firearms nationwide: all States, all Counties and all Cities. Including Chicago, Washington DC and New York City. These cities continue to deny the Rights as embodied by the US Constitution, and ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Add to this the mandate that any non-NFA firearm which is legal by Federal Law, is legal nationwide.

    So a hard working, lawful single mother in New York City can obtain a handgun to defend herself and her family. So that the military vet living in Washington DC can obtain a shotgun to defend himself and his family. And that family living in Chicago, can obtain that modern semi-automatic rifle, so they can learn how to be proficient with a rifle.

    We need to be pro-active and engage in actual compromise and negotiation.

    We need to fight the Jim Crow like laws which currently deny the Second Amendment Rights to many American Citizens.

    Seperate but Equal was inherently evil. But today we do not even have that.

    We desperately need a Second Amendment Civil Rights Act.
  2. Deanimator

    Deanimator Well-Known Member

    In the current situation, "negotiation" is surrender.

    We're the Bielski brothers and they're the SS anti-partisan squads.

    What is there to "negotiate"? The timetable of our elimination? The order of victim selection?

    You're on the right track with your reference to "Jim Crow". You just don't go quite far enough. Theirs is the "final solution" for widespread gun ownership in this country. EVERYTHING they do is just another step in that direction.
  3. P.O.2010

    P.O.2010 Well-Known Member

    I was born and raised in New York City. New York City ordered that rifles and shotguns be registered in the 1960s. In the 1980s when David Dinkins was Mayor the City Council decided to ban so-called assault weapons. Those who didn't turn in their registered rifles and shotguns that were now considered contraband had their homes assaulted by the NYPD's Emergency Service Unit (the NYPD's SWAT team).

    Anyone who registers their weapons will eventually see them confiscated one way or the other.
  4. JERRY

    JERRY Well-Known Member

    why are some gun owners always willing to give up their rights little by little as if afraid to fight? meanwhile the anti constitutionists have no quams about assaulting whatever rights they dont like.

    a wise man once said there is nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow streak and dead animals......seems quite a few are lining up in the middle of the road again....
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2013
  5. steelerdude99

    steelerdude99 Well-Known Member

    There does not seem like any negotiations or compromise being proposed as much as law abiding citizens being pressured to give up constitutionally protected rights. What are the anti-gunners offering in return? I have not heard not of a single concession offer of made by the anti-gunners.

    The original post leads me to something I have been wondering about. What does an anti-gun politician at any level of government think when they are reciting the oath of office which contains the words to “I swear to defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic”? Were they think'n, “I wasn’t talking about the amendments; some of which I don’t like.”

    Last edited: Feb 3, 2013
  6. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Do NOT negotiate...EVER with these folks.

    It is the death by a thousand cuts

    They are using Soviet style negotiation tactics, those means win-lose, not win-win, and they do not intend to win.

    We have given up WAY too much since 1968 and have gotten nothing in return

    The time for the second armed revolution is near at hand, folks are FED UP with being tramped on to support socialistic programs funded by yOu for others.

    When is enough enough?
  7. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    Negotiation and compromise are where all parties give a little and get a little. Ask any anti what his side is willing to give up and you'll get the same lame answer: they're willing to give up taking them all (then when you're out of earshot, he says, at least for today).

    I would suggest the following as a negotiated position: Before knee-jerking into any new laws, lets:

    1) Properly and fully enforce existing gun control and related laws.
    2) Keep violent criminals in prison.
    3) Keep those with potentially dangerous mental conditions under qualified supervision.
    4) Eliminate public gun-free zones.

    Do these things for five years and track the statistics regarding the use of guns in crimes. If after that (with proper controls in place to make sure there's no cheating) the resulting change in these crimes proves the antis were right, we willingly go back to the gun-control table. If it turns out that the 2A supporters were right, pro-2A legislators get to choose which existing federal gun control laws to strike to further improve the situation, and the anti-gun legislators can't recommend any new additions for ten years.

    States would be free to do something similar.

    Of course, antis will never go for this because it doesn't support their agenda and because they are afraid it would work; then they'd look silly. Isn't it funny though, that they say reduced gun crime is their goal, yet these rational ways to reduce gun crime are unthinkable to them. That can only mean that reducing gun crime is not really their goal, and never has been.
  8. hovercat

    hovercat Well-Known Member

    Negotiate? Why?? Do you negotiate the land boundry with your neighbor just because he would feel better if it moved six feet toward your side?
  9. Akita1

    Akita1 Well-Known Member

    Will admit that I was in the "we'll get UBCs whether we like it or not" camp for the first few weeks of this noise. I thought being reasonable meant giving them UBCs and being done with it - didn't "matter" to me because I'm a law-abiding citizen and don't want crazies & criminals getting guns anyway. How could we argue against UBCs with dead babies in the public arena? Surely that would be the extent of it...

    Now that we're seeing the real text of these Executive Orders and Legislation I am no longer willing to concede anything. NOTHING. Screw being reasonable, it does not exist with people who think if you disagree with them you're wrong. People who have ZERO understanding of what our family members, friends and neighbors have fought, bled and died to defend.

    Yes we are bold with all our cold dead hand crap, but that is what it will take. Stay the course brethren (and "sistren" where applicable); fight the good fight and do not give an inch. NOT A FREAKING INCH.
  10. robhof

    robhof Well-Known Member


    The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT, not a gift from the great Obama. DO NOT negotiate with Terrorists, and do not be fooled the radical Left ARE terrorists in every way, I didn't spend 20+ years in the USAF and 3 conflicts to have my God given Rights negotiated away.:what::neener::evil::fire:
  11. ColtPythonElite

    ColtPythonElite Well-Known Member

    Law abiding citizen's have done nothing wrong. We don't need to negotiate and agree upon a compromise to make up for the actions of criminals.
  12. Last Knight

    Last Knight Active Member

    Every time we compromise, we lose.

    ANTIGUN: "We want to take away all of the guns."
    PROGUN: "We don't want to lose any of our guns."
    ANTIGUN: "Fine, we'll compromise and take some guns."
    PROGUN: "Well... I guess..."
    ANTIGUN: "We want to take away all of the guns."
    PROGUN: "Wha- you just took away some of my guns! You can't have any more!"
    ANTIGUN: "Fine, we'll compromise and take some guns."
    PROGUN: "But-"
    ANTIGUN: "We want to take away all of the guns."

    Our rights are the elephant they're eating away a bite at a time. No deal.

    Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2
  13. henschman

    henschman Well-Known Member

    Refuse to comply with infringements on your rights.
  14. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    By either being too afraid or impotent to use the current situation to attack the Jim Crow Laws and gain back some rights; you all have already given up.

    Enjoy your crumbs.
  15. MagnunJoe

    MagnunJoe Well-Known Member

    I would do universal background check if we can CWL in all 50 states all the time.
  16. Guns&Religion

    Guns&Religion Well-Known Member

    I can't see anything good coming from "Universal Background Checks". I say we oppose it every way possible that is peacable and legal.

    I'm sorry, but I think we have to draw the line right here.
  17. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Well-Known Member

    That tells us all we need to know about your views. :banghead:
  18. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Well-Known Member

    Suppose we approach Universal Background Checks sideways...

    While I'm in favor of universal background checks in principle, I also agree with those who see many dangers in the government's ability to compile a list of gun owners.

    OK, suppose we approach it from another angle: Require persons wishing to permanently transfer a firearm to another person to do a background check on the transferee. BUT it won't be a firearms transfer check. Make background checks for criminal records/adjudicated mental impairment freely available on anyone for anyone for any purpose. Going out on a date with the guy you met on Facebook? Do a background check on him. Going to hire a babysitter or nanny? Do a background check on her. Anyone could do a background check simply by logging on to the Internet or by phone, assuming they have a touch-tone phone. A proof-of-background check could be e-mailed or texted to the requester, who could print it out for their records.

    The gov't wouldn't even know that a firearm was being transferred, but the seller would be protected from unknowingly selling a firearm to (or employing, etc.) a felon or mentally unbalanced person.

    And, in keeping with the thread topic, this UBC law would also allow interstate sales of firearms -- no more having to go through a dealer in the buyer's home state. It would, however, require all non-FFL transactions to be face-to-face so that the seller can verify that (s)he is selling to the actual buyer.

    We can't ever stop criminals from acquiring firearms on the street or by theft, but we can dry up any legitimate sources for them!
  19. razorback2003

    razorback2003 Well-Known Member

    Compromising means that the 86 machine gun ban goes away in exchange for a system that private individuals can call in and see if a potential gun buyer is a felon.

    If we don't get something, we don't give them something.
  20. BP44

    BP44 Well-Known Member

    Wouldn't it be funny if we went to universal background checks and a similar posting of our collections was available online for drug cartels, gangs, and the common looney. Full collections of guns and a map to find them. hell, I really hope something like this happens as I would love to see how many assault rifles are around me and how to find them.

    This won't happen you say, just you wait and see. I hope we all get exactly what it is we are asking for.

Share This Page