An interesting proposal

[Dead Duck]

 

[Lwright]

Not only no, but hell no.

 

[croy]

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?

If you took his wife you'd probably be doing him a favor!

But seriously. Not. One. More. Inch

 

[actaeon277]

This.
A thousand times this.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

You're making an assumption. The assumption that if we give a little, it will be over.
This has been proven wrong OVER AND OVER.

They've even come out and said, this is just the beginning.

So NO. I am done.

 

[The Millenial Gunner]

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.

I agree with you, for the most part. I don't want to ban bump stocks, or assault rifles, or anything else. I don't think that's the answer. Disagreement is fundamental in politics, especially on this issue, and I don't think we'll ever get them to fully see our side. I don't care if they agree with us or not, honestly. But the Twitter wars and no-sum debates are getting old. It's time to try something different. I believe that pro-gun legislation, like national reciprocity, is the best way to deal with this issue, along with addressing mental health concerns and enforcing the laws already on the books. But with as much momentum as the anti-gun movement has garnished lately, there's no way in hell they'll let the HPA or national reciprocity pass on their own. This would be a "sign of good faith", completely shattering the stereotypes that gun owners only care about their Bibles and their rifles.

I'm also fine with a stalemate if it prevents the further erosion of our rights. The problem is that it isn't. Just look at some of the bills that are being proposed. One of the bills literally is trying to ban every single semiautomatic in the country. I don't think it'll pass, but then again, it's an election year. You never know. The antis have been getting an awful lot of attention lately. If we get a House full of Democrats, I don't think it's all that unrealistic. The way Trump's been acting lately, I'm not sure he would veto it. Even if he did, if we got a really anti-gun Congress, they could always overturn it. One of the things I like about this proposal is that it explains why gun owners feel the way they feel in an honest and sincere way. It explains very logically why we want suppressors to be deregulated. It explains very logically why we're opposed to universal background checks. It explains very logically why the NFA laws on SBRs are ineffective. It explains very logically why national reciprocity NEEDS to pass. Even the proposals on the gun control side are largely designed to protect gun owners. The universal background check system and ERPO process are designed to make it very hard for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to abuse it. Getting this proposal in front of more anti-gunners just might help them see our side. Most of them aren't as foolish or close-minded as you might think. I'm a college student, so the anti-gun sentiment is very heavy in my life. I've made it my mission to change minds on this issue. Slowly, one person at a time, one conversation at a time, using facts, logic, and rational thought, I've been able to turn a lot of people on this issue. Some of them have even gone on to become gun owners themselves or even to get their handgun license. The main issue is that so many of them simply don't have access to legitimate information. They see things on Buzzfeed or CNN or Facebook, and they think that these things are correct because they simply don't know any better. Getting this proposal out there could explain our side without making us out to be a bunch of tin-foil hat wearers.

I'm not saying I support gun control, because I don't. I don't think the universal background checks or the reclassification on bump stocks will do anything to prevent mass shootings, or to make them less deadly. The people who are saying that "this is only the beginning" are the far left people, the people who genuinely want to confiscate all guns, period. And these people are not in the majority.

We pass this, and then we're done. I'm not saying it's the perfect answer. I'm saying that it just might be the right answer.

 

[rob63]

I agree with you, for the most part. I don't want to ban bump stocks, or assault rifles, or anything else. I don't think that's the answer. Disagreement is fundamental in politics, especially on this issue, and I don't think we'll ever get them to fully see our side. I don't care if they agree with us or not, honestly. But the Twitter wars and no-sum debates are getting old. It's time to try something different. I believe that pro-gun legislation, like national reciprocity, is the best way to deal with this issue, along with addressing mental health concerns and enforcing the laws already on the books. But with as much momentum as the anti-gun movement has garnished lately, there's no way in hell they'll let the HPA or national reciprocity pass on their own. This would be a "sign of good faith", completely shattering the stereotypes that gun owners only care about their Bibles and their rifles.

I'm also fine with a stalemate if it prevents the further erosion of our rights. The problem is that it isn't. Just look at some of the bills that are being proposed. One of the bills literally is trying to ban every single semiautomatic in the country. I don't think it'll pass, but then again, it's an election year. You never know. The antis have been getting an awful lot of attention lately. If we get a House full of Democrats, I don't think it's all that unrealistic. The way Trump's been acting lately, I'm not sure he would veto it. Even if he did, if we got a really anti-gun Congress, they could always overturn it. One of the things I like about this proposal is that it explains why gun owners feel the way they feel in an honest and sincere way. It explains very logically why we want suppressors to be deregulated. It explains very logically why we're opposed to universal background checks. It explains very logically why the NFA laws on SBRs are ineffective. It explains very logically why national reciprocity NEEDS to pass. Even the proposals on the gun control side are largely designed to protect gun owners. The universal background check system and ERPO process are designed to make it very hard for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to abuse it. Getting this proposal in front of more anti-gunners just might help them see our side. Most of them aren't as foolish or close-minded as you might think. I'm a college student, so the anti-gun sentiment is very heavy in my life. I've made it my mission to change minds on this issue. Slowly, one person at a time, one conversation at a time, using facts, logic, and rational thought, I've been able to turn a lot of people on this issue. Some of them have even gone on to become gun owners themselves or even to get their handgun license. The main issue is that so many of them simply don't have access to legitimate information. They see things on Buzzfeed or CNN or Facebook, and they think that these things are correct because they simply don't know any better. Getting this proposal out there could explain our side without making us out to be a bunch of tin-foil hat wearers.

I'm not saying I support gun control, because I don't. I don't think the universal background checks or the reclassification on bump stocks will do anything to prevent mass shootings, or to make them less deadly. The people who are saying that "this is only the beginning" are the far left people, the people who genuinely want to confiscate all guns, period. And these people are not in the majority.

We pass this, and then we're done. I'm not saying it's the perfect answer. I'm saying that it just might be the right answer.

I think that is very well said, very reasonable, and I agree with all of it. I also think the article is absolutely correct that the single biggest key is the media coverage that drives the constant copy-cats, and if only that much could change the other parts of the article are truly secondary. Unfortunately, I see no reason to hope that the media will start acting responsibly.

I also fully understand the frustration with the idea of compromising anything at all, and know full well that the anti-gun side will always demand more. However, I think our goal should be to win the voters in the middle. Refusal to make any compromises at all only serves to leave them with the choice between the two extremes and I think that is a battle we will inevitably lose because the other extreme has full control of the media. The anti-gun items in the article are not nearly as bad as what will be rammed down our throats if the other side gains control of Congress with the momentum of having won the elections on this issue.

 

[rvb]

I agree with you, for the most part. I don't want to ban bump stocks, or assault rifles, or anything else. I don't think that's the answer. Disagreement is fundamental in politics, especially on this issue, and I don't think we'll ever get them to fully see our side. I don't care if they agree with us or not, honestly. But the Twitter wars and no-sum debates are getting old. It's time to try something different. I believe that pro-gun legislation, like national reciprocity, is the best way to deal with this issue, along with addressing mental health concerns and enforcing the laws already on the books. But with as much momentum as the anti-gun movement has garnished lately, there's no way in hell they'll let the HPA or national reciprocity pass on their own. This would be a "sign of good faith", completely shattering the stereotypes that gun owners only care about their Bibles and their rifles.

I'm also fine with a stalemate if it prevents the further erosion of our rights. The problem is that it isn't. Just look at some of the bills that are being proposed. One of the bills literally is trying to ban every single semiautomatic in the country. I don't think it'll pass, but then again, it's an election year. You never know. The antis have been getting an awful lot of attention lately. If we get a House full of Democrats, I don't think it's all that unrealistic. The way Trump's been acting lately, I'm not sure he would veto it. Even if he did, if we got a really anti-gun Congress, they could always overturn it. One of the things I like about this proposal is that it explains why gun owners feel the way they feel in an honest and sincere way. It explains very logically why we want suppressors to be deregulated. It explains very logically why we're opposed to universal background checks. It explains very logically why the NFA laws on SBRs are ineffective. It explains very logically why national reciprocity NEEDS to pass. Even the proposals on the gun control side are largely designed to protect gun owners. The universal background check system and ERPO process are designed to make it very hard for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to abuse it. Getting this proposal in front of more anti-gunners just might help them see our side. Most of them aren't as foolish or close-minded as you might think. I'm a college student, so the anti-gun sentiment is very heavy in my life. I've made it my mission to change minds on this issue. Slowly, one person at a time, one conversation at a time, using facts, logic, and rational thought, I've been able to turn a lot of people on this issue. Some of them have even gone on to become gun owners themselves or even to get their handgun license. The main issue is that so many of them simply don't have access to legitimate information. They see things on Buzzfeed or CNN or Facebook, and they think that these things are correct because they simply don't know any better. Getting this proposal out there could explain our side without making us out to be a bunch of tin-foil hat wearers.

I'm not saying I support gun control, because I don't. I don't think the universal background checks or the reclassification on bump stocks will do anything to prevent mass shootings, or to make them less deadly. The people who are saying that "this is only the beginning" are the far left people, the people who genuinely want to confiscate all guns, period. And these people are not in the majority.

We pass this, and then we're done. I'm not saying it's the perfect answer. I'm saying that it just might be the right answer.

 

[engi-ninja]

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that no gun control is actually intended to stop gun violence; this has been amply demonstrated by Chicago. The purpose is always to disarm the populace, always always always.

 

[brotherbill3]

You guys have a full page for me already (or more) to review - but having read the article - I saw it from Greg Elifritz on FB (of Active Self Protection) ...

It is thought provoking - at the least - and I'm thinking some may have responded without reading the whole thing ... not for giving an inch ...
especially when the opposition have admitted they want the whole playground ...

anyway. back later. I'm swamped and I'm not even outside

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

...So we give them universal background checks, covering private sales that don't happen all that often anyway...

No...and did you really say "private sales don't happen all that often anyway". Really? What makes you say that?

 

[2A_Tom]

I read the whole article.

NO!

 

[Dead Duck]

Gun Control - It's all about CONTROL.
Pass some feel-good knee-jerk legislation that won't even touch the real problem then BOOM - another shooting, and we repeat.

We tell them how to fix the problem for good but they won't listen because IT DOESN'T FIT THEIR AGENDA.

repeat -
IT DOESN'T FIT THEIR AGENDA





BTW: All I really care about is my Bibles and my rifles. Anyone has problem with that, they can stick it.

 

[Vigilant]

How about we ban television or any form of electronic news? After all, the founders couldn’t envision television, radio, or the internet anymore than AR-15’s? Or better, why have restrictions on the government like say, the 4th? Women don’t need to vote either? We’ve given ENOUGH since 1934, yet, it’s never enough? What makes this the end? Anyone who believes COMPLETE BANS on firearms isn’t the endgame is delusional! The little bastards that can barely be bothered to get their collective noses out of their cellphones have already stated “give us an inch, and we will take a mile”! NOT ONE MORE ****ING INCH!

 

[worddoer]

We pass this, and then we're done.

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. However, I want to add some information that you may not know about. I have found many younger gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take our rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 6 times, and none of them worked. The only reason the 1994 ban is gone is because of the "sunset" or expiration date in the law. If it were not for that, it would still be on the books today, and the gun control folk would still be asking for more.

After loosing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 6 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. They hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of americans in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

We have tried 6 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to get pro gun people in office and these current anti-gun politicians voted out.

 

[actaeon277]

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. However, I want to add some information that you may not know about. I have found many younger gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take our rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 6 times, and none of them worked. The only reason the 1994 ban is gone is because of the "sunset" or expiration date in the law. If it were not for that, it would still be on the books today, and the gun control folk would still be asking for more.

After loosing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 6 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. They hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of americans in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

We have tried 6 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to get pro gun people in office and these current anti-gun politicians voted out.

And that doesn't even touch the State laws, or in some cases Local laws.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Millenial Gunner, I understand why you think this proposal is reasonable. I do. But please understand that the anti gun crowd as a whole is never reasonable. As Worddoer pointed out, it always starts as "reasonable" restrictions, and we passively sit by, thinking the worst is over, then they want more. Make no mistake, the endgame is total disarmament. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security because they may offer some things back to us. They will find a way to further limit and restrict who can own guns, and what guns they can own. They will never compromise. They will never be reasonable. I want silencers, and short barreled firearms removed from the NFA as much as anyone else, but it's not worth a trade. I'm not going to purchase rights that were stolen from me with more of my rights. We don't owe them anything.

 

[Vigilant]

The compromises have been made, in spades. Now is the time for our rights to be restored! If you don’t see that, or disagree with that, just make a YouTube video destroying all of your firearms, and jump to the anti side.

 

[jamil]

No...and did you really say "private sales don't happen all that often anyway". Really? What makes you say that?

People rush to 50 on INGO for ****s and giggles I guess. Can't possibly be that there's a deal on a firearm that they really want to purchase privately.

 

[Haven]

I brought this up because I thought it was interesting. I don't know that I agree with it 100%, as some have said some of the premises are off. However I do think it brings up some good point to think about for both sides.

I really like the media part, but then again I remember real journalism and not just activist journalism. I grew up learning about reporting from my grandmother who owned a newspaper and was the editor of said small town newspaper. I think a lot of the current way of reporting things does make copycats. Let these evil jackasses be forgotten. They should not be remembered.