Creating a contingency plan to influence the legal language of a UBC

[Sam1911]

Oh Sam! I can’t believe you think that is true. Time for you to google the history of the precedents for the government for establishing gun laws. Repeal of the NFA and GCA would most certainly not end “a legal basis for gun laws of any sort”. If you want to avoid Google, PM Frank Ettin.

I fully understand the precedents for the government establishing gun laws.

As I don't ever hold the faintest hope of being handed a compromise that actually gives a danged thing back in exchange for more gun control, it was merely a humorous point to make.

Of course any new law that you got "compromised" upon us which said it would repeal NFA and GCA would merely then define firearms anew and set whatever terms the winning side (i.e: not us) wanted.

Of course, that is a moot point, just as our discussion here is purely moot, as no compromise is offered or will be offered, that says anything even close to any of those things.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I fully understand the precedents for the government establishing gun laws.

I don't read minds Sam. I can only reply to what you write.

As I don't ever hold the faintest hope of being handed a compromise that actually gives a danged thing back in exchange for more gun control, it was merely a humorous point to make.

Of course any new law that you got "compromised" upon us which said it would repeal NFA and GCA would merely then define firearms anew and set whatever terms the winning side (i.e: not us) wanted.

Of course, that is a moot point, just as our discussion here is purely moot, as no compromise is offered or will be offered, that says anything even close to any of those things.

Just like I can't read minds, you can not predict the future. It is better to plan for a future that may be a possibility, than dismiss the possibility and be unprepared when it becomes a probability. It grieves me that you believe our discussion is moot. I value your opinion even when I disagree with it.

 

[Sam1911]

You are planning, but you have no means of making any plan you'd come up with happen. Unless I completely underestimate you, even if "our side" was asked to contribute mitigating language to a new law, you (we) will not be asked for your opinion. Aside from writing to SAF and NRA and offering your suggestions as to how to win in the losers' bracket, so to speak, I really can't comprehend how the product you're asking for here could be anything BUT moot.





As a side issue, offering the NRA a chance to "buy in" on a compromise UBC law -- say, by offering national reciprocity in exchange for UBC -- would be one of the smartest, most divisive, most catastrophically destructive things the enemy side could ever do. If they sweetened that pot enough to lure the NRA to the table and be party to an agreement, it would destroy the credibility of the NRA in the eyes of SO MANY members that the Association's effectiveness could be decimated (by whichever definition you prefer for that word) for decades to come ... perhaps permanently. THAT's a scary thought. Fortunately, I don't think the other side has the ability to make that happen, or is smart enough to pull that off, and I don't think the NRA is dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You are planning, but you have no means of making any plan you'd come up with happen. Unless I completely underestimate you, even if "our side" was asked to contribute mitigating language to a new law, you (we) will not be asked for your opinion. Aside from writing to SAF and NRA and offering your suggestions as to how to win in the losers' bracket, so to speak, I really can't comprehend how the product you're asking for here could be anything BUT moot.

Actually I am not planning. The thread is about asking for suggestions for a plan. You are not underestimating me. I am not a leader in any Gun Rights group. Writing to SAF and the NRA is farther down the road than where this thread is located. No point in writing yet. I am sure you have heard the saying "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". This thread is only a few steps past the beginning of the journey. I don't know if the journey will be completed but I am not yet ready to stop. People at the grassroots level sometimes succeed in influencing leaders.

As a side issue, offering the NRA a chance to "buy in" on a compromise UBC law -- say, by offering national reciprocity in exchange for UBC -- would be one of the smartest, most divisive, most catastrophically destructive things the enemy side could ever do. If they sweetened that pot enough to lure the NRA to the table and be party to an agreement, it would destroy the credibility of the NRA in the eyes of SO MANY members that the Association's effectiveness could be decimated (by whichever definition you prefer for that word) for decades to come ... perhaps permanently. THAT's a scary thought. Fortunately, I don't think the other side has the ability to make that happen, or is smart enough to pull that off, and I don't think the NRA is dumb enough to fall for it.

I agree the anti-gun movement will probably not offer it. I disagree that if the NRA demanded it, it would have the catastrophic consequences you predict. The same dire predictions have failed to materialize in the past when the NRA engaged in what Otto Bismarck described "the art of the possible".

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, then, I guess. Have you gotten any suggestions that you feel answer your request? What more can you ask for? A list of things we maybe might ask for in trade? Those would seem pretty obvious. Any repeal of current gun control laws would be "nice." A list of restrictions, limits, and sunsets, we'd wish were applied to it? Those seem obvious as well, or not requiring much discussion, at least.

What more can anyone offer?

 

[Deanimator]

You are planning, but you have no means of making any plan you'd come up with happen.

He's like the mid-level Japanese officials who wanted to "surrender" in late '44 and '45. Like them, he hasn't one iota of power or influence over the process, much less any decision.

But as Winona Ryder once said in a movie, "It's nice to want things..."

 

[danez71]

I believe you made this statement in post #56



Any back ground check is a burden upon a law abiding citizen.

Another one of the mindless brainwashed minions who support UBC's. No different than the thousands of gun owners here in WA that voted for a UBC. Just like you, they "thought" it was a good thing but couldn't think their way through it.

From your posts, I'm not sure you even know what a UBC is. AZ doesn't have one.

Read up and post again.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks/

Actually I didnt make that comment in post 56. If you're going to call someone out than you bet have your facts straight unless you like making yourself look like a fool. <deleted>


Yes, a back ground check is a burden in the strictest sense. A person with a basic reading comprehension level would realize this thread isnt in the strictest sense. <deleted> This thread isnt in the strictest sense. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Originally Posted by CoalTrain49
Another one of the mindless brainwashed minions.....

Childish name calling? How old are you?

<deleted>


I never said AZ has a UBC. Look at your own post where you quoted me. I'll make it simple for you... this is what I said:

AZ has a BC system that works.......

Notice the lack of the "U". I lived in AZ for 9 yrs full time and still do part time. I'll bet you I know AZ law better than you ever will.

<deleted>

 

[jrmiddleton425]

You can post hypothetical scenarios of the language you'd like to see, until you're blue in the face.

The reality is that either the government backs off completely, or they shove down your throat as much as a court order will allow to stand.

That's what happened in NY and CT. If they do it, you will not have a say in the matter.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Ok, then, I guess. Have you gotten any suggestions that you feel answer your request? What more can you ask for? A list of things we maybe might ask for in trade? Those would seem pretty obvious. Any repeal of current gun control laws would be "nice." A list of restrictions, limits, and sunsets, we'd wish were applied to it? Those seem obvious as well, or not requiring much discussion, at least.

What more can anyone offer?

I have gotten some good suggestions. "A list of restrictions, limits, and sunset, we wish were applied to it" is only good for starting a discussion of how to use that list. I hope we can get some more suggestions so the discussion is not limited to only a few suggestions. What I would like to know is what people think are the most desirable and feasible restrictions to have eliminated and then how to go about convincing the opposition to agree.

What more can anyone offer? More time for more THR member to reply to the thread with suggestions, priorities, opinions on feasibility, and way to successfully implement them if the need for implementing a contingency plan arises.

 

[Nom de Forum]

He's like the mid-level Japanese officials who wanted to "surrender" in late '44 and '45. Like them, he hasn't one iota of power or influence over the process, much less any decision.

But as Winona Ryder once said in a movie, "It's nice to want things..."

That is nothing more than a personal insult. It does nothing to promote discussion.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You can post hypothetical scenarios of the language you'd like to see, until you're blue in the face.

The reality is that either the government backs off completely, or they shove down your throat as much as a court order will allow to stand.

That's what happened in NY and CT. If they do it, you will not have a say in the matter.

Comparing the United States to NY and CT is an untenable stretch of reality. None of which contributes to what the thread is seeking.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

OK, Nom de Forum. If you want to play "what-if" here you go.

I will accept Federal UBC if, and only if, the government concedes the following in exchange:

*FFL can transfer in 3 business days if they receive no response.
*Age to buy a handgun from an FFL set at 18.
*Buy any Title I firearm over the counter in any state with a background check.
*Carry in any state on a permit from your home state.
*Silencers made legal in all 50 states and sold over the counter with a background check.

 

[Old Dog]

So this is what I'm seeing: no one has the slightest inkling of an idea as to how we should deal with impending legislation that would drop universal background checks on us all nationwide. Just like in Washington and Oregon, when we knew it was coming -- we couldn't stop it.

The opposition statements consisted mostly of maintaining that this was a big step toward gun registration (in states that didn't previously have formal registration) -- ya think? -- and a lot of "we won't comply" anyway rhetoric. We lost

I will accept Federal UBC if, and only if, the government concedes the following in exchange:

*FFL can transfer in 3 business days if they receive no response.
*Age to buy a handgun from an FFL set at 18.
*Buy any Title I firearm over the counter in any state with a background check.
*Carry in any state on a permit from your home state.
*Silencers made legal in all 50 states and sold over the counter with a background check.

All righty, then ... Yeah, good luck with that.

How long will gun owners go on ignoring political realities? I'm not saying we should automatically cave on everything, but seriously, do some of you guys watch the MSM news? Or ever get out and talk with the soccer moms at your kids' soccer games? We are so inbred, when will we see that all the gunshow, gunshop and internet gun forum chest-thumping isn't working? We need to get out and talk to people who aren't members of our choir.

 

[Deanimator]

That is nothing more than a personal insult. It does nothing to promote discussion.

It's nothing less than a completely apt and on point historical analogy.

That you either don't understand the reference or can't accept the truth of it is not my problem.

 

[buck460XVR]

.

How long will gun owners go on ignoring political realities? I'm not saying we should automatically cave on everything, but seriously, do some of you guys watch the MSM news? Or ever get out and talk with the soccer moms at your kids' soccer games? We are so inbred, when will we see that all the gunshow, gunshop and internet gun forum chest-thumping isn't working? We need to get out and talk to people who aren't members of our choir.

^^^This. It's pretty easy to come on a gun forum, make a post in large capital letters "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT INFRINGE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?" and get a positive, enthusiastic response.........and then the poster's chest swells with pride because everyone agrees with him But it is not reality. The reality is that the country is made up of gun lovers, gun haters and those neutral to guns. While we can do little to change the attitudes of those that already hate guns, we can do much to not alienate those neutral. I have seen large strides in favor of gun ownership lately in my state, even in spite of recent gun violence. As with all things in life, communication, discussion and the exchange of realistic ideas amongst all involved parties generally works the best. Chest beating is more of a Gorilla thingy.......

 

[alexander45]

That smells like a not so subtle attempt to imply I am working to help the anti-gunners.

I am "fishing" for exactly what I have said.

It's not all that much of a stretch they have a number of "pro gun" folk on there side from bloggers, a couple of table top ffls, all the way down to your every day buter "I'm a nra member and hunter and I love my guns but.... errrrrr" at one point they even has a fake pro gun hunting group Mt uncle belonged to them until they tried to ban 30-06 as a high powered military round that was to dangerous for the streets

 

[Walkalong]

This thread is complete conjecture, but yet again we are arguing back and forth and getting our feelings hurt (judged by the reported post(s)). Six pages of fantasy is enough for today.