Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by bdrift10, Jan 10, 2016.
50 state legal carry.
50 state legal NFA without tax stamps.
What's the question here?
Do you know of any legislator actually trying to institute such a compromise plan? I don't.
Are you looking to promote this to US at THR? There's some problems with it. Some big ones. But they've all been debated fiercely 100s of times before.
UBC only works if it is enforced and that only happens if guns are registered so they can actually be tracked if they move without a B.C. being done. Many of us see this (UBC) as merely a strategic tool put in place to get to the next goal (registration). That's bad.
Ok, but that will mean repeal of GCA'68, or some kind of heavy modification to it. Probably not going to get that. But hey, if we can kill GCA'68, who wouldn't give their right arm for that?
Problems with federalism. Pretty serious potential problems with implementation, but if we can't get past the states' rights question those negotiations won't even happen.
Repeal of NFA '34? OH YEAH! Count me in! Now, most gun folks see the likelihood of that as similar to "monkeys will be flying out of my butt".
And then again, there's issues with federalism/states' rights. I'd say the 2nd Amendment should trump those issues, but ... I would say that, wouldn't I?
You know that's never going to happen, right? The U.S. government won't ever change the law for that to go into effect. The industry doesn't want it since the local dealers would be hurt. You shouldn't want it because it would kill off small gun shops and you'd be stuck looking at pictures on a screen instead of handling a firearm before you bought it.
Sorry for making this Thread quite confusing. This was prematurely started without a complete thought.
You never know unless you ask. One of the biggest issue in our politics today is that politicians are seen as traitors if they even sit down with the other side for a discussion of what might be possible.
We've talked a lot about that sort of strategy here, especially since Sandy Hook.
There are some practical problems. First, you've got to have somebody seriously credible and with the position to accomplish it, who will introduce this sort of legislation. Without introducing legislation, there's no compromise -- no forum for give an take. Just words.
But not only does somebody have to propose this legislation (which is going to bring down huge outcry from the middle, left, and some of the right who don't quite agree that we need to repeal NFA, for example) but there have to be lots of co-sponsors, and enough support for the bill to get at least the first step or two through the congressional bill-making process.
Tons of bills are introduced every year which are just pie-in-the-sky proposals from lawmakers who want to get their names in the papers and want to show their die-hard supporters that they're "really trying" to accomplish whatever.
So sure, maybe Ted Cruz can introduce his new "Repeal the NFA" bill and Barbara Boxer can introduce her "Turn In All Your Guns" bill -- and there will be a lightly attended press conference for each, and the bills will be read into the Congressional Record, and then no one will ever hear of either bill again, ever.
There is political wheelin' and dealin' where -- if they agree that they actually want something to happen -- two sides of an issue will sit down and work out something they both could maybe live with. But not much on extremely divisive issues like gun control.
In order to get any compromise at all from "THEM" we'd have to be within spitting distance of actually passing our NFA repeal bill. And we're miles ... or decades ... away from that. So for now this idea of negotiating a compromise is sort of like one guy standing in New York City and one guy standing on the west coast of France and they're saying they want to take a few steps toward meeting in the middle.
In the end, neither side really wants to pass new bills. They would if they could get it easily, but they don't want it bad enough to betray their bases by giving away things that their folks at home hold dear. Besides, there's SO much political emotion and inertia churned up by having juicy us-vs-them arguments. It keeps the voters coming out and keeps the campaign donations rolling in. Gives the candidates clear enemies to lead their sides' charge against.
Personally, I honestly don't care if a business goes under if they depend on the '68GCA in order to make enough money to stay open. I know the people who work in as well as those who own the shops, and I know how devastating it could potentially be to their livelihoods, but morally I cannot support 2A infringements because it keeps businesses from having to adapt to the age of the internet. If I don't accept gun control as a way to save lives as it's purported to be, why would I accept it so a business can profit off of it?
The above is correct - if I'm not mistaken, the Justice Department has told the President as much (maybe why he's pushing it).
If you're listening closely, you'll notice both the President and MSM both talk background checks, when what they really mean is universal background checks.
Background checks? Don't know that I have a problem with them, but don't know how much good they really do.
Universal background checks? Want nothing to do with them.
As with background checks, criminals will pay no attention to them, opting to do an end around.
All universal background checks do is increase the possibility that you (as a law abiding gun owner) could become a felon due to increased bureaucracy (you forgot to dot in "i" or cross a "t").
Quite the opposite of what you said, UBC does not eliminate FFL's, it makes them necessary for MORE sales.
Oregon had one before universal background checks passed last year. You called the same people the FFL does, gave them the same information. They gave you a yes or no.
No one used it because it wasn't mandatory and many people didn't even know the option existed.
If anybody believes that's how it would REALLY work, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, CHEAP.
And that's leaving out the fact that without REGISTRATION (which has NO purpose aside from facilitation of future confiscation), it's an UTTER nullity.
A shell game played with a diamond and platinum thimbles is still a shell game.
More importantly, without REGISTRATION, how would anybody know WHETHER you did it?
Gun owners "compromising" with Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer et al, is like Anne Frank "compromising" with Adolf Eichman, Juergen Stroop, and Oskar Dirlewanger.
In a compromise, both sides usually give up something - exactly what is the other side giving up?
I've heard Tom Gresham say his idea of compromise is if you'll do away with half of the 20,000+ gun laws on the books, then maybe we can talk compromise.
If you're on the street and someone takes your pie, but then offers to compromise and take only half of it, what has he given up?
And then the next week, they rescind your freedoms, have the data they want, and take everything you own.
Do you REALLY believe the government?
The biggest lie ever told:
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"..............
Way too many "pro-gun" folks who want to give up their freedoms in the hope the government will really tell the truth and stick to their promises........
The lack of teaching civics and history is really rearing its ugly head........
have the cards done the same way CCW cards are done , one fee, one wait period done at the state level , renew every 5 to 10 years ,
keep a short form for NEW guns at FFL's to back trace a gun used in a crime,
make the cards mandatory for private sales like gun shows and flee markets , but make exceptions for friends and family,
this would save tons of tax dollars and resources that could be used to help our cop fight real crime ,
the compromise ?.... they get to close the gun show loophole (ha ha) and law abiding citizens can buy what they want, when they want, without phone calls, fees and waits , plus the gov would not know how many guns you have ,
now that make so much sense I'm sure it will never happen :banghead:
Separate names with a comma.