Gun Compromises.

Quote from roughnready : I appreciate what you mean by compromise. But in the current policy context (and for purposes outside of this thread), I think that compromise means striking a balance between no limits on guns and banning guns completely. Right now, things are skewed toward there being too many guns that are too easy to get for too many people. If you're looking for give, individual states have a lot of leeway when it comes to gun laws, and maybe some of them will open things up more as a reaction to the president's proposals. Some of the most conservative states still have some pretty tight gun laws on the books when compared to more gun friendly places.

I do understand your point. However, I think from a political POV it might make sense for the gun control people to show that they are "giving" by offering something. Another potential example, modify the 1986 prohibition on the addition of newer machine guns to the tax stamp roles. These guns are basically a non-issue with respect to crime given the background checks and restrictions on their ownership already in place. To keep prices high perhaps a $5000 or some other high price could be applied to any post 1986 gun that someone whats to add to the roles. So now the pro-gun people get something that is meaningful to some yet doesn't have any sort of negative impact on crime.

Legalizing suppressors (ironically not only legal but required in many other countries) could be another one. I would be heavily in favor of some legislation stating (in absences any ruling from the SC) the minimum level of gun "rights" that all states must respect.

From a political POV this might help the anti-gun people split the pro-gun block. Some will refuse to give up any gun rights. Others, however, would probably be willing to trade a 10 round limit for being able to carry when they have business in NJ or Chicago.

Perhaps I could ask this question differently, what rules do we think the gun control lobby would be comfortable relaxing, especially if it meant they could get some of the new restrictions they want?

Quote from onscreen : I do understand your point. However, I think from a political POV it might make sense for the gun control people to show that they are "giving" by offering something. Another potential example, modify the 1986 prohibition on the addition of newer machine guns to the tax stamp roles. These guns are basically a non-issue with respect to crime given the background checks and restrictions on their ownership already in place. To keep prices high perhaps a $5000 or some other high price could be applied to any post 1986 gun that someone whats to add to the roles. So now the pro-gun people get something that is meaningful to some yet doesn't have any sort of negative impact on crime. Legalizing suppressors (ironically not only legal but required in many other countries) could be another one. I would be heavily in favor of some legislation stating (in absences any ruling from the SC) the minimum level of gun "rights" that all states must respect. From a political POV this might help the anti-gun people split the pro-gun block. Some will refuse to give up any gun rights. Others, however, would probably be willing to trade a 10 round limit for being able to carry when they have business in NJ or Chicago. Perhaps I could ask this question differently, what rules do we think the gun control lobby would be comfortable relaxing, especially if it meant they could get some of the new restrictions they want?

The "gun control" lobby is tired of giving and getting nothing. There will be no more compromise. The soapbox, ballot box, and jury box have all failed us. It is looking like it is time for the Cartridge box. I certainly hope a lot of you are looking at more then the MSM to find out the real state of the country. People are fed up. New gun laws will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. NO NEW gun laws will be tolerated. Dark days are in store for us. Better to get it over now though then to have our children live in slavery and tyranny.

Quote from dealgate : The "gun control" lobby is tired of giving and getting nothing. There will be no more compromise. The soapbox, ballot box, and jury box have all failed us. It is looking like it is time for the Cartridge box. I certainly hope a lot of you are looking at more then the MSM to find out the real state of the country. People are fed up. New gun laws will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. NO NEW gun laws will be tolerated. Dark days are in store for us. Better to get it over now though then to have our children live in slavery and tyranny.

First, do you mean the gun-rights lobby? The gun rights lobby is the one that feels under attack and feels they are losing rights in states like NY and with laws proposed by Feinstein. The gun-control lobby is the one that is demanding a compromise and some of the gun-control sympathisers on this forum have suggested that things like say a 9 round magazine would be a reasonable compromise.

Since I've heard this compromise expression a number of times I thought I would ask some people what pro-gun laws they think could be relaxed. I also specifically acknowledged many of the moral issues some will face when it comes to accepting say a magazine limit as anything like a legitimate law. If you look at my posts in the Podium (94% gun related, 1% other 5% telling idiots they are idiots ) you can see I completely understand the slippery slope that a compromise can suggest. That is why I prefaced this question by asking that we ignore that for the time being.

I've noticed that "compromise" to a Democrat usually means "my way or the highway".

I think the larger issue, and the one that Clinton was referring to a couple weeks back - is that there is a very large latent body of gun owners that isn't a member of a lobbying group. IOW - many people see the NRA as the head of the gun rights efforts, and they can take the heat and battle things out politically, but a large number of people own a gun and are generally non vocal about it - push too hard on "gun rights" and they'll voice their opinion at the ballot box.

Quote from onscreen : First, do you mean the gun-rights lobby? The gun rights lobby is the one that feels under attack and feels they are losing rights in states like NY and with laws proposed by Feinstein. The gun-control lobby is the one that is demanding a compromise and some of the gun-control sympathisers on this forum have suggested that things like say a 9 round magazine would be a reasonable compromise. Since I've heard this compromise expression a number of times I thought I would ask some people what pro-gun laws they think could be relaxed. I also specifically acknowledged many of the moral issues some will face when it comes to accepting say a magazine limit as anything like a legitimate law. If you look at my posts in the Podium (94% gun related, 1% other 5% telling idiots they are idiots ) you can see I completely understand the slippery slope that a compromise can suggest. That is why I prefaced this question by asking that we ignore that for the time being.

Yes I meant "gun rights". I am for NO compromise and restoration of infringed rights.

I feel we should be able to carry anywhere that allows public access and that no person should be able to prohibit legal carry on their premises as long as their premises are open to the public. So for instance, Sam's club could decide not to allow CCW but Giant could not. Schools could not. Parks not, etc.

I also feel that there should be no limitation on certain classes of firearms like the so-called "assault weapons". And it follows there should be no magazine limit. CCW should be shall-issue in all states.

I am ok with having to have a license, application and training for CCW. I am NOT ok with any form of registration. I am also ok with background checks. Not sure about private sales. I don't think this is a big issue in reality but it is a manufactured one. If it came down to it, I might relent on this issue if all others were granted. MD has 100% background checks for all regulated firearms anyway already including private sales.

Quote from dealgate : Yes I meant "gun rights". I am for NO compromise and restoration of infringed rights. I feel we should be able to carry anywhere that allows public access and that no person should be able to prohibit legal carry on their premises as long as their premises are open to the public. So for instance, Sam's club could decide not to allow CCW but Giant could not. Schools could not. Parks not, etc. I also feel that there should be no limitation on certain classes of firearms like the so-called "assault weapons". And it follows there should be no magazine limit. CCW should be shall-issue in all states. I am ok with having to have a license, application and training for CCW. I am NOT ok with any form of registration. I am also ok with background checks. Not sure about private sales. I don't think this is a big issue in reality but it is a manufactured one. If it came down to it, I might relent on this issue if all others were granted. MD has 100% background checks for all regulated firearms anyway already including private sales.

So in reading your post I think if the powers that be in DC proposed something like universal BGC but offered something like the federal CCW permit that allowed carry in public places like schools you might say, yes, this is a reasonable compromise and might support such a bill.

Some people's idea of a compromise:

A man walks up to you and asks you go give him everything in your wallet.
You say no.
He then asks you to compromise and give him half of what's in your wallet.
You agree.
Both of you walk away happy as you were able to compromise.

Quote from onscreen : So in reading your post I think if the powers that be in DC proposed something like universal BGC but offered something like the federal CCW permit that allowed carry in public places like schools you might say, yes, this is a reasonable compromise and might support such a bill.

It would never happen. They would tack on all sorts of shit to the bill like magazine bans. And then you get into States that don't want to follow that law, like MD which is a "may (won't) issue" state. MD just got court ordered to allow CCW without the "may" and they are pulling every stop in the book to delay and void that ruling as it is.

Quote from dealgate : It would never happen. They would tack on all sorts of shit to the bill like magazine bans. And then you get into States that don't want to follow that law, like MD which is a "may (won't) issue" state. MD just got court ordered to allow CCW without the "may" and they are pulling every stop in the book to delay and void that ruling as it is.

This is why I'm asking as a hypothetical. I also said assume there would be no slippery slope with regards to the law. I personally don't believe there would be no slipper slope. I just think it's an interesting question.

Quote from Dr. J : UBGC won't work without registration, and registration won't fly, so therefore UBGC won't either. I mean, we could pass UBGC laws but if there are no repercussions for ignoring it, it'd be toothless.

BGCs are currently largely toothless. I agree that universal BGCs will be largely toothless, as well. They won't stop the black market, and they won't be any better enforced than our current 20k gun control laws in effect or illegal immigration for that matter. Why pass laws if you don't enforce them? Such laws should either be abolished or enforced consistently.

The registration aspect creates a very bad potential abuse of power for the federal government, as well.

A cursory glance makes UBGCs sound good to a lot of people, but scratching the surface changes that, IMO.

Quote from dealgate : I am ok with having to have a license, application and training for CCW.

Maybe they'll charge $5000 to get a CCW permit like onscreen thinks might be a good compromise for new fully-automatic firearms.

Quote from dealgate : I feel we should be able to carry anywhere that allows public access and that no person should be able to prohibit legal carry on their premises as long as their premises are open to the public. So for instance, Sam's club could decide not to allow CCW but Giant could not. Schools could not. Parks not, etc.

Interesting......Rand Paul thinks Giant should be allowed to not allow blacks in their stores. Whatsayyou?

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : BGCs are currently largely toothless. I agree that universal BGCs will be largely toothless, as well. They won't stop the black market, and they won't be any better enforced than our current 20k gun control laws in effect or illegal immigration for that matter. Why pass laws if you don't enforce them? Such laws should either be abolished or enforced consistently. The registration aspect creates a very bad potential abuse of power for the federal government, as well. A cursory glance makes UBGCs sound good to a lot of people, but scratching the surface changes that, IMO.

I think a lot of the appeal is from novices that don't know current laws. I've mentioned this before, but I listen to a local radio station every day on the ride home and it's been interesting to observe the "education" of the host since Sandy Hook took place. Initially he was for "gun control", AWB, UBGC, all these sort of things, but since he's educated himself and changed his stance. Heck, until a couple weeks ago he didn't know all the stuff one needed to go through to get a CT CCW permit - he thought one could just walk into a store and walk out with a gun! He still, I believe, confuses gun registries - too many people still believe there's some sort of nationwide registry of who owns what... (some would debate the existence of such a thing...)

Quote from TRNT : Interesting......Rand Paul thinks Giant should be allowed to not allow blacks in their stores. Whatsayyou?

Private enterprises should be able to do whatever private enterprises want.

If I knew a local grocery store didn't support CCW and I made a habit of CCing.... I'd choose to not go to that store. If it made a dent in their bottom line, they may change their stance.

Quote from Dr. J : I think a lot of the appeal is from novices that don't know current laws. I've mentioned this before, but I listen to a local radio station every day on the ride home and it's been interesting to observe the "education" of the host since Sandy Hook took place. Initially he was for "gun control", AWB, UBGC, all these sort of things, but since he's educated himself and changed his stance. Heck, until a couple weeks ago he didn't know all the stuff one needed to go through to get a CT CCW permit - he thought one could just walk into a store and walk out with a gun! He still, I believe, confuses gun registries - too many people still believe there's some sort of nationwide registry of who owns what... (some would debate the existence of such a thing...)

Agreed. Ignorance is a large part of the problem, and the gun control lobby, Obama administration, and mainstream media capitalize on it by deliberately spreading disinformation so that people think what that radio host thinks. The AWB includes rocket launchers, etc. An ignorant person might think one could walk into a gun shop & walk out with a rocket launcher or machine gun with no BGC.