Would You Trade One Gun Law For Another?

[WrongHanded]

I believe it, I don't think they all ought to be prohibited, but if you're cruel to animals, domestic abuser, make terroristic threats, beat women, felonious criminal, by all means, to hell with em and their RTKBA...... I think enforcing the laws that already exist would be a step in the right direction.....

And couldn't enforcing existing laws be part of the compromising. We give them UBCs, in exchange for them harshly punishing straw purchasers, and prohibited people attempting to pass UBCs, investigate failed background checks, etc etc. Probably some other stuff too, not related to background checks.

There are a lot of options. But I agree that mental health checks should not be part of it. Too much room for abuse, and also far too expensive and time consuming.

 

[DustyGmt]

And couldn't enforcing existing laws be part of the compromising?

That would be ideal. The big shootings get the media play, but for some reason we seem to be completely blind to the fact that the areas with the most egregious 2A infringements and gun control are where you're more likely to be the victim of violent crime.

I wish we could put a spotlight on the leftist politicians, judges and prosecutors that let the 5×-6× violent felons with multiple felony firearm possession, aggravated assaults, attempted murder, armed robbery, etc go free to commit felony after felony and eventually kill somebody. I feel there ought to be a concerted effort to inform the public, that's the kind of stuff that should get more play in the media. Whether it would make a difference or not? Maybe not. GF is a folk hero after all.......

 

[Bazoo]

I believe it, I don't think they all ought to be prohibited, but if you're cruel to animals, domestic abuser, make terroristic threats, beat women, felonious criminal, by all means, to hell with em and their RTKBA...... I think enforcing the laws that already exist would be a step in the right direction.....

People make mistakes. I believe in grace, at least for a while.

Terroristic threats is hog wash. During COVID they were threatening to arrest a woman for terroristic threats because she was threatening to cough on someone. This at my local hospital because she didn’t want to wear a mask.

Plenty of women that are “beat” are also beaters, and only call the law when they lose one. I know a guy that his old lady messed him up when she threw a microwave at him and hit him in the back. I also know of a few that if they didn’t get their way, would threaten to call the cops and say he hit me.

 

[Howland937]

If we trade something we're increasingly likely to lose anyway, for something

I have 2 thoughts on this notion alone. First-- if we trade that something away, regardless the likelihood of losing it, don't you think that could embolden the folks trying to take? "Hey, they gave that up willingly. Maybe they're not so as entrenched as we thought. If we just push a little harder, they'll flop"

2nd thought--I nominate you to take over as GM for the Cincinnati Reds. At least your idea is a proposal that hints at getting something in return.

On the whole, gun owners seem to be the group most likely to lose rights...and we're a very large group. Even the most marginalized societal groups are enjoying rights and protections unimaginable 10 years ago. How did it come to be? They made demands, squawked a lot, and eventually got some momentum.

They didn't need to barter to get the desired result. Nobody said "Hey, give us LGB what we want, screw the T's and Q's". It was a concerted effort that took years and lots of work to secure rights that most of us have never lived without.

Certain rights are inalienable. We shouldn't have to trade our way into them, and sure as hell shouldn't need to trade to keep them.

 

[P Flados]

Requiring a NICS check and raise the purchase age to 21 for "any centerfire gun easily configurable for more than 3 shot capability" are probably the most reasonable two things our side could offer up. Note that these two items would have some amount of effectiveness and the burden would not be outrageous. Red flag rules with good checks and balances to prevent abuse and protect gun owners make some amount of sense when someone is identified as a likely threat. However getting the right rules and enforcing them properly would be a challenge and I question the chances of meeting the standards for a truly effective law.

Top item on my list of wants would be get rid of SBR entirely. It is effectively meaningless given the sate of the industry (there are bull pup guns that are shorter than many AR "pistols" with braces. Given what is available today and the fact that pistols with braces are not used in crime out of proportion to AR-15 in general is such that they are really not all that scary (contrary to the situation with the gangster weapons that prompted the law). The rules as are have created much worry, confusion, unneeded burden and wasted grief for law abiding gun owners.

Next would be to get rid of NFA requirements for suppressors. This has probably more actual value (from a hearing conservation point of view), but has a "scary factor" to the public that might be a harder sell. Then have a bag mass shooting from a guy using a suppressed 300 BO with subs and the backlash would be ugly.

Actually, it would not be hideous to keep the above as NFA, but drastically reduce the burdens and restrictions. Stuff like

• Make it a shall issue requirement after the background check in a reasonable time period and making redress available for any denial.
• Make it a one time $150 tax per item plus $50 background check fee. NFA background checks are valid for a year (for acquiring new items). Change of ownership cost should be low (say $20) to anyone who has had a valid NFA check.
• Build in an easy method to list your entire family on the stamp for the gun and leave "primary ownership" to a child
• No restriction on transport between friendly states.
• Make single shot guns and rimfire exempt from SBR. These are among the least scary guns out there.
• Make an official exemption for guns that can fire 410s. Cutting down a 410 shotgun is an order of magnitude less scary than a 12 gauge.
• Get rid of all the silly rules associated with maintaining or modifying a silencer. Define the registered components of the silencer as the tube and the part that attaches the tube to the barrel.

 

[Maineshooter1]

Not sure I understand but I have recently been thinking that I could probably get behind a 21 age limit for firearm purchases on the condition that they drop the issue there.

And this is how they chip away at our rights. Gun owners lose sight of what the long game they're playing is and what their ultimate goal is.

We have some young men who join the service at 18 and are indeed "men", but in the last 30 years something has changed. Kids just out of high school aren't "men", they're sniveling lil crybaby wussy la la types who can't let go of the ribbing they took in high school so they shoot up a place. We might all be better off if we gave these new generation of kids a lil time to grow up and let go of the high school vendettas...

So the problem is societal, not guns. Will banning guns change these societal problems? Those 18-20yr old servicemen are indeed men and many have died for this country. And many other 18-20yr olds haven't served but work and pay taxes. But because many other 18-20yr olds dye their hair blue and play video games we should ban all adult citizens in a certain age range from a constitutionally enshrined right?

I fully understand the hypocrisy here, we take away 2nd Amendment rights for people of legal adult age, but ask them to go die in war, subject to drafts, legally eligible to vote, etc... in this scenario I would also be willing to move the legal age to 21 in all those cases as well. 18 year Olds just aren't what they used to be.....

I don't think you're being hypocritical. I think like most people you never want to read about another school shooting and the liberal pathos is making you willing to give up some of your rights.

But gun crime won't stop. And every time there's another mass shooting, the DC elite will continue to demand we enact more "common sense" gun laws. And more and more and so on. And at some point a president will say that he's planning on working with the congress to freeze the sale and trade of all handguns or something as equally ludicrous to what our neighbors up north have recently planned. The answer isn't to eliminate guns but to eliminate the things that lead people use guns criminally. I don't know what that answer is, but I'm not willing to give up any rights just because we don't know the solution.

 

[TomJ]

Yep, there are good arguments for 15 rounds rather than 10 rounds. Arguing 20 rather than 15 is harder. Arguing 30 rather than 20, harder still.

It's not when rioters are encouraged to burn down cities and beat people to the point where some will never recover from those beatings. I hope you're never in the position of having to defend your home and family from this, but if you are as others have been you'll want a 30 round magazine.

But the flip side to your Chicago issue is, wouldn't Chicago be safer if all the law abiding citizens who resided there or visited, could legally carry a concealed firearm for personal protection? I think we know it would be, and we all know why. Don't we?

I don't understand this point. I do understand that this thread is an interesting hypothetical, however the reality is that the anti's will not compromise. We have plenty of examples of that today alone based on their promises to do whatever they can to take AR's and semi automatic handguns. They want to do away with the 2A. Period. That's the unfortunate reality we're facing and negotiating with them in good faith, expecting them to give up something to get something is not going to happen.

 

[Artg56]

No. Anything perceived as a gain will be taken away in the next round. The goal is to completely eliminate private gun ownership.
Put yourself on the other side, knowing that the only way to accomplish this is the long game. Plant the idea that the Bill of Rights is not absolute and keep repeating it until it is accepted. Chip away at laws supporting 2A as long as it takes to eliminate it. Only appointment justices who support your position.

 

[DustyGmt]

And this is how they chip away at our rights. Gun owners lose sight of what the long game they're playing is and what their ultimate goal is.



So the problem is societal, not guns. Will banning guns change these societal problems? Those 18-20yr old servicemen are indeed men and many have died for this country. And many other 18-20yr olds haven't served but work and pay taxes. But because many other 18-20yr olds dye their hair blue and play video games we should ban all adult citizens in a certain age range from a constitutionally enshrined right?



I don't think you're being hypocritical. I think like most people you never want to read about another school shooting and the liberal pathos is making you willing to give up some of your rights.

But gun crime won't stop. And every time there's another mass shooting, the DC elite will continue to demand we enact more "common sense" gun laws. And more and more and so on. And at some point a president will say that he's planning on working with the congress to freeze the sale and trade of all handguns or something as equally ludicrous to what our neighbors up north have recently planned. The answer isn't to eliminate guns but to eliminate the things that lead people use guns criminally. I don't know what that answer is, but I'm not willing to give up any rights just because we don't know the solution.

My post was really based on a hypothetical, in the event we could trade one agenda item and make no further concessions and end the matter once and for all, a Boulwar take it or leave it situation, I would take raising the legal age to 21 over all others.

I personally don't think the other sides gun control agenda would really make a tinkers damn of a difference so show me all the headstones and clips of grieving mothers you want, it won't change what I think about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Pat Riot]

Sure, I will trade all the gun laws for…

Let’s see…

It’s gotta be good…

How about, we dump them all in favor of the original.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Insignificant bill]

No. People in power have already taken away so much, its never enough.

You say, we get constitutional carry in all states, without permits or licenses. What do we give up?

Registration of all firearms, limits of 10 rounds or less, home and business inspections of where firearms are stored and confiscation if "they" deem necessary.

If people used common sense in making laws, then there is wiggle room. I havn't seen anything as of yet to make me believe that trading one gun law for another would do any good.

They do nothing because the tool used is not the problem. All they do is make it harder to protect yourself. How do rediculous magazine bans help us defend ourselves against criminals who will have whatever size they want. There is just no common sense even on our side.

 

[WrongHanded]

I have 2 thoughts on this notion alone. First-- if we trade that something away, regardless the likelihood of losing it, don't you think that could embolden the folks trying to take? "Hey, they gave that up willingly. Maybe they're not so as entrenched as we thought. If we just push a little harder, they'll flop"

It will certainly have that effect with some people. But if it has the opposite effect with the general public, I'd say it's beneficial. My thought is primarily to gain something that will actually make America safer by allowing more law abiding citizens to actually keep and bear arms (concealed) in pretty much all places, all the time, every day. We've seen concealed carry become more mainstream in the last couple decades, and now we're seeing it become more popular with younger liberals too. That's nothing but good. If carrying daily for defensive purposes become normal for a large portion of the population, across all the states, how is that possibly bad for us?

And if we can use federal law to get CC for those highly populated and restrictive states, should a time come where a majority are invested in carrying for self defense, who's to say the popular opinion would not be to reverse some of the previously applied restrictions, including the compromises made to get society to that point?

Basically, make laws that make guns popular, and more people will support gun rights.

 

[kmw1954]

My take which I have stated elsewhere many times and will stick to.

We do not have a gun problem in this country. We have a violence problem.
I have never seen a violent gun though I have witnessed many a violent person.

We have a very sick society and it is only getting worse. People getting shot because of "Road Rage", Latest shooter went and killed his Dr. because he thought he was being mistreated. 2 days ago right in my neighborhood we had a 30yo being chased in his car for driving erratically. 20mi later he drove head on into a school bus with kindergarten kids on it. Took EMT's over an hour to cut him out. Another story from NC. a fast food worker was assaulted and sent to the ER because of an order mishap.

When they finally figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of violent convicted felons then I will listen. Until then NO!

 

[AK Hunter]

I would let them push the age to buy an AR back to 21 if they let us own & build full auto without having a license. LOL

 

[Insignificant bill]

I would let them push the age to buy an AR back to 21 if they let us own & build full auto without having a license. LOL

We should be allowed to do that anyway lol

 

[Ironicaintit]

I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the logic that we should disarm the law abiding, because there are bad guys out there.

 

[Insignificant bill]

I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the logic that we should disarm the law abiding, because there are bad guys out there.

It's about pandering to the ignorant and the ultimate goal of total control of all of us. They know gun laws don' t stop criminals or the unstable and they don't care

 

[LaneP]

It's already been mentioned but the anti's are playing the incremental long game, which most of us already recognize. First they'll go after "high capacity", then it will be semi-auto's, then the day will come when someone uses a 6 shot revolver in a heinous act and they'll go after those too because "hey, who needs 6 shots as fast as you can pull the trigger". Their ultimate goal is a destabilized, dysfunctional, completely disarmed society with the criminal element roaming at will. They keep misfocusing the argument on the implement that is misused, when that is not the problem and never has been.

 

[Robert]

We already have one thread running on a possible ban coming. We really don't need what is ostensibly a second.