An interesting proposal

[Haven]

So a friend of mine who is also a gun owner posted a link on Facebook he found. It is an interesting proposal, it has something for both sides, gun grabbers and those of us that like the 2nd Amendment. I am wondering what the members of INGO think.

https://thepathforwardonguns.com/

I didn't see where anyone had posted this link yet, so if I missed it let me know.

 

[Thor]

Not one step more. We've been giving for a long time, long past time to give no more. The reason we have taken to volley fire is that we've seen the lies of the past and Not. One. Step. More.

 

[Mgderf]

No

 

[MCgrease08]

Not one step more. We've been giving for a long time, long past time to give no more. The reason we have taken to volley fire is that we've seen the lies of the past and Not. One. Step. More.

This.

 

[NyleRN]

How is it compromise when they only give us back what they shouldn't have taken in the first place? How about I come and take your boat, 4 wheeler, and motorcycle. Then make a deal that if you give me your dog, tool chest with tools, and your wife then I'll give you the boat, 4 wheeler, and motorcycle. Sound good?

 

[Twangbanger]

I don't see what his solution does about the law-enforcement approach to the mentally ill. Without that, it's never going to make a difference. Background checks don't mean anything if the background check of a dangerous person comes up clean.

But I do agree with one of his statements: nobody's trying to solve the problem. They're just trying to destroy each other.

 

[Vigilant]

Nope, we’ve given too much already, and they still come for more! **** them, and all the 2nd traitors that are for “common sense”, not one more ****ing inch. It won’t help them save a kid, and it won’t do anything positive for freedom.

 

[madvarminter]

not one inch more

 

[NyleRN]

I don't see what his solution does about the law-enforcement approach to the mentally ill. Without that, it's never going to make a difference. Background checks don't mean anything if the background check of a dangerous person comes up clean.

But I do agree with one of his statements: nobody's trying to solve the problem. They're just trying to destroy each other.

None of the things he lists will solve any problems. When the problem is lack of morality, lack parenting, no respect for authorities, then laws makes no difference

 

[OakRiver]

With respect I would be interested in hearing what knowledge of firearms and the culture and laws around them that the author of this article has. Because to be quite frank all that is being advocated is that both sides get a little; pro-gun people get some of their rights back, anti-gun people get other routes to infringe upon the rights of others.


Dealing with the "Specifics of the Path"
For the gun control side
1. Swiss-style universal background checks - We had UBCs here in Indiana for many years. We no longer have them because they were ineffective and a waste of resources. The enforcement of these laws is always challenging as for effective implementation it requires huge government intervention. Or you have terrible laws like that in Washington in which any transfer of a firearm must have a UBC, even if it is between a husband and wife sharing their pistol during a range session. It will be yet another poll tax on the 2A
2. Extreme risk protection orders - as written this is an incredibly vast reaching idea that is wide open for abuse. If left to the state level those states ill disposed to the 2A will use it as a weapon to erode civil liberties, with the only recourse being expensive litigation. This will chill the free exercise of legal rights. Many of the most recent mass shootings would have been prevented if the government agencies involved had met their obligations. They have the tools available and chose not to use them. What result do you expect to achieve by giving them even more tools? The rate for prosecutions (much less convictions) for lying on a 4473 is in single digit percentages. Start enforcing the laws we have. We do not need more bloated, Byzantine legislation.
3. Classify bump stocks as machine guns - How? Bump stocks still rely on the principal of one bullet discharged for each pull of the trigger. Bump stocks just leverage physics to make this easier. To effectively ban bump fire stocks you need to define what a bump fire stock is, and you risk catching many semi-automatic firearms into this category inadvertently, creating millions of felons from law abiding citizens at the stroke of a pen. What about binary triggers? What about people who can bump fire using a belt loop?



Real change on this issue comes at actual meaningful improvements to our society. We need huge investment in mental health treatment, and resources - not simply throwing medications at people. Actual, practical long term solutions to meaningfully treat people. We need to remove the stigma from mental health so that sufferers are no longer stigmatized to seek treatment, and may do so at an earlier stage to make treatment more successful and less demanding. Of the 33,000 people who die annually to firearms 2/3s of those are suicides. Start treating mental health like the public issue that it is and we will see the deaths by firearms drop significantly. At the same time we need better systems to allow NICS to be updated with the details of those people who are a risk to themselves.

We also need reform in the law enforcement community. Many recent mass shootings could have been prevented if the agencies responsible had enforced the laws that they are supposed to enforce. That includes passing information from armed forces tribunals to the NICS, updating convictions and charges in the system so that prohibited persons are flagged when they attempt to purchase a firearm, it means prosecuting people who lie on their 4473s or who perform straw purchases rather than ignoring these crimes, it means actually prosecuting individuals who are known to be at a risk to themselves and others - not sweeping it under the carpet to meet targets for more funding.

If you want to stop, or greatly reduce mass shootings, the most effective way is to allow people to properly defend themselves. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings take place in gun free zones, and that is not a coincidence. Surviving perpetrators of mass shootings have admitted to targeting these areas because it give them the best chance to cause carnage. No, buckets of rocks is not an adequate means of defense. Allow those who choose to carry a firearm their right to do so. This does not mean arming all teachers, merely allowing those who choose to exercise their right to do so the ability to do so. I'd be in favor of programs for educators similar to LEOs were they may get discounts on firearms from manufacturers.

If you want to further reduce gun deaths then we need to look at the War on Drugs and inner city poverty. Both of these go hand in hand in causing deaths by firearms due to firearms being used in crime and gang violence.

Abstinence only gun education does not work. Educating people on the origins of the 2A, proper education on the right to bear arms, and the explaining the obligations that come with this right will go a long way to removing the scary stigma around it.

But all of this takes time, effort, resources, and a long term commitment from those in charge of our states and our country. And that is much harder than blaming an inanimate object, demonizing millions of law abiding citizens, or thinking that one more piece of legislation aimed at a symptom rather than a disease will fix things this time.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

 

[sparky32]

Nothing More. No Compromise for MY RIGHTS.

 

[Steel and wood]

Mass shooting will never end. This time a AR, 30 round legal mag. More bigger and better background checks, fix ncis.
So what do they want after the next shooting?
So no. Not one more infringement on my god given rights.....

 

[2A_Tom]

Not one step more. We've been giving for a long time, long past time to give no more. The reason we have taken to volley fire is that we've seen the lies of the past and Not. One. Step. More.

No

This.

How is it compromise when they only give us back what they shouldn't have taken in the first place? How about I come and take your boat, 4 wheeler, and motorcycle. Then make a deal that if you give me your dog, tool chest with tools, and your wife then I'll give you the boat, 4 wheeler, and motorcycle. Sound good?

Nope, we’ve given too much already, and they still come for more! **** them, and all the 2nd traitors that are for “common sense”, not one more ****ing inch. It won’t help them save a kid, and it won’t do anything positive for freedom.

not one inch more

None of the things he lists will solve any problems. When the problem is lack of morality, lack parenting, no respect for authorities, then laws makes no difference

This^^^^ I would have quoted the reasof you but the site wouldn't let me.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Not one inch. Giving me back something that you illegally took away from me in exchange for taking more of my things away is not compromise. How about you repeal the NFA in its entirety, and institute national reciprocity, and then leave us alone. There are over 90 million gun owners in this county. If we were a danger to society, you would know it.

 

[The Millenial Gunner]

This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but I actually really like this proposal. My only real issue is with bump stocks. I'd be fine with adding them to the NFA registry, but I don't want them banned. Bump stocks offer an affordable alternative to full-auto, and since we can still buy actual machine guns, I think we should still be allowed to buy bump stocks, too. I'm apprehensive about universal background checks, but I think it is written in a way that protects gun owners from confiscation. Indiana already has "red flag laws" and has had them forever, and they aren't getting abused.

The "no-compromise" thing isn't going to win any battles. It's just going to reinforce the left's negative image of gun owners. I get what you guys are saying about how we shouldn't have to fight for rights that shouldn't have been taken away in the first place, but the fact of the matter is that those rights have already been stripped from us and there's no way they're going to let national reciprocity or the HPA pass after Parkland or Vegas. This is our best shot at getting those things back on the books. So we give them universal background checks, covering private sales that don't happen all that often anyway, ERPOs that are already in place in Indiana and not hurting anything, and we reclassify bump stocks. In exchange, we get national reciprocity and essentially repeal the NFA for everything except full-autos and AOWs. Gun owners get a whole lot from this legislation and only give up a little bit.

 

[BigRed]

So a friend of mine who is also a gun owner posted a link on Facebook he found. It is an interesting proposal, it has something for both sides, gun grabbers and those of us that like the 2nd Amendment. I am wondering what the members of INGO think.

https://thepathforwardonguns.com/

I didn't see where anyone had posted this link yet, so if I missed it let me know.

To Hell with them.

Repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Repeal the 1986 Hughes Amendment.

 

[jamil]

This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but I actually really like this proposal. My only real issue is with bump stocks. I'd be fine with adding them to the NFA registry, but I don't want them banned. Bump stocks offer an affordable alternative to full-auto, and since we can still buy actual machine guns, I think we should still be allowed to buy bump stocks, too. I'm apprehensive about universal background checks, but I think it is written in a way that protects gun owners from confiscation. Indiana already has "red flag laws" and has had them forever, and they aren't getting abused.

The "no-compromise" thing isn't going to win any battles. It's just going to reinforce the left's negative image of gun owners. I get what you guys are saying about how we shouldn't have to fight for rights that shouldn't have been taken away in the first place, but the fact of the matter is that those rights have already been stripped from us and there's no way they're going to let national reciprocity or the HPA pass after Parkland or Vegas. This is our best shot at getting those things back on the books. So we give them universal background checks, covering private sales that don't happen all that often anyway, ERPOs that are already in place in Indiana and not hurting anything, and we reclassify bump stocks. In exchange, we get national reciprocity and essentially repeal the NFA for everything except full-autos and AOWs. Gun owners get a whole lot from this legislation and only give up a little bit.

The premise of the article just strikes me as naive.


"The other side isn’t powerful enough to pass their laws, but they are powerful enough to stop you from passing yours. So if we accept the truth, that we will never agree, we have to ask a new question: how can we move forward even while everybody still disagrees? How can we write a law that neither side wants to block? The answer is going to test whether you’re honestly willing to do what it takes to fix this stalemate."

Move forward? Move forward to what? Agreement? Is that all this is about? Agreement for the sake of agreeing on something? Well, the disagreement is fundamental. One side believes in the right to keep and bear arms. The other side believes that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to have weapons. There's really no common ground there. So no. There will never be agreement between the two sides on that.

How can we write a law that neither side wants to block? Not agreeing with your proposed compromises does not mean we're being dishonest about being willing to fix the stalemate. If a stalemate prevents the further erosion of law abiding citizens' rights, I'm fine with the stalemate. There's nothing dishonest about that.

But I get it. Moderation is sensible in most things, and it seems like some copious moderation should apply here, right? Well, we could solve some of the problems causing these mass shootings if we could just talk about it honestly. Maybe you could call that moderation. Compromising to get both sides to agree to get something in return isn't going to stop the mass shootings. Banning bump stocks isn't going to stop them. Banning "Assault Rifles" isn't going to stop them. Nothing is going to stop mass killings like this. People have been lashing out at "humanity" long before there were guns.

The only thing that will stop mass shootings is to find the cause and eliminate it. And it's probably not something we can actually eliminate altogether. But we can't even have a real conversation about actual causes, because of the crisis we can't waste. So we can't talk about mental health. We can't talk about doing things to promote sanity. We can't talk about anything but gun control.

The whole article basically suggests getting some compromises on gun control. As if that's the problem. And that's what tells me the author is naive about the issue. What does the stalemate on gun control have to do with solving this problem of mass killings?

I think the real litmus test for who is sincere about solving the mass killings, is: Who is willing to talk about the real problem? The real problem is the people who've gone to the dark place and have decided that killing people is the answer to whatever harshness life has throne at them. THATS the problem. If you say guns are the problem, you're not sincere about solving mass shootings. You're only interested in solving the problem of citizens owning firearms. Guns are only involved to the extent that they're the easiest way to achieve the goal. There's a next easiest way, and a next, and a next after that too. You don't solve the real problem, you still get mass killings.

Well, except for one thing that sort of makes guns tangentially responsible, and that's actually the media's fault. These shooters seem to want the world to see what they did, and especially see that they are the ones who did it. Can't do that without wall-to-wall coverage. We get wall-to-wall coverage on CNN and everywhere because there's always going to be a gun debate afterwards.

Kill 15 people with a car, the story stays around for a day or two. Kill 3 or more random people with a gun in a very public place, and because crises can't go to waste, they're still reporting it a month later. So yeah. Any killer who wants to be talked about for weeks, or months, or years, will pick the gun as the tool of choice for his murderous tirade against humaity.

 

[Hoosierkav]

It is fine to legislate a compromise until...shucks... their end of the deal was declared unconstitutional, so they'll have to go back to the drawing board to rewrite it and resubmit it, and, shucks, this is a short session and it didn't get out of committee, so they'll have to wait until next session to uphold their end, but, gosh, they sure are glad that we are required to do everything we are...

 

[Wolffman]

Not one step more. We've been giving for a long time, long past time to give no more. The reason we have taken to volley fire is that we've seen the lies of the past and Not. One. Step. More.

Agree