An interesting proposal

[OakRiver]

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.

We are not done. Anti-gun people have become emboldened recently and are no longer trying to hide their real intentions. They want to ban private ownership of guns. There is now talk of moving to repeal the Second Amendment.

 

[2A_Tom]

This is all backfiring on them. The III% is growing.

There are a lot of silent bitter clingers out there.

 

[jamil]

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 can see where it's really easy to think it's that simple. Unfortunately, especially for the people who've been around and have experienced being Being Charlie Brown with the football believing that Lucy wouldn't pull it back at the last moment, we've become appropriately skeptical of promises.

It's like I said. The two opposing sides are the real players here. There are people on both sides who represent kind of the middle road viewpoint. But they're not the real players. They're the spoils.

I'll give the best strong-man version of the positions I can muster, being a biased person on the pro-2A side.

The real players in this battle, on the anti-side, are the people who think that a civilized society won't have armed citizens. They think that the violence we see here is because of the wide availability of guns. They can't progress to the society they think we should have, if just any ordinary citizen can have firearms. They think that as part of the social contract, we cede the responsibility for our safety to the government.

On the pro-side, are the people who think that a free society is armed, for the protection of themselves, their families, and others, against people who would do them harm, including the government.

There is more to it than just that, but it is at least that, for the sake of blathering on. The point is, those two views really can't coexist. You can't have an armed society at the same time as a disarmed society. So those two sides fight it out, and the mostly disinterested middle mostly ignores it, except when these mass shootings happen. And then the anti side, including all its allies, the media, politicians, and so on, fights for the disinterested people to try to get them to force the "pro" politicians to support any legislation that will get them something. Anything. One law at a time. They just want something.

That's why they often drag out legislation that has nothing to do with the latest shooting. Like with the kid who shot up the Black church members. Diane Fienstien & Co dragged out the same Assault Weapon bans that they've wanted since the last AWB sunset in 2004. Why? It was a handgun used in that shooting. Didn't have anything to do with rifles.

This is what we're up against. We say not one more inch because if we give an inch, they'll take a mile. They've said so. If we pass this, there's no way that we're done.

Let's say we pass this. Will there be another shooting? Well. Why wouldn't there be? Nothing proposed in the article will prevent it. Of course there will be another shooting. And when there is, what is the cry going to be? Enough of us have seen what appeasement does--and make no mistake, appeasement is what this is--that we know we're not done. We know it's not over. You're right that the people who want to confiscate guns are in the minority. They were in the minority when the first AWB was passed. They got it done against the will of the majority. Why should we give them one inch here? Why is that the right thing to do here? We know what's going to happen with the next shooting.

 

[jamil]

This is all backfiring on them. The III% is growing.

There are a lot of silent bitter clingers out there.

Backfiring? I'm not trying to be negative. I'd just like to have a reason to be positive. What do you know that I haven't heard?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We've tried it the compromisers and gun grabbers way now for decades. Their ways do not work. They get school children killed. They disenfranchise low income people of their right to self protection. Enough is enough. Why don't we try it the other way for awhile? Legalize everything and hold people accountable for their actions.

 

[2A_Tom]

Anecdotally, in the Money Bomb the NRA thread there are many who were on the fence about the NRA, some even disliked the NRA and called themselves centrists.

I have been watching and they are heading in the >>>>right >>>> direction and at least a couple are now members.

 

[CraigAPS]

So, you can't be a "centrist" and belong to the NRA???

 

[2A_Tom]

That is what one person said.

You can be anything you want. We are a mixed lot. We are atheists, Christians, Muslims, Democrats, Libertarians and Republicans.

I personally do not what a centrist is.

 

[Dead Duck]

I want to be a toaster. I like bread.

 

[2A_Tom]

OK, Dead Duck.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...u-picture-fellow-ingoers-101.html#post7475585

 

[CraigAPS]

That is what one person said.

You can be anything you want. We are a mixed lot. We are atheists, Christians, Muslims, Democrats, Libertarians and Republicans.

I personally do not what a centrist is.

I think the term means different things to different people, like many things. I've heard people define it as simply being in the middle of the left and the right. I've also heard people define it as being synonymous with Libertarian.

 

[jamil]

I want to be a toaster. I like bread.

Well. If life is a choice between being toastER OR toastED, I guess I’d go for the former too.

 

[brotherbill3]

That is what one person said.

You can be anything you want. We are a mixed lot. We are atheists, Christians, Muslims, Democrats, Libertarians and Republicans.

I personally do not what a centrist is.

There is a diagram ... when I did the "who do you side with" - last election or "the world simplest political quiz" - I"ll look and edit and add the link
(who do you side with is a LONG questionairre) ... anyway ... It is a diamond shaped grid with a square in the middle ...

Top is libertarian, left is liberal (modern, not classical), right is conservative, bottom is authoritarian (perhaps "statist")... the square in the middle in centrist ... lines divide the zones from the corners of the square to the middle of the diagonals of the outer perimeter ...

I always seem to fall just above the corner of "centrist - conservative - libertarian" ... (there are sub grids in each area) ... in the libertarian zone. ...
A centrist is one who is seeking middle ground ... ? something like that.

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/
ETA - new questions / updated - put me in a new spot ... dats "OK" ...

 

[Tombs]

How about we repeal all gun laws, of any kind, and simply put people in prison (and keep them there) who are a public safety risk?

I'll never understand the point of the background check system. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, why should they be trusted to operate a car or even walk down a sidewalk?

 

[2A_Tom]

On the line of conservative centrist.

But that is someone else's opinion.

 

[OakRiver]

How about we repeal all gun laws, of any kind, and simply put people in prison (and keep them there) who are a public safety risk?

I'll never understand the point of the background check system. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, why should they be trusted to operate a car or even walk down a sidewalk?

We can't infringe on someone's Constitutional right to assembly without due process, that would be an abuse of civil liberties. We're totally cool with infringing on your Constitutional right to bear arms though

 

[2A_Tom]

Excuse me, did I say no?

I meant,

 

[seedubs1]

My proposal:

1) UBC's. I'm fine with them if done CORRECTLY. CORRECTLY being the main emphasis. There can be NO WAY of tracking ANYTHING. The only way I've been able to figure this out is to mandate the .gov keep a free publicly accessed website where I can have a buyer plug in his SS #, drivers license, etc... click "submit", and it goes to a big green screen saying "go" or a big red screen saying "no." There would be no inputting what you're selling/buying, and it would have to be free for everyone to use. If rejected, there would have to be an appeals process like there is today. And no UBC necessary if being gifted to blood relatives.

2) No more NFA. You can now legally buy suppressors, SBR's, SBS's, and full auto's.

3) National reciprocity

4) Disband this crap where I can only buy a handgun in my home state

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nobody should be deprived of their Constitutional rights without due-process. If you're going to be put on a list of prohibited buyers/possessors, you should be first notified of the intent to place you on that list and you should have an opportunity to defend yourself prior to that placement being finalized.

 

[seedubs1]

Yeah.....there's currently a defacto list as well as an appeals process. My proposal uses what's already in place, but makes it accessible to the public and takes away the ability of the .gov to track what's being bought and sold.

Nobody should be deprived of their Constitutional rights without due-process. If you're going to be put on a list of prohibited buyers/possessors, you should be first notified of the intent to place you on that list and you should have an opportunity to defend yourself prior to that placement being finalized.