The impasse (part 1)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

An impasse occurs when there is no progress to be made. Supposedly, the political struggle over decreasing gun violence while maintaining individual rights is there, at an impasse.

I don't see a lot of us on the pro-rights side running to our congress critters demanding changes in any laws. IMHO, most of us are mostly comfortable with our current set of laws. The pro-control side wants stricter laws.

I've read that the pro-rights side isn't opposed to some new laws but wants compromise.

The list of prospective restrictions is long, there's no shortage of ideas. Universal Background Checks seem to be the most talked about. Those wanting to see more control like the idea of requiring a check on private person to person sales be they in a private setting or at a gun show or other public venue.

Pro-RKBA folks often say they'd accept UBCs in return for loosening of other restrictions. I think most people will agree the, for example, a suppressor (aka silencer) does not affect the lethality of a firearm. An injury from a gun with a suppressor will be just as serious as one from a gun without one, no more, no less.

For those on the pro-control side: what would you allow in return for UBCs?
For those on the pro-RKBA side: what would you most want in return for supporting UBC legislation?

15 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	National CCW reciprocity
	11 (73%)
	End restrictions on suppressors
	0 (0%)
	Open the NFA registry
	3 (20%)
	Added my own preference in a reply (suggestions will be added and the thread kicked)
	0 (0%)
	I'm unwilling to compromise
	1 (7%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[S_B_Jackson]

1. That's a mighty big "ask", something similary significant must be offered in exchange...

repeal of the Hughes Amendment and re-opening the NFA registry to new weapons would seem to be appropriate.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. That would be fine with me. n/t

[TeddyR]

2. I'd support

UBCs without anything in exchange since I find them relatively harmless. Oh, and almost completely ineffectual with respect to mass shootings, though they might do something to cut down on keeping firearms out of the hands of felons.

As for what I'd like to see in return, nationwide reciprocity wouldn't be a bad thing, nor would agreement to forego any attempt at a national registry.

If you want to actually cut down on accidental injuries and deaths, an even better exchange would be CC reciprocity with mandatory training -- too many people own a firearm but don't understand basic firearm safety.

[beevul]

3. They shouldn't happen for free.

Lets not forget, what we're referring to, is federal government intrusion into private intrastate person to person sales of private property, something which it was never granted explicit authority to do. That's a big intrusion, and should come at a hefty price, with rock solid guarantee of the absolute prohibition of any sort of registration.

They shouldn't happen for free.

1. Mandatory gun safety training in high school.

2. nationwide CCW reciprocity

3. Nfa register re-opened, with a provision that if it gets closed again, the background check law sunsets immediately.

4. Tax stamp price of NFA items reduced to 25 bucks.

5. 10 year federal moratorium on any new gun control.


Note, 2 3 and 4 effect me in no way. I'm not an nfa owner, nor a concealed carrier. The point is, those things I listed, combined, are in my view, about equal to the magnitude of crossing the line into intrastate private property sales. If universal background checks are going to be enacted into law, require they be enacted into law with an equitable return in other areas.

"Compromise" as the other side of the issue used to say, but no longer seems interested in.

[benEzra]

4. I think a key component of any UBC

would be felony prison time and lifetime debarment from government service for any official who uses or assists in using UBC to compile a registry of lawful owners. I'd also like to see a cessation of all attempts to restrict rifle aesthetics/ergonomics or mandate silly magazine capacity restrictions, given that all rifles combined kill fewer people than bicycles. Those things might help restore some of the trust that has been broken, stomped, and ground in the dirt by Bloomberg's sockpuppets over the past few years.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Agreed but...

...I'd like to see felony prison time and lifetime debarment from ever receiving any government monies, benefits or pensions or from profiting in any form from any further publications, appearances or related activities during, concerning or incident to any past government service or subsequent imprisonment or other sentence.

Freedom isn't free and those that seek to deny it should pay the dearest cost.

[virginia mountainman]

7. I've been watching this thread closley

The truth is, the gun control side, simply does not want to "compromise", they want to "dictate"..

So, they should be treated accordingly. Since they have went off the deep end, over the last few years, they are not even worthy of debate. Much less sitting at the table to have an adult conversation with. When the current crop of "over the top" B.S. passes, we will see. Until then, we simply have nothing to talk about.

[pablo_marmol]

8. I agree with this assessment. NT

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Agreed

Not a single reply from the pro-control side.

[rufus mcgurk]

10. Simple and concise. Well said, nothing more to be said.

[DonP]

11. That does seem to be the attitude

We're supposed to keep giving up bits and pieces of our rights, so they can feel better, out of respect for their sheer moral superiority.

We had a recent thread where it became apparent after just a few posts that "compromise" is not what they want. "Just shut up and roll over", seemed to be the overwhelming point of view.

When quizzed about why we should give them anything more in the way of gun control, the responses, to paraphrase, were; "Why should we have to give up anything for more gun control?" and "Well, just because we're smarter and morally superior than all of you gun humpers".

For a few we even had to define what a compromise was and they still thought we should just give in.

That thread was the best argument I've seen for just ignoring the control side and rolling right over them politically when necessary.

They have no intention of discussing "compromise" in good faith or leaving well enough alone if they do get some traction, "Its a good start" comes to mind.

[virginia mountainman]

12. BUMP...Recent events have proven me to be correct in my assessment..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I'm waiting...

...for a pro-control LEADER. Not some statistics spouting "I'm better than you" gumby that announces things like:
- magazine limits
- ban CCW
- register all guns, knives, brass knuckles, baseball bats and boy scouts who know how to start a fire
- "you can have a musket"
- if you want a gun, join the national guard
- your gun is more likely to hurt you than an assailant

I'm looking for a true leader. A respectable individual who has insight and can tell the difference between a problem and slogan.

I believe one thing he will do is burst the 'assault weapon' bubble for the meaningless distraction it is.

[DonP]

15. I'm pretty sure a "gun control leader" is the guy with the most cartoons

Or maybe the one that demands all guns be confiscated immediately, damn the constitution!

Or possibly the one that strings together the most insults in a single post, entries must include at least one direct penis reference.

That's about the state of discussion these days.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. yeah well maybe but...

...as I work as a systems/software engineer this demonstrates I have a high tolerance for boredom.

[DonP]

17. I was just thinking

Two of the "big" gun control supporters on DU do nothing but cut and paste other people ideas and writing.

Another only posts other people's cartoons.

I don't think there's an original idea or thought in the bunch.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Here's an original idea (well maybe not but an encouraging one)

Obama calls for states to lead on gun control as Congress still fails to act:
< http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/03/obama-san-bernardino-shooting-gun-control-state-legislatures >

Maybe the ideas about "...tighter gun controls..." but moving to encourage states to take a role is a basic acknowledgement of the lack of federal jurisdiction.

[DonP]

19. State level regulation requires a lot of time and committment

Organizing, circulating petitions, showing up at town halls and such, meeting face to face with legislators and their staff.

We just went through it for Concealed Carry, even after the court ruling there was still a ton of work to do to shape the "Shall Issue" law.

There were hundreds of us working the legislature and only 1 or 2 lobbyists from Brady and Bloomberg, no grass roots people from the control side. I saw how "top down" they were first hand. We would have a few people sitting outside legislator's offices and a guy in a New York suit would be trying to schedule a "special phone call from Mayor Bloomberg" to talk about gun control.

But doing anything in the "real world" seems to be a challenge for our control minded friends.

Thy are big supporters of anything it takes ... for somebody else to pay for and do.

"Sure I believe in stronger gun control!"

"Write a check?"

"Go to an organizing meeting?"

"Get off the couch?"

"Use my vacation days to go to the state capitol?"

"You know I'd really like to, but my knee is acting up."

[virginia mountainman]

22. Your exactly right Don..

So far their commitment level for the vast majority of them is "pout rage" level 10

And the best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior!

[beevul]

20. I'm forced by reality, to agree.

The truth is, the gun control side, simply does not want to "compromise", they want to "dictate"..

Correct. They never wanted a conversation, they wanted a monologue. They never wanted 'compromise', they wanted capitulation, coming back next session for more from their wish list. For decades they've continued chanting 'we need gun control' as if several thousand laws which they themselves swear up and down were 'needed gun control laws', were not in fact passed into law, and its just never enough with them. It boggles the mind.

So, they should be treated accordingly. Since they have went off the deep end, over the last few years, they are not even worthy of debate. Much less sitting at the table to have an adult conversation with. When the current crop of "over the top" B.S. passes, we will see. Until then, we simply have nothing to talk about.

Pretty much, although I don't think that its so much a case of them having gone off the deep end recently, as it is of them finally being honest for a change, about their end goals.

[Logical]

21. You really think your favorite group, the NRA, would ever "have a conversation"? nt

[DonP]

23. You mean like they did in writing the NICS backgortund check law?

[Logical]

24. Nice try.....

1998 is the last time you could come up with? Here is your groups stance on this topic. Not what I call a pro-NICS stance.



Gun control supporters initially opposed NICS. However, once they recognized that NICS was inevitable, they began advocating steps aimed at incrementally transforming it into a national registry of guns. At first, they wanted background checks required on all private (i.e., non-licensee) sales, trades and gifts of handguns. Then they wanted background checks on private transfers of all firearms at gun shows. Now, they demand background checks on all private transfers of all firearms, regardless of location, and they want the FBI to retain, for an indefinite period, records on people who pass NICS checks to acquire firearms.

NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.

Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years.

[DonP]

25. Still waiting for anyone on the gun control side to understand "compromise"

You show an example where the NRA "compromised" on an issue.

I could have also cited the compromises they worked into the Illinois concealed carry laws about restricted spaces, training requirements, qualification requirements.

But you didn't put a time limit on examples. So I could also have used FOPA or others I guess.

So, show us all examples of the recent "compromises" gun control has made legislatively?

[Logical]

29. Your claim is the NRA wants to work with people on better background checks? LOL LOL LOL. nt

[DonP]

32. Fine, but you won't get jack shit in the way of legislation until they do

That's the problem with the gun control movement, a lot of mouth, not too bright or able to learn from their mistakes.

That's why they've gone over 20 years with nothing to show for it.

Just keep pissing and moaning about the evil/wicked NRA "Buying Congress" as an excuse, ignore the fact that racist PoS Bloomberg spent $50 million for gun control last year and keep doing the same thing over and over with the only result a bunch of posters trying to out do each other with their Pout Rage.

That's why most of us just ignore control posts now.

You started a thread with a reasonable question. You got polite answers and now it's turning into the usual insult fest.

Why bother even trying to talk reasonably.

You guys are doing so really "well" legislatively and judicially, without the help of us "Gun Humping, Penile Compensating, Ammosexuals".

Just get that 90% of people that agree with you to show and vote for gun control candidates, no problem.

[Logical]

33. The fact that you defend the NRA and think they are anything but a right wing group is telling......

Ted Nugent insults Obama weekly and no real organization would keep him on the board.

You are insane if you think the NRA is anything but a wing of the GOP.

The NRA would agree to NOTHING anti-gun people propose. People like you would throw a fit if they did.

[DonP]

34. It's not "defending them" to point out a political reality

But, if you and your control minded buddies want to keep using them as your excuse for a steady stream of political and judicial losses for the last 20 years, be my guest. That brick wall must leave a hell of a flat spot after all that time.

That says that either they are pretty powerful and smart or gun control and its supporter are piss poor weak.

Doesn't matter if they are a wing of the GOP, the GOP still controls both houses of Congress, so if you want anything done on gun control you have to find a way to compromise. And you don't get people to compromise by calling them names all the time.

Buh bye.

[Logical]

35. Name one control measure the NRA has proposed! Nt

[aikoaiko]

26. Of course, the NRA worked with Democrats recently when invited to the table instead of demonized.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-democrats-team-up-to-pass-gun-bill/

After 52 years in Congress, John Dingell knows it sometimes takes a "rather curious alliance," such as between the National Rifle Association and the House's most fervent gun control advocate, to move legislation.

That's what took place Wednesday when the House, by voice vote, passed a gun control bill that Rep. Dingell, D-Mich., helped broker between the NRA and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.

"We'll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn't have guns," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Atkisson

[Logical]

30. LOL, yes, they work with anyone that wants to agree 100% with them. You an NRA member? You .....

really think the NRA is a legit group? Ted Nugent on their board. Right Wing nut all of them.

[Skeeter Barnes]

28. Their goal is to ban all firearms. Whatever they say they want now is just a start.

[Skeeter Barnes]

27. Drop the $200 NFA tax, simplify and speed up the process.

Do away with the stupid engravings that have to be done on receivers of SBRs, having to set up trusts, form signed by a LEO and shit like that. If you can pass the background check to own a firearm and submit a designated form, $10 fee and fingerprints one time, you get a federal license to purchase suppressors and receivers for SBRs through a licensed FFL. Normal background checks could apply when you pick it up at the FFL. I'm fine with them being registered if they want to waste the money gathering and keeping up with all the data.

Let the states handle CCW. A national CCW law is likely to be too limiting, IMO. NY would never allow the carry laws we have here in TN and I don't want to be limited to what they would allow. We've got it good here and I don't want it ruined by a prohibitionist state that I would never bother to visit in the first place.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Sounds fine to me

I didn't say the national CCW permit would replace any state issued permit. I was just hoping that by having all the states accept a federal permit, those that wanted an "any state" permit would have an option. Folks in those states that have looser laws or no requirements for CC are fine, they wouldn't change. I guess what I'm suggesting isn't really reciprocity since the permit would be federal.

[Skeeter Barnes]

36. I see what you mean now. Hope I didn't come off sounding rude. Didn't mean it that way.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. not at all

thanks