HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Guns: A proposed comprom...

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:43 PM

 

Guns: A proposed compromise

Everyone seems to be throwing out what they want on this issue, so here goes:

By definition a compromise means each side has to engage in give and take. Here's my proposal:

The gun control side gets Universal Background Checks.

In return, the pro-gun rights crowd gets NFA (National Firearms Act) reform. SBRs (short barreled rifles) and silencers will no longer be restricted items requiring a $200 tax stamp and months of paperwork.

Each side gets something. Sound good?

79 replies, 2903 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply Guns: A proposed compromise (Original post)
Just reading posts Jun 2016 OP
onehandle Jun 2016 #1
BootinUp Jun 2016 #3
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #6
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #8
yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #50
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #55
safeinOhio Jun 2016 #2
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #7
safeinOhio Jun 2016 #9
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #13
Chan790 Jun 2016 #62
sir pball Jun 2016 #76
SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #4
pipoman Jun 2016 #70
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #5
roamer65 Jun 2016 #20
Chan790 Jun 2016 #63
Straw Man Jun 2016 #64
Chan790 Jun 2016 #66
Straw Man Jun 2016 #67
Chan790 Jun 2016 #68
Straw Man Jun 2016 #71
Chan790 Jun 2016 #73
Straw Man Jun 2016 #75
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #10
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #17
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #19
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #32
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #52
Crepuscular Jun 2016 #21
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #24
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #30
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #40
scscholar Jun 2016 #11
SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #14
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #15
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #16
JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #29
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #49
JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #58
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #59
JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #77
maxsolomon Jun 2016 #12
roamer65 Jun 2016 #18
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #23
roamer65 Jun 2016 #25
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #28
roamer65 Jun 2016 #31
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #35
roamer65 Jun 2016 #38
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #46
roamer65 Jun 2016 #51
jmg257 Jun 2016 #22
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #26
jmg257 Jun 2016 #27
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #33
jmg257 Jun 2016 #41
roamer65 Jun 2016 #34
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #36
roamer65 Jun 2016 #45
jmg257 Jun 2016 #44
Straw Man Jun 2016 #65
Squinch Jun 2016 #37
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #42
Squinch Jun 2016 #47
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #48
Squinch Jun 2016 #79
Straw Man Jun 2016 #72
valerief Jun 2016 #39
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #43
SwankyXomb Jun 2016 #53
Hoyt Jun 2016 #54
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #56
Straw Man Jun 2016 #74
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #78
cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #57
Daninmo Jun 2016 #60
Chan790 Jun 2016 #61
pipoman Jun 2016 #69

Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:47 PM

1. They have plenty. Give them nothing. No more Weapons Of War. Period. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:51 PM

3. lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:53 PM

6. When you find an AR-15 in anyone's military

 

let us know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:55 PM

8. No weapons of war? So a single shot Springfield 1873 rifle is verboten?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:06 PM

50. We had 10 years of automatic weapons banned and columbine happened

 

What more then ban can we do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:21 PM

55. It was not an automatic weapon ban

 

It was a cosmetic feature ban and AR style weapons were sold for those 10 years. There was also no effect on murder rates by semi-automatic rifles, that is why it sunsetted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:49 PM

2. One side gets 3 things

And the other gets only one. Let's put in 10 round mags and registration of all hand guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:54 PM

7. I only count only two, arguably one. Silencers and SBRS, both of which arguably fall under the same

 

thing (NFA reform).

Let's put in 10 round mags

No way, no how.

and registration of all hand guns.

Hm....give me concealed carry reciprocity across state lines and we'll talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:00 PM

9. So, you call

For compromise, but you are not willing to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:06 PM

13. Sure I compromised. I propose giving your side Universal Backgound Checks in return for NFA reform.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:34 AM

62. Even at what you're offering and asking...

 

which I think is lopsided...I'd still insist that the time-frame limitation on background checks be dropped.

If it take 4 months to clear you, then you wait four months. Responsible gun owners will have no problem with this as for the vast majority of them, nothing is going to flag to make the wait longer than a few days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:25 AM

76. I'm good with that, actually.

I have two semiautos - one is an immense, ponderous, incredibly accurate, truly high-powered (308) deer rifle that I can only use 5-rounders in anyway. The second is a little carbine that I keep for home defense, it takes 10-round pistol mags. And handgun registration, duh. When Sam Colt made all men equal, it was with a freakin' pistol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:51 PM

4. I would completely support that

While I don't think UBCs will accomplish much (I mean how does that work with 300-400 million firearms, that have been sold for 100+ years, and have zero tractability?) I would fully support what you're proposing.

I would fully support removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA; having those things be considered the same as a legitimate machine gun is mind blowing. In Europe, they sell suppressors "over the counter".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SuperDutyTX (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:42 AM

70. There won't be federal requirement for UBCs...

 

Ever....or at least until there is a constitutional amendment...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:52 PM

5. Don't forget a National CCW license

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:46 PM

20. The standards would have to be much higher for me to agree with it.

Some states permitting process is a joke and I'd really like to see Michigan kill reciprocity with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:38 AM

63. Deal-breaker.

 

Some of us have fought too hard for our state laws forbidding concealed carry entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #63)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:43 AM

64. Really?

Some of us have fought too hard for our state laws forbidding concealed carry entirely.

What state do you live in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:05 AM

66. Currently CT...which is may issue. (Though they refuse recognition of any other state.)

 

But it was Maryland where we pushed for a very-restrictive policy...most counties are "no issue" though the state is technically "may issue." Pretty much, only the rural western counties and Eastern Shore will issue.

PGC and Monty County you'd have better luck asking the county government for just about anything other than a concealed-carry permit...like an elephant or $1,000,000 in unmarked bills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #66)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:27 AM

67. Well ...

Currently CT...which is may issue. (Though they refuse recognition of any other state.)

... then I wouldn't say that they "forbid concealed carry entirely."

CT had no problem issuing me a non-resident permit based on my possession of a NY permit. No automatic recognition, perhaps, but there wasn't much paperwork, it was all done by mail, and processing only took about six weeks (which by NY standards is fast).

But it was Maryland where we pushed for a very-restrictive policy...most counties are "no issue" though the state is technically "may issue." Pretty much, only the rural western counties and Eastern Shore will issue.

Nor do they forbid it entirely, then.

How does one "push for a policy"? Was there a referendum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #67)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:36 AM

68. No, you harass state lawmakers until they give you what you want...

 

just to get you stop calling them over and over in great multitudes.

Just like I hope many many DUers are doing to their pro-RKBA Senators...maybe they too will vote to restrict RKBA just to get some peace and quiet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #68)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:46 AM

71. They are not the issuing authority.

No, you harass state lawmakers until they give you what you want...

just to get you stop calling them over and over in great multitudes.

State legistlators make the laws. You're talking about administration and enforcement.

May-issue is at the discretion of the issuing authority, which in Maryland is the Department of Public Safety. If a state legislator is making judgements or exerting influence on who does and doesn't get a permit, then there's some serious malfeasance going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #71)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:51 AM

73. No, they make the laws setting the guidelines DSP follows.

 

They are absolutely the right people to harass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #73)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:03 AM

75. It's not a matter of law.

No, they make the laws setting the guidelines DSP follows.

They are absolutely the right people to harass.

That's not how "may issue" works. In "may issue" states, there is a designated authority that is granted discretion to approve or deny permits. Beyond the setting of minimum criteria, the legislature has no role in the process. Are you saying that they changed the basic criteria through new or amended legislation? If so, why didn't it affect the western counties or the Eastern Shore? Or are you saying that they merely exerted pressure on the issuing authority to reduce the number of approvals in certain areas?

If it's the latter, I would call it corruption and influence peddling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:01 PM

10. Universal Background Checks

will cost a lot more than silencers and SBRs. But I commend you on a good start.

Minimally, I would like to see major NFA reforms including repeal of the Hughes amendment to FOPA. SBRs, SBSs, and silencers all move outside of NFA. National carry reciprocity, CMP 1911 sales to the public via FFL transfers, due process protections for seniors, veterans, and the mentally ill.

If that were offered I would be ok with so called UBCs as long as relatives were exempted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:38 PM

17. I bow to your better thought out proposal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:44 PM

19. My full proposal for UBCs is as follows:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=177959

I posted this earlier today, but I will reshare with a slight addition. UBCs are our golden bargaining chip, and it would be foolish to give it away without making real progress with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Keep in mind, we were able to pass the PLCAA, so all of the items below are politically feasible in exchange for UBCs.

That's why I think it makes sense to fight UBCs tooth and nail for the next few years. If the decision is ever made to go along with UBCs it will truly be a compromise and we needn't give away the bargaining chip without something in return.

A) Repeal of the Hughes amendment
B) Authorize handgun purchases from FFLs across state lines
C) National Concealed Carry reciprocity with a federal option, background check based on NICS
D) Strengthening FOPA, enhanced legal protections for firearm owners
E) Grant funding for high school state athletic associations for shooting sports
F) Repeal of 4473 record keeping requirements.
G) Public audit of NICS program
H) Establishment of an FFL program for individuals to purchase firearms directly. It would be like an FFL 03, but could be used for non-C&R.
I) Legal protection from the ATF for NFA trusts. (The ATF has been threatening to phase these out for years, we need to stop that effort.)
J) Repeal of ammo restrictions in LEOPA
K) Repeal of 922r and all import restrictions on civilian firearms and components
L) Additional funding for the CMP
M) CMP handgun sales
N) Grant program for true firearm safety organizations and efforts
O) Reduce NICS checks maximum processing time to 24 hours
P) Funding to "fix NICS", as supported by groups such as the NSSF.
Q) Removal of SBRs/SBSs/handguns with vertical grips and suppressors from NFA requirements
R) Restrict the Department of State from blocking the free exchange of cad files or similar design tools for CNC machines and 3D printers associated with civilian small arms.

If we can get those line items addressed, I would be supportive of UBCs, with exemptions for relatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:53 PM

32. I leave my response to these good people:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:07 PM

52. Too generous of you.

Most of what I posted could make it out of the House, but would never get out of the current Senate or past our President's veto pen. The issue has become too polarized. But it's time we Democrats start speaking out and demand support for gun rights from our elected officials.

But we can keep pushing, keep up the political fight, and we will prevail. We are freedom's safest place, which is anywhere other than a gun free zone.

The fruit of our tireless effort.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:46 PM

21. In return for all of those

I'd be willing to add a firearms owners license on the UBC side of the equation, just to balance it up a little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:48 PM

24. Scrap NFA

and make the FOID a requirement only for those that want to purchase machine guns or destructive devices...

And you might have a deal 😄

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:51 PM

30. We have a winner!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:58 PM

40. Check this out.

Gun control advocates like to say that gun owners are unreasonable. Check this post out I made last night. Who seems unreasonable? When gun control proponents say, gun owners NEVER offer solutions ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027916100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:03 PM

11. So they more easily get away with murder with silencers?

 

Think about what you are proposint!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:06 PM

14. hah!

You ever been around a suppressed rifle/pistol?

They're pretty darn loud if you're shooting 99.9% of the ammunition available on the market today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:07 PM

15. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Silencer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:14 PM

16. you do know it is not the movies

 

silencers do not silence the weapon, just cuts down on the crack slightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:51 PM

29. So in theory if we put one in Trump's mouth.....

.....we'd only mute him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonathanRackham (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:04 PM

49. That is disgusting, never joke about muzzles in peoples mouths

 

Firearms are not a joking matter. And by the way Trump is a first class asshole

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:37 PM

58. Can one be screwed on his lips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonathanRackham (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:43 PM

59. That I can agree with

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 05:14 AM

77. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:04 PM

12. "Months of paperwork"

My heart bleeds.

UBCs are a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. You cannot screen intent.

Here's what's going to happen: not a goddamn thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:41 PM

18. Shotguns, rifles and revolvers.

That's it. No more.

Flame away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:48 PM

23. So the rules regarding rifles and shotguns remain the same, but semiauto handguns are outlawed?

 

I can still have an AR-15, but not a Colt 1911? Please clarify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:49 PM

25. Simple 6 shot revolvers.

That's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:50 PM

28. But we could still have semiauto "assault weapons"? You did say rifles and shotguns were allowed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:52 PM

31. Classic hunting rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:55 PM

35. Sounds like you want us to go to (roughly) Australia's level of gun control.

 

Not going to happen, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:57 PM

38. No Canada.

In Canada, you can own handguns after a much more background check and permitting process.

In Australia, you cannot own handguns. Even rifles and shotguns are severely restricted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:01 PM

46. But in Canada you're allowed to own semiautomatic handguns, as well as some "evil black rifles".

 

With magazine restrictions, mind you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:07 PM

51. I would be negotiable if the backgrounding process for those classes were even more rigorous.

Psychiatric evaluation and in person interviewing by a gun board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:47 PM

22. Hmm...Would you trade UBC with registration for National CCW?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:50 PM

26. I think I'd be giving away more than I got. CCW is becoming the norm already.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:50 PM

27. Nationwide reciprication I mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:53 PM

33. Hm....not enough. Want more.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:58 PM

41. Registration of handguns only? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:54 PM

34. CA, NY, NJ and MA will not go along.

An appeals court has already upheld CA "may issue".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:56 PM

36. I don't expect the West Coast or Northeast to respect gun rights any time in the foreseeable future.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:01 PM

45. CCW isn't a right. It's a privilege. Just like a driver's license.

Drink too much under either one and see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:00 PM

44. Yeah - federal steps into what has been state territory. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:49 AM

65. NY has a lot of gall ...

CA, NY, NJ and MA will not go along.

An appeals court has already upheld CA "may issue".

Texas has CCW training and qualifying requirements that are far more stringent than New York's. In fact, NY has no state-mandated training whatsoever, much less a live-fire qualification. And yet NY won't recognize a Texas permit.

It's bullshit culture war, and has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:56 PM

37. Get out a dictionary and look up the word "Massacre." So, no.

You are seriously saying that humpers need to be given something.

That's just sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:59 PM

42. This is what a real compromise would look like, as opposed to someone saying that their "compromise"

 

is that they'll allow people to own traditional hunting weapons and nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:02 PM

47. The NRA has stolen your humanity. And you let them.

Here's a thread that might be enlightening:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027916489

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:04 PM

48. Overdramatize much?

 



Here's a thread that might be enlightening:

Been there, done that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 03:39 PM

79. Thank you for proving my point. Laugh away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:50 AM

72. Another graduate of the Ron White School of Rhetoric.

Here's a thread that might be enlightening:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027916489

Wherein we learn that the debate is won by the person who says "Fuck!" loudest and most often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:57 PM

39. I thought I had all the ammosexuals on my Forever Ignored club. I missed you! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:00 PM

43. And you kicked the thread just to tell me that? That's so sweet.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:11 PM

53. Brand new account, but he sounds like a long time DUer

Probably got his account nuked and just made a new one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwankyXomb (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:19 PM

54. Exactly. Some Gungeoneers are on account 10, or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #54)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:24 PM

56. Proof?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:51 AM

74. He has none.

Haven't you figured that out yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #74)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 06:09 AM

78. I know, that's why I asked

 

It makes him look even worse when he does not answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:51 PM

57. It actually took me a while to figure out you were joking.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 11:23 PM

60. If memorie serves

I believe the second amendment is the only one that says shall not be infringed. All the others allow for reasonable restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:28 AM

61. No, RKBA activists getting too much and giving up too little.

 

Gun-control activists get universal gun-registration (with attached felony charges and permanent revokation of RKBA (e.g. states, like Florida does, cannot restore RKBA) for possession of an unregistered gun(s). They also get an expanded list of qualifications to retrain RKBA: history of violence, domestic violence, having been subject to FBI investigation for ties to organized crime, domestic or international terrorism for 5 years following the most-recent investigation. (unless cleared by investigation. "Cleared" is not ambiguous. It does not mean they failed to find connection...it means that the cause of suspicion was dismissed as non-credible.), mental illness leading to documented belief the individual may be of danger to self or others. Felony charges for possession of a 3d-printed gun without a "maker permit."

RKBA activists get NFA reform. Repeal on SBRs. Partial repeal on silencers...partial in that the tax is waived if a justifiable need is documented. (You can't have a silencer untaxed just because you want one...you have to have reason why you legitimately need one or else you pay the tax. There is social benefit in restraint-of-possession of a silencer.)

It's now lopsided in the other direction...want anything else? I'd like criminalization of possession of accessories meant to circumvent the restriction on fully-auto weapons by making semi-automatics function in a way that emulates burst or full-auto fire. (such as bump stocks.) Something to trade for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Original post)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:37 AM

69. See....this is real simple....

 

You, nor anyone else gets to negotiate the terms of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread