Well, Obama just laid it out

Fellow gun owners, this past week has shaken the core of our nation. Right or wrong, the masses want something done. We have a president who is determined to make changes. "They" have a mission and won't back down until they feel they've done all they can. We are holding what is ours by Constitutional decree. "They" won't take away our right to bear arms. "They" will make changes without our approval. "They" won't take away our right to bear arms but they are going after a segment of the gun market that "they" feel is not necessary for "us". They already did it with full auto guns. Right or wrong, they will not let this one pass with time. "They" will feel it is a good compromise. RKBA, sure, no problem, just not what we want to use. You guys really believe this will go away with time and distance or are you just thinking positively knowing they will do it anyways? There's a difference between reality and wishful thinking.

larryh1108 said:

You guys really believe this will go away with time and distance or are you just thinking positively knowing they will do it anyways? There's a difference between reality and wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

The best guarantee of being right about anything is to believe you will fail.

I see an awful lot of people who seem to be more interested in being right about failing than in being successful.

How can they track private sales of a gun thats never been registered ? they can't, lets hope they don't try to make people register there guns. That is what really scares me because that is the step before confescation.

There are at least 10 things I can think of that they can do that would change the availability of firearms without effecting our right to keep and bare arms.

I am not listing them since I do not want to give anyone ideas of how to restrict us any more than we already are. But most of them are very simple and do not require any new laws written. Some are already in place in verious parts of the country. Almost all of the changes would be seen by the general public as a move toward a safer community.

Those of you that want to put your head in the sand and say we do not have a problem, need to go to the parents of the 20 children killed and listen to them for a while, because that is whom we will be hearing on TV and in print for the next six months.

Like they say, wake up and smell the coffee.
Jim

michaelbsc said:

We might win, but not with the tired old strategies of the past.

They led us from one compromise to another.

We cannot compromise any more. This has to be the last stand, and we have to be clear and rational.


For two nights everyone's been accusing me of being a troll because I think we should get ahead of the left instead of hunker down and see what we can compromise. Fiddlesticks.

Like I said in some other posts, gun owners may not be a numerical majority, but the hard antis are a very small minority. If we aren't shrill, and can ally with much of the uncommitted mainstream, we can command a superior audience with Congress despite the media. Congress cares about votes. Nothing else.

If we can get a serious lobbying effort with the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, etc. to get them aware that gun owners are hard core serious about gun safety, and we're willing to twist the arms of Congress as well as get LaPierre to twist the arms of congress to fund research and services then we'll become friends of the medical community instead of pariah in the medical community.


Here's the carrot excise tax I was talking about. Now, anyone who is so foolish as to think that this two paragraph "White House petition" is anything more an a strawman object to use a talking point is extremely naive. No legislator is going to pass this "just like Michael wrote it." But the idea is to show that we get it that we're concerned about the problem. And they're going to cram it down our throats any way, so lets make it something we control.


http://wh.gov/nTna

Here's some more information about this petition:



$2 Federal Excise on Handguns and Long Guns earmarked for Mental
Health Services


Recent shootings have focused national attention on gun violence. The
dramatic events in Newton, CT involved a young male. The Aurora, CO event
involved a young male. The Tucson, AZ event involved a young male. Others
were the same. And a connecting thread is that these young men were mentally
ill, which is not a condition they voluntarily chose. These are failures of
the nation's mental health system, not failures of gun control.

We should establish a $2 per handgun or long gun point of retail excise tax
earmarked for mental health services to improve the state of the
nation's capacity to identify and treat patients in need. These funds
should not be part of the general fund, and this excise tax funds the benefit
just like hunting licenses fund wildlife management.

Click to expand...

This is the best idea I've seen yet. It focuses on the real problem. It shows gun owners being involved and proactive and it might actually work.

Sure, let them put another tax on gun owners for something we didn't do. How about a similar tax on granola and candy bars? A mental health tax on Froot Loops?
The leftists have already tried more than once to place additional crushing taxes on firearms and ammunition, attempting to say this "sin" tax "proves" we are going to be part of the solution to the problem "we created".
Baloney. Let this proposal gain traction in the legislature and before you know it you end up with your $2 tax increased to %10,000 - which HAS ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED.
Nope, not gonna buy it - WE didn't cause this debacle, and we don't need to pay for it. They can tax hybrid cars and wind farms for their money.

larryh1108 said:

Expect "them" to go after "military type" weapons hard and fast. How, when there are millions already in circulation? They won't/can't just ban them. They can force registration of any military type weapon and tax them like they do with the full auto weapons and supressors. They can make it illegal to sell, transfer or give your military type weapon to anybody else. They won't take it away but you can't use it for barter any more.

Click to expand...

Ok, how do YOU define a "military type" weapon? Cosmetically? Maybe by the flash hider, bayonet lug, removable mag, pistol grip, or collapsible stock?

Take a look at ANY AR made during the last ban, or a California or Connecticut compliant AR today. The weapon used at Sandy Hook complied with the Connecticut AW ban. Any cosmetic feature you name can be removed.

The "military type" weapons you're trying to describe are called "semi-automatic rifles". Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to think that they can ban all semi-autos.

This is what I am posting on all the forums I belong to outside of the gun community.

---

There are only a few things that could help limit gun violence in the United States.

1) make all guns magically disappear. This won't happen, even though I've seen foolish people advocate that here and elsewhere.

2) End our prohibition on drugs. This could and should happen. It would dramatically lower inner city violence that costs so many lives each year - it's the biggest reason our gun deaths numbers are higher than anyone else's. Additionally, the taxes earned from pot sales would help with a multitude of problems.

Legalized drugs would cut the rug out from under the drug cartels, which would help lower drug related violence amongst our border states with Mexico.

3) Mental Healthcare reform. Most of these school shootings and mass shootings were done by people with severe mental health issues. How do we address that? I suggest we have an excise tax of .50 on every box of ammo and a $2.00 excise tax on every firearm sold to be specifically tagged for mental health reform and support. These taxes would have to be protected from our thieving politicians however. They should be earmarked much the same way hunting license fees go to wildlife management programs.

4) Firearm safety programs in our schools. Knowledge is power. Fewer accidents happen when fear is overcome by knowledge. Most kids today learn about guns through video games and movies. When I grew up, we were taught in the cub scouts how to shoot and gun safety. In high school, we had a rifle team. In college, we had the ROTC shooting class. Those things have become politically incorrect and don't exist anymore.

Assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, and any other such nonsense will not do squat. Look up the effect of the Clinton AWB - the sum gain was zero.

DammitBoy said:

3) Mental Healthcare reform. Most of these school shootings and mass shootings were done by people with severe mental health issues. How do we address that? I suggest we have an excise tax of .50 on every box of ammo and a $2.00 excise tax on every firearm sold to be specifically tagged for mental health reform and support. These taxes would have to be protected from our thieving politicians however.

Click to expand...

I would be against the tax because no matter how strict you try to ear mark the funds from the tax, the politicians will find a way to either redirect part, or all of it, so there again we have another unfunded mandate.

How many times have we ssen funds earmarked or connected with something before only to have the politicians use it elsewhere in a way that makes them look "good" but deprives something that should be required.

Sorry, not buying it.

Otherwise yes, lets work to reform mental health, and we could use the already in place tax on firearms and ammo to help fund it

Ok, how do YOU define a "military type" weapon?

Click to expand...

Nothing that is for sale to the general public that I'm aware of. However, those are the words of the people trying to step on our rights, not mine.

I see an awful lot of people who seem to be more interested in being right about failing than in being successful.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by "being right". I want less restrictions, not more. There is not one thing I "want" to happen to make this all go away except for nothing to happen.

It's one thing to say "no" or "from my cold, dead hands" or "Molon Labe" on a chat board and it's another thing when the wheels are in motion to do what we say that "can't" or "won't" do. Positive thinking is nice but the threat is real and it will be relentless until they are satisfied. Pretending it will go away or it's all hot air is not going to solve anything. Talking about our options may help us down the road. Saying nothing will happen is a fantasy.

Is it me or is DC being a little hypocritical here? They want to restrict or ban Americans from purchasing a certain type of firemarm with our own money, yet they sell / give these same arms with ammuntion to questionable (at best) recipients that have been paid for buy hard working citizens.

Let's see guns to Mexico (Fast & Furious), $ to Egypt and the Muslim brotherood, plus how many unamed and unknown arms deals to people who will 100% use them to kill others.

Just makes me shake my head.

Listen folks, the tax petition I created at the White House web site has the authority of an empty box of Kleenex nose wipes.

It really means nothing.

It is a strawman rhetorical device that is necessary to illustrate the the gun owners are concerned and engaged in this discussion instead of being the hick ya-hoos we're usually portrayed to be.

Any of you who really and truly think that someone from the House or the Senate is going to take those two paragraphs I wrote in a few minutes at a Taco Bell eating a burrito as actual legislation might just *BE* that ignorant.

But we can't have the conversation without a prop.

Ok, hate the idea of an excise tax, propose another funding scheme.

"This isn't our problem. We didn't create it."

Yep. You're right. Tough. It's a serious safety issue for us.

We depend on the criminal justice system in this country to provide a level of screening to keep guns away from forbidden people. That leg of the stool works well enough, and we count on it without even thinking about it.

Likewise we depend on the mental healthcare system in this country to keep guns away from forbidden people. It is becoming more and more clear that this leg of the stool isn't bearing its weight.

Granted, 200 other facets of society are also suffering from failures in the mental healthcare system. A lot of homeless people in the streets - who aren't engaged in shooting rampages - are victims of that same failed system.

But our interface with that system failure is splashed across the headlines in a big way. And in a way that not only hurts society at large, but threatens us materially. So if we get a childish cranial-rectal inversion here we're going to get creamed.

So rather than "waiting to see what happens" we had darn well better start becoming the advocates to get the system fixed.

Ok, so it's true there is a danger in allowing an excise tax. Start with $2 now and in a year Feinstein makes it $2K. Point taken.

But along with the fact that we've got to advocate getting the system fixed, most here are pretty conservative, and nationwide changes cost a bunch of money. So we also have to look like we stepping up to the plate somehow. Suggest something.

I've already said LaPierre needs to go see the directors at the National Institute of Mental Health and promise them that he will twist the arms off of a few Congresscritters for funding. Those guys at the various government agencies are political animals just like the rest of Washington.

And while the medical community currently hates us with a purple passion (remember the thread we were talking about being labeled as mentally ill just for owning a gun - started by me the troll) if we start pouring funding into the system they will start loving us. Trust me on this. My wife has worked in that system for decades. That's how it works.

Michael, if any member here makes a suggestion that is counter to "just say no" then we aren't gun lovers or we are selling out for convenience. The threads here have showm me that no one wants to give an inch. I don't blame them but they think that because they say no, it won't happen.

Any attempt to discuss options or counter proposals that could appease the vocal masses is met with "no", no compromise, read the Constitution, etc. It seems that they don't get it and any attempt at dialog that is productive leads to name calling and bullying. When the new laws come down these same men will cry foul and write thread after thread of what they could have done or should have done. I want to be proactive and these boards want to be reactive. I've given up trying to reason with people who are closed minded.

larryh1108 said:

The only thing I see "out there" is the mental health sign off. We already know they are going after the AR type rifles. They can't just ban them. Knowing that the AR is in their sights, what do you think they will do other than limiting the magazines? What will appease the bleeding hearts?

The hi cap mag ban is almost a given.
The gun show loophole ban is almost a given and many states already have addressed it.
If anyone here thinks taxation is not in our future, your head is buried in the sand.
So, other than the mental health signoff, what is the "crazy thinking"?

Click to expand...

There is already a defacto mental health sign off. And we need to work our patooties off to keep it the way it is, then make it work properly.

The last thing we want is a psych exam for every purchase or annually.


The way things work now the pre-sale check runs an analysis against a database of all kinds of records, some of which are mental health records.

If you have ever been involuntarily committed, more than enough time ago for the database to update (a day or two), then you'll get a no-go. I think there might be some way to clear that flag, but I don't really know the details. Obviously, if you're getting involuntarily committed today the database won't be updated today. But if you're getting committed today, you probably aren't getting released today to go make a purchase today.

What's missing now is a mechanism, and I have no good suggestion so don't jump all over me, for a concerned provider to flag a non-commitable patient.

My wife has a whole roster of patients that I don't have an ounce of trouble meeting in the mall or around town and saying hello. But there's no way in hell I'm handing them a gun unless its a zombie apocalypse and I need all the help I can get. These patients don't have loss by due process, and due process is just as sacrosanct as RKBA. This is the tough part. You can't just take their rights on a whim. I'd be pissed. You'd be pissed they'd be pissed. And if they're not committable, it might be OK come Monday morning. Or not. This is tough.


And please, since I am just a spouse, if there is a medical provider reading, jump in and give better details.

But we don't want annual psych exams.

larryh1108 said:

Those who say "just say no" are living in a fantasy world right now. There will be changes of some sort but we don't know what they will be and how it will work. No matter what it is, it won't be good. I feel we'll take steps forward in CCW and lose ground on an AWB. I don't think we'll have a choice. I think change is coming and we won't be happy.

Click to expand...

larryh1108 said:

Any attempt to discuss options or counter proposals that could appease the vocal masses is met with "no", no compromise, read the Constitution, etc. It seems that they don't get it and any attempt at dialog that is productive leads to name calling and bullying.

Click to expand...

You're speculating from a pessimistic viewpoint, others are speculating from an optimistic viewpoint. You have nothing but your opinion on what's going to happen, just like everyone else. If it upsets you that members of a gun board are adamant about maintaining their gun rights, so be it.

Many of us on here now were around for the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Nothing new. Only a strong effort by the Republicans inserted the 10 year expiration into the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The only thing that will prevent the things you seem to be looking forward to are a strong enough outlash by current gun owners to get the attention of Congress.

If it upsets you that members of a gun board are adamant about maintaining their gun rights, so be it.

Click to expand...

Upsets me? No. Bothers me? Yes. Why? Because I want to have some say so in what will happen. I don't want to wait to see what comes back and then complain about it. If being adamant about maintaining our gun rights is holding your hands over your ears and yelling "Nah Nah Nah I can't hear you" then go for it. It's your right, as you say.

Many of us on here now were around for the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Nothing new.

Click to expand...

So was I. 3 assassinations brought about the 1968 act. Unfortunately, today, we have instant electronic media. The way news was reported even 10 years ago has changed dramatically. Cell phones, cell cameras, tweeting, internet, forums like this, everything brings these tragedies up front and center in now time. Kids now play shoot-em-up video games for 8-10-12 straight hours, 7 days a week. Kids who used to withdraw from society now play these video games and take it to the next level. If he would have shot up a post office it would have been equally tragic but when he chose 6 year old kids in a school he opened up an entirely new wound that has turned previously uncommitted voters into anti-gun people, especially with the media painting pictures that are pure propogande and lies sprinkled with the faces of the children killed. This tragedy has united parents like never before. "Save our kids, ban guns" they cry.

Now Washington is involved with a president that has been anti-gun for decades. Previously the NRA and pro-gun movement was louder. This time the anti-gun people are louder. Now, is being optimistic going to make this go away or do we wish to be in the bargaining process ahead of time? Is it being pessimistic to wish to be heard? Is it smarter to wait to see what they do before we decide what to do? Change is coming. I'd like to think we had a hand in what happens instead of allowing anti-gun people decide.

If you really believe that this will blow over then you haven't been paying attention. However, it's your right to believe what you wish. We're all speculating right now. As I write this the news is showing pictures of the kids buried today and 2 unarmed adults from the school that were also buried today. Do you think this doesn't affect people sitting on the fence on gun rights? Do you really think this is like any of the past tragedies?

Upsets me? No. Bothers me? Yes. Why? Because I want to have some say so in what will happen. I don't want to wait to see what comes back and then complain about it.

Click to expand...

You know, there's an amost amazing amount of hubris -- if you really stop to think about it -- in the idea that if "WE" come up with something really good as a bone to throw to the other side, somehow "WE'LL" get to influence what THEY vote into law.

Sure, we can come up with ideas like a mental health excise tax on guns (uncomfortably LINKING guns and mental health issues, IMHO) but "WE" have no way of putting that into action even if "WE" wanted it -- and what is in any way to say that "THEY" will give two good poops about our ideas? And far beyond that, that THEY are going to say, "wow, ok...if you're that serious about this mental health thing, well, I guess we'll you keep the guns."

Seriously, for the folks pushing these laws it ISN'T about solving the perceived problem with mass murderers. It's about grabbing the opportunity to hammer down gun rights while "the people's" minds are still wrought up and clamoring for "something."


But, hey, if something actually does come of all this, and some part of it looks like something you've suggested, I guess you can say they used your idea.

I love a good leftist style compromise - how about this one;
The GCA of '68 is repealed, and they get to keep their printing presses. That is EXACTLY the style of "deal" they offer us.

http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

This is a good read. The ATF recognized the problem of mental health reporting in 2007 yet Congress hasn't taken any action to improve the situation. My understanding is the mental health reporting requirement of the law is an unfunded mandate so few states regularly report it. I believe they don't address the issue as it doesn't sufficiently ban or remove enough firearms so its inadequate. Unless they can be more draconian they don't care for it even if it will save lives. Once again the answer is to properly enforce the laws on the books not the Clintonian philosophy of ignoring the current laws so you can say they don't work and get more passed.

Also didn't the NRA support the NICS instant background checks? The media loves to claim the NRA opposes EVERYTHING. The fact is they oppose nonsense legislation that preys on ignorance and does nothing to quell crime.

...that if "WE" come up with something really good as a bone to throw to the other side, somehow "WE'LL" get to influence what THEY vote into law.

Click to expand...

These changes (or lack of changes) will be the result of negotiations. The NRA and other pro-gun groups will represent us. They will need something to negotiate with. If not, the NRA goes in and says "we will give up nothing because our members refuse to give up what is lawfully theirs". The anti-gun people will look at them and tell them that they won't take away our right to bear arms but there will be changes. Then they will dictate what changes will occur.

Is that how we want it? Is that a negotiation? Is that what happened in '94? What the heck, only a decade. We got those rights back. Right? They did it many times before ('68, '94, NICS, etc). Why do you think they won't do it again but this time more severe and with no expiration date? To negotiate means we both compromise. I'd rather have a voice in what we compromise instead of being told what we will give up by people hellbent on taking away all our rights. If it means a 2% tax on ammo to fund a mental health bill I'd rather do that than have to turn in my AR. That's what they want, right? Or we can just refuse to negotiate and see what happens. They won't do anything, they never have, right?

These changes (or lack of changes) will be the result of negotiations. The NRA and other pro-gun groups will represent us. They will need something to negotiate with. If not, the NRA goes in and says "we will give up nothing because our members refuse to give up what is lawfully theirs". The anti-gun people will look at them and tell them that they won't take away our right to bear arms but there will be changes. Then they will dictate what changes will occur.

Click to expand...

But it really comes down to who has the VOTES. That's all that's really going to matter.
And the votes won't change very much at all simply due to the proposal including a little bit more or a little bit less rights. Those who are for gun control will vote for it and those who are against won't. The NRA informs and educates legislators on what their talking points need to be as they explain why they didn't vote for a new AWB or whatever. I don't see them sitting down at a backroom table and saying, "oh, we'll go along with a mag ban if you give up the AWB," or whatever. They CAN'T come out in public support of any such thing -- the membership won't allow it.

Even a tax on guns and ammo to pay for better mental care is going to be more than they'll support. Seriously...the NRA just came out in favor of makin guns and ammo MORE EXPENSIVE??? Remember, the only real carrot or stick the NRA holds is to tell law makers that, "we represent 4 million + die-hard voters and we'll tell them you're the guy to vote for if you go our way." If they agree to back something that just can't be sugar-coated with the membership, they'll lose that carrot/stick in droves!

So, no I don't want the NRA to go in and toss them a few juicy bones for me, thanks. They already suffer enough (somewhat undeserved, maybe) distrust and anger due to what happened in 1986. I don't think they'll forget that, especially not with 8 THOUSAND new members joining EACH DAY right now. That's not the kind of indicatior that says, "hey, we'd like to settle."

If it means a 2% tax on ammo to fund a mental health bill I'd rather do that than have to turn in my AR. That's what they want, right?

Click to expand...

It will never, EVER, EVER come down to that either/or decision.

jon_in_wv said:

http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

This is a good read. The ATF recognized the problem of mental health reporting in 2007 yet Congress hasn't taken any action to improve the situation. My understanding is the mental health reporting requirement of the law is an unfunded mandate so few states regularly report it.

Click to expand...

Awesome find. So we hammer with it.

I'll hammer Lindsey Graham and I'll suggest to Tim Scott. Send stuff to LaPierre.

I have no new Representative yet.

Everybody else do something. LaPierre is not our king either. He's a mouth piece if you have a membership number.

But it really comes down to who has the VOTES. That's all that's really going to matter.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Now, how many votes did we lose because of the tragedy in CT? How many of the votes will now go the other way because they'd rather lose the 4 million NRA voters but gain the 8 million people who are now brainwashed that guns will kill our children? Let's be honest here, the NRA has spent hundreds of millions of our dollars to buy the votes in Washington. Today, those dollars don't mean as much to many of those voters due to the outcry of the public. Right now the money from the NRA doesn't buy as many votes as showing the public that you did the right thing. We had a net loss of many votes and I don't see very many switching to our side. It is the votes that count and we lost quite a few of them. We lost our advantage.

We don't have ANY idea that that's true. The only votes are those of the guys and gals in Congress, and they've got to think long and hard about their futures, their parties' platforms, etc. We have a strong presence in the House, and I've seen nothing yet that would indicate that it has more than shuddered, let alone dissolved.

We shall see, of course. Personally, I think appointing Biden and going back to the old 1994 talking points are very positive signs, and I think the more astute members of Congress can read that between-the-lines text as well.