Gun Compromises.
 

One of the phrases I've heard a few times in the discussions on this forum and in the media is the need to compromise on the gun issue. However, it seems that most of the time the suggested compromises are one sided. For example one side might say we need to limit magazines to 10 rounds. The current "limit" is the sky. One could argue that the compromise is 20 rounds. But that is basically one side giving (a reduction in magazine capacity) for nothing the expectation no one will later say we need a further reduction. This is the same as asking a man with money to compromise and split his money with a man who has none.

So what I'm wondering is what are things that might strike a real compromise. Certainly gun advocates aren't happy with all the current gun laws. For example some states have may issue carry laws. Others like NJ have, arguably, excessive AW laws. So, if we for discussion sake assume there will be no slippery slope issues, what might make for a good compromise? What pro-gun changes might make up for some of the laws the gun control people want?

One I think might be a reasonable "pro-gun" offer would be expanding concealed carry. Perhaps we could have a federal level CC permit. It would be harder to get than a state level permit and might have more hoops to jump through (more rules and checks and cost) but it would be a shall issue (after more extensive BGC). With this permit you can carry in every state and in any gun free zone that doesn't currently have armed security.

Another might be some federal mandate on the minimum/maximum level of gun restrictions allowed. For example, we might decide that safety standards beyond the federal standard are not allowed thus CA's safe gun list would be abolished. Another might be a rule that states can not have magazine limited less than the federal level if one is established. So while some states might find them selves facing stricter gun laws with new federal laws, states like NY, IL and other might find their gun laws are relaxed.

A true compromise means both sides get something. What do people think would make for a true compromise on this issue?

To the anti 2nd amendment group, there is no compromise. They will outdo each other to come up with the most restrict laws, laws that only effect law abiding citizens and will do nothing to stop the crazy from going on a shooting spree.

compromise = slowly whittling away your rights until they are gone.
Say that the sum of your rights=100

compromise one: reduce your rights 50% to 50
compromise two (after we are comfortable with compromise one): reduce your rights 50% to 25
compromise three (after we are comfortable with compromise two): reduce your rights 50% to 12.5
compromise four (after we are comfortable with compromise three): reduce your rights 50% to 6.5
compromise five: no compromise, the right gets eliminated. after all 6.5 was almost nothing anyways.

It looks like "compromise" is probably not an accurate word to describe gun regluation proposals since the gun lobby has not really stepped up to the plate with any effective suggestions of its own. They've even pulled back on support for background checks. There are a flood of dangerous weapons in the U.S. that put all of us a breath away from an idiot or mentally ill person inflicting mass death. It is past time to erect some barriers to this happening, with or without compromise.

A woman talking on her cell could drive head on into you, a crazy guy could smash open the back of your skull with a rock. Guns are keeping you safe more than putting you in danger. But go ahead, dismantle the rule of law and see how safe you end up.

I wonder what kind of death and casualty the Newtown shooter could have inflicted with a rock. Moreover, it is not the fact that an object can kill a person that makes it important. It is the fact that it was specifically designed to kill fast and easily that does.

This begs the question of why not simply place barriers to preclude idiots and nutjobs from gaining access to the weapons? We need effective management of those that shouldn't be able to access weapons in the first place, rather than prohibit the vast majority of people that can handle their weapons responsibly.

Considering how many weapons are out there, and the occurrence rate of people erroneously/maliciously shot... It's quite apparent that the vast majority of gun owners are not the problem. It's the fringe idiots and crazies that are.

Is it design or is it efficacy that is the real concern? A bit of practical science and a trip to either a place like home depot or lowes... Or even the supermarket... One could create items that could kill far more people and far more quickly than any firearm. But, such items would not be practical for home defense.

It's not what an item can do that is the problem, it is the person that chooses to make it do that is. A car when used properly is a form of transportation, or when used maliciously/carelessly is a deadly weapon. A firearm is a recreational item, or a self defense item, unless abused. The key here is when an item is abused, it is a problem.

The problems all stem from the operator, and the choice of use made by them. Just like the car, the firearm is only a weapon of aggression when the operator chooses to make it one.

I agree that compromise is not the correct term because it is often a one sided discussion revolving around one side giving with nothing exchanged.

The pro-gun side is in favor of better information in the BGC system as well as "common sense" ideas like allowing people on the no buy list to review why they are on it and offer a clear appeals process to get off the list.

Some of the other things like magazine limits and AWBs are things that people haven't been willing to compromise on because they think they aren't going to be effective. There certainly is logic in refusing a suggestion that will negatively impact that law abiding while not reducing the crime.

However, that wasn't the point of the thread. What I was wondering about is if this were treated as a true give and take. The take might be an AWB or might be a magazine limit (I leave it to the individual poster to suggest the take). So what is the give? There are certainly things the pro-gun side would like. I also think there might be things the pro-gun side would want more than what is currently legal. For example I do think that expansion of the rights of carry permits and some basic limits regarding the limits local governments can subject gun owners to would be a worth while thing. I think the common good would be better with say a 10 round magazine limit but carry laws that create a federally recognized carry permit that would allow carry in places like schools and other "gun free zones". This permit could have a higher bar than some state permits but it would allow people in NY and Chicago to get permits even though the local officials have tried to restrict that right.

I do understand that some will feel that because we are talking about rights, bargaining with rights is simply wrong. You either have them or they are infringed. I also understand that accepting some of these limits can result in a slippery slope. I'm asking that we ignore those issues.

The gun rights side has been asked to give for the sake of compromise. What might the other side offer in turn?

BTW, as a correction, the NRA did NOT flip flop on BGCs. What the NRA suggested after the Columbine shootings was a BGC at gun shows. So any gun show would have to provide facilities for private sellers, who are far less numerous that people might think, to run BGCs through an FFL when selling to a private buyer at the gun show. Note that a private seller, selling to an FFL doesn't have to run a BGC since the FFL is considered to be clean. The NRA never supported universal background checks. The ads and articles that claim they did are dishonest.

I would accept a reduction of magazine capacity to 20 rounds, if silencers were removed from being NFA and no longer requiring a tax stamp. However, I also recognize that should one use a silencer in commission of a crime, that they should receive a stiffer penalty were this to happen.

Silencers would be useful in home defense, as they would remove/reduce the need for hearing protection in a confined space. Which would be really handy, should a 2AM intruder need to be dealt with.

I kinda agree. Let's place barriers.

There are some who would like to see guns disappear from our society. But there are some who would be happy if we did everything possible to deny those who should not have guns access to guns. To that end some have been asking for BGCs on every purchase only to see NRA come against them.

Yes, suppressors should REALLY be taken off the NFA lists and really should be encuraged for range use. Contrary to what many think, silencers don't make guns silent. Often what they do is reduce the noise levels from 'instant hearing damage' to 'potential for hearing damage'. Taking them off the list would be a compromise position.

Better info in the BGCs would be a good idea along with a system that made appeals easier to run. In a recent thread I saw a person who was denied the right to buy a gun for reasons of mental competency. The person had been a ward of the state as a child. As she described it, at age 15 another girl in the home claimed she was suicidal. This of course started the hole mental process off. It was later decided that she was not and the other girl had made the story up. However, no one took that off her record (where ever that record is kept). So now she is in her early 20s. She wants to buy a gun but can't. She needs to have that lifted from her record. Normally this is something a parent could help with but her "parent" was a state. Now she can't find the right people to clear the paperwork without a lawyer she can't afford.

So it would seem in this case we have someone who shouldn't be on the list but is. That wouldn't be a big deal if getting things cleared up was easier. Hence, a good compromise would be tighter list but with a clear appeals process for those who don't know why or disagree with why they are denied.

This BTW would be separate from the idea of universal BGC. That, unlike simply having better info on the list may not prove as effective as some claim. Also, the current system includes a record of the gun, not just the buyer. Perhaps a compromise on the universal BGC would be private sellers would have a way to check the background but no SN info would be recorded. A universal BGC system without protections to keep the government from tracking who owns what is a dangerous thing.

Have you looked at the actual data on firearms? Violent crime has been decreasing. Accidental firearm related deaths are at an all time low. Suggestions for what? The NRA proposed armed guards. I would propose lifting "gun free zone" laws since all mass shootings but 1 since 1950 have occurred where guns are banned.

Barriers? How about we enforce the 20,000 gun control laws we currently have, and enforce them uniformly, consistently, and effectively? Cho (VT shooter) shouldn't have passed the BGC, but did b/c we don't do a good job with the laws we have. Violence is illegal, as is the purchase, sale, ownership, carriage, and use of a firearm by violent criminals and other prohibited persons.

Agreed. Why do we need to damage our hearing? I'm tired of banning or taxing things simply b/c they could be used to commit violent acts. Everything, including bare hands, can be used to commit violent acts. We should be innocent until proven guilty, not all presumed violent criminals. We don't do this for the 1A or any other item in the BOR. The NFA of 1934 needs to be repealed, and if the gun control lobby or Obama really believed in compromise, they would offer this up. They have offered up nothing.

This is the major problem that many people have with universal BGCs. If it's all about keeping criminals from buying guns, then why do we need to record the SN? Moreover, BGCs are guilty until proven innocent. That's another issue people have.

Plus, BGCs failed to stop the VT shooter, for example, and are not well enforced currently. Expanding a poorly enforced law doesn't make a lot of sense. We should first enforce what we have before passing more unenforced laws.

Fortunately, we have states the will NEVER compromise. Texas is one of them along with a few others that are floating bills that would make the enforcement of any new federal gun laws illegal subject to imprisonment. Effectively negating the laws. These are good first steps in bringing the out of control federal government down to reality. Simply start negating their unconstitutional and illegal laws at a local level. There really can be no compromise when you look at the incremental steps that are being taken to total disarmament. As they say, molon labe!

what if the SCOTUS rules those new laws, such as the one considered by Texas, unconstitutional?

conservatives used to be for law and order and the military and the police and flags. now they are against gov in general and in principle, against police, against military. this, in addition to those that they were traditionally against. it is like political suicide.

sigh.

You want to give the feds even more power? Screw that. You even say, "It would be harder to get" and "have more hoops to jump through." The feds would probably turn the permit into a California or NY-style permit. Line up for your fingerprinting and $300 fee. Oh, and we'll need a spent shell casing from every firearm you own too. Don't worry, we're not creating a database with any of this stuff. We promise.

The good citizens of Vermont would be required to jump through hoops to get a permit for a right they've had for over 200 years? :thumbdow:

I suppose there might be an argument in there somewhere that you can get a federal permit OR whatever your state requires if you only want to carry in that state. But I can't see California or similar agreeing to a federal permit that is easier to get than their state permit. But I suppose anything is possible in the name of "compromise."
Texas. Don't they make a law-abiding citizen pay $140 to get a permit that turns a right into a privilege and then also makes them conceal the gun because open carry is illegal?

For many years there have been ultra-right "constitutionalist" whack-o jobs who have been against law and order and the police and "are against gov in general and in principle, against police, against military. this, in addition to those that they were traditionally against".

There are still many conservatives who are for "law and order and the military and the police and flags".

I would maybe even be willing to take a lower capacity (maybe 15?) if suppressors were no longer considered Class III. I now my neighbors would appreciate it (as would I when they are shooting). Though I think I'd rather compromise first for a Federal carry permit as onscreen suggested in the OP. Then I would only need to know one set of laws, instead of sets for every state I may visit. I may even consider giving up my supposed 'assault weapons' (as asinine as the request is) for a federal carry system (though I can't imagine that would ever happen as the permit would probably be made next to impossible to get).

As for the BCGs, if private sellers could access the NICS system (or something similar) to do their own background checks that would help from sellers unknowingly selling to criminals. I'm not sure why such a thing would even require a compromise. That should be something both sides want...

Well then, I guess we'd have a good 'ole Mexican stand off huh? I'd sign on to fight with TX over this. Just because the SC rules something "unconstitutional" (what a joke) does not mean that the law is, in fact, unconstitutional. Of recent note the Heller decision that was voted against by all the party hacks. It should have been 9 to 0. 5 to 4 tells me something is rotten in Denmark.

So when the SCOTUS and the Texas legislators disagree on the constitutionality of a law, you go with the Texas legislators. Good to know.

What about the Texas National Guard? Whom do you think they should consider their commander in chief, the gov of Texas or the President of the United States?

Yes, and should it come down to it, the Governor of TX.

I am not clear. Either their ultimate commander is the gov of Texas or the president. And either the SCOTUS is superior to Texas laws/courts or not. There is no "should it come down to it," It is one way or the other.

I'd love to see some sort of reciprocity on CCW - right now I have a CT CCW but I work close to RI and if I am caught in RI CCing, it's big trouble for me.

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.

This is why I have issues with some sort of national mental health registry - too easy for upstanding citizens to get caught in the cracks and too easy for people's names to be put on it on purpose (retribution).

The "ultimate" authority is the US Constitution. I'm pretty sure they swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not the POTUS. When the POTUS gives an illegal order, he ceases to become an authority. The SC has become a Kangaroo court. It is every patriots duty to not follow illegal laws. And I doubt many Texans would have a problem discerning right from wrong, good from evil.

Molon Labe!

People were pretty clear about this in the last election -- they do not want Rick Perry leading this nation -- not by a longshot.

Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause?

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'd also like to see the absurd, illegal, and unconstitutional 1986 Hughes Amendment repealed.

Yup, but the supremacy clause does not apply when the underlying federal law/ is unconstitutional itself.

us constitution says the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not constitutional is the SCOTUS.

Let's stipulate that. So person A says a certain fed law is constitutional and person B says it is unconstitutional. Does the US Constitution say how we should resolve a dispute like this?

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.

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 :D) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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...)


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.

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.

I'm offering suggestions as talking points. Please don't assume that I will only discuss what I think is "right". Previously I discussed why AW is a silly idea. For argument sake I simply stated "assume a 10 round magazine limit". I did that not because I agree with a magazine limit but because without that assumption people think a TEK-9 is more deadly than a 9mm Luger because one has a 30 round magazine and the other doesn't. If we say both have a 10 round magazine then we can move on and look at things like the bullet it fires and how fast it fires etc.

One of the reasons why many of us say no crimes are committed with the tax stamped guns is likely because those who can afford a $10k gun AND go through the background checks are not the type who normally are committing gun crimes. But I can't say that wouldn't change if say newly manufactured machine guns came on the market. Honestly I figure it would still be a non-issue but since currently these guns are expensive, in order to avoid any claims that new machine guns would flood the market I decided we would claim an artificial price hike. Now people can't claim the new lower price would result in a blood bath.

Hmm.......I wonder how many other people think that. I wonder how many people think that a person can "just walk into" a place (say a gun show) "and walk out with a gun."

If that were true, it would have been truly reprehensible.

It's rather sad how many people are ignorant of the laws and a real shame that the media has become an advocacy group rather than a group to really inform. For example, some fool might think that a CT gun show would be a great place to buy a gun without a background check because they have heard about this gun show loophole thing. Of course they can't do that because some states don't legally allow that. In many states that do sellers will refuse to sell to someone out of state or someone who refuses to show ID... if the gun show even has or allows private sales. Thanks to the bad press some are simply not allowing private sales. That of course won't stop some people from screaming about the lack of BGC even though they can't explain how they will be effective given the loopholes even a BGC law would basically leave open. For example, how can you prove that two private sellers didn't do a BGC without registration? Of course as I've said about knowledge in the past, you can lead the mare to water but you can't make her drink.

I'm far more concerned about people having to pay a lot for a carry permit than for an automatic weapon. In New York, a CCW will cost you $350 before you even buy the gun. Once the feds are allowed to make a right into a privilege, it will forever be a privilege, and they'll make the rules for that privilege.

Similar to why I brought up Texas permits when Texas was mentioned. People act like Texas is so free, but it costs you $140 for a carry permit, and you can only carry concealed. That is working on being changed right now, but we'll see what happens.

And half the time, a high-cost permit fee only covers the administrative costs of the fee and not any potential required training. In such cases, it's just a money-grab scam and a poll tax on your rights.

Anyway, we're on page four... I'm going to have to scroll back and see if any anti-gun people have put forth any compromises yet.

edit: Nope, don't see any of the usual anti-gun suspects offering any compromises yet.

I find it rather shocking that people are against background checks.
It's as though you want felons and others who are disqualified from purchasing "legal" weapons to have unrestricted access to them.
It simply makes no sense to me at all.

The "gun show loophole" currently allows anybody, including criminals to purchase firearms essentially unquestioned.
Personally I don't want violent felons, those on the terrorist watchlist, people with a history of DV or the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns.

I fully understand the arguement that criminals will just find other means... GREAT, go out on the black market, pay outrageous prices and risk getting busted. Thats a far better situation than allowing them to just walk into a gun show and buy weapons without any BGC at all.

As for infringing on LAC's, if you truly are a LAC what are you afraid of with a BGC?
If you have nothing to hide and aren't DQ'd you'll be allowed to purchase the weapons you choose.

There are two reasons why someone might be against universal BGC.
1. Will they be effective. They will add a level of harassment to legal gun owners. Now that in and of itself is not a reason to refuse to have them. However, if they aren't effective AND they harass then that's a reason not to have them. It is questionable whether or not they will be effective.
2. The second point is that a universal BGC system can be used to create a back door registration of who owns what guns. It wont' happen right away but eventually it could. There are a number of reasons why gun owners general fear registration which is a separate topic. As for the idea that if you have nothing to fear... well we have laws against illegal search which in theory if I have nothing to hide, why should I worry if a cop wants to search my trunk or house?

Gun Compromises
 

looking for a close by gun shop in the surrounding states that sells 30 rd Pmags, any one know of em?

Yes I know the upcoming shows in Pa and Va, looking for a close by shop now, even though Im likely going to the Pa show....thanks in advance

I support states prohibiting private sales. Not the federal government. Congress has no such authority under Article I, Section 8, regardless of what some terrorists think the Commerce Clause means.

Do you think this would work? Federal law would overstep and hurt states' rights. Right now concealed carry and gun purchases are states/local govt rights. While I agree that concealed carry nationwide would be good, our government obviously does not believe in compromise. Just after the "tax debate" was done and the Republicans caved on tax hikes, Obama said that the tax issue was not over and that the Dems already had that, they need more.

More background checks and registering guns adds costs. Some places already charge outrageous amounts like $50 to do a 5 min check and register. Also, this will entail a used market to use a 3rd party service. Say someone goes crazy, the 3rd party could be liable as well.

Agreed, unless they are selling a necessity. Food is considered a necessity.

Children can back out of most purchases, regardless of the store policy as kids don't have the capacity to agree to contracts. One thing children can't back out of, though , is a purchase for a necessity. I believe the reasoning is so that stores that do sell necessities, don't ban kids.

I don't think it is background checks that people take issue with; it's the government keeping records of who applies for them that is the concern.

There is a difference between private enterprises with public access and those without. Any place that allows the public to enter at will should not be allowed to negate a creator given right (the bill of rights). If they are a private membership place, then I would agree.

If someone enters say Target and starts saying Target sucks and Walmart is better Target has the right to ask them to leave. I would think a similar rule for concealed carry would be reasonable. What the "wild west" theorist would have us believe is this will result in many people just shooting leaf and right. Really? The people who are inclined to shoot first and ask questions later are not likely to pay too much attention to the gun free signs.

How often do terrorits, people with a history of DV, or the mentally ill buy from a private seller when they can't legally buy from a federal dealer (the type of sale that would show up on a BGC)?

What is the typical ratio of private sellers vs federal dealers at a gun show?

I think they should be allowed to post signs advertising their desire to have unarmed "victim" zones, however, there should be no penalty for someone legally carrying on their premises in spite of their signs.

And yes, even the 1st has its limitations. If someone was disrupting the store, the store has every right to ask/force that person to leave.

I do find it interesting that some of the more aggressive anti-gun people on this forum haven't suggested any compromises. One has simply reiterated concerns regarding the lack of universal background checks. A few of the others have been AWOL. Would it be correct to assume they don't like compromise?

What is your definition of "compromise"? Anti-gunners have nothing to offer, so what is going to be compromised? It is all give on the pro-gun side and all take on the anti-gun side.

Part of your premise (or "compromise") is that there are *more* gun rights that should be granted. There aren't many gun control advocates who think that the pendulum needs to swing that way. Most would say their primary interest is in reducing firearms deaths, not in making some kind of policy bargain.

There was a compromise of sorts in the Credit Card Act of 2009 that allowed guns in national parks, but I think most gun control advocates would call that a huge mistake.

See the comments above regarding BGCs. They're not well enforced now, so expanding them won't change that. They'll lead to registration unless they take information about the firearm off the form 4473, which they likely won't compromise and do. If they did the latter, they'd find a lot more support for it. Cho (VT shooter) passed an NICS BGC but shouldn't have.

Should we have BGCs for other exercises of our rights outlined in the Bill of Rights? Should we have to demonstrate that our free speech isn't harmful or hurtful before we say it? Should we fill out a form with the gov't to make sure we're permitted to exercise our rights?

You seem fixated on this "loophole". There were no loopholes for drugs during the "war on drugs" and none for alcohol during prohibition, but they were both available everywhere. Closing your "loophole" won't stop availability of guns to criminals. It sounds good at first glance, but when you examine it more deeply, it won't be enforced well or uniformly, it won't effect the black market, and it is merely guilt until proven innocence to exercise one's Constitutional rights.

Compromise means both sides give on something. Gun control advocates don't want the pendulum swinging one way and gun owners don't want it swinging the other. Both sides want to reduce violence. You act as though only gun control advocates want that. I want 0 acts of violence and 0 criminals with guns. Unfortunately, neither of those will happen.

Violent crime has been decreasing. Despite decades of evidence-based research on the subject, no one has been able to show that gun control laws cause a statistically significant reduction in violent crime. If it doesn't work, why should we pass more of it? Violent crime has decreased while firearm ownership has skyrocketed.

First, many states don't have such a "loophole," so federal law would be unnecessary and redundant in a lot of cases. It is "guilty until proven innocent."

Secondly, how does one get on or off the terrorist watch list? How does one know if they're on it? Where is the due process for such a list? Babies have been put on it erroneously and only found out when trying to fly.

You shouldn't need to be granted permission by the federal government to exercise your constitutional rights. The argument of, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," could be used to support 4A transgression and violations of all of our rights. What if the gov't could search you or your property for no reason? Put cameras in your home? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

I agree that many on the gun control side of the fence feel that the only acceptable idea is more rules. However, I think if we look hard enough we can find laws that some liberalizing ideas that some might agree with. At the same time I know some on the gun rights side think that ANY additional laws and many of the current laws are already too much.

Still, let's look at things from the reducing firearms deaths POV. Could we at least say that laws that can't be shown to reduce deaths should be pulled back? For example, what about a federal rule that states can't have overly strict gun laws (magazine limits under 10... 10 only because that seems to be something that at least has a historical precedent, not because I believe it was justified with logic). Things like the "safe gun lists" should be stricken since they aren't about safety but restricting access. I think we could find other examples of laws that aren't saving lives that could be stricken as part of any "compromise".

What are the anti-gunners willing to give on? Compromise is a two way street, not one side giving in to the other.

I agree. That is the primary concern with BGCs with most people--registration.

See the comment that I originally responded to . The poster said in disbelief that a radio personality "thought" that a person can just walk into a gun show and buy a gun as if such possibility would be reprehensible anfd unthinkable. Exactly! It is reprehensible and unthinkable. (I know that apparently this cannot be done in CT.) But the fact is that indeed in many states a person CAN walk into a gun show and buy a gun. Sadly, even a felon can do this.

The problem is this. A person who cannot buy a gun from an FFL could then go next door to a gun show and buy the same gun without subjecting himself to a BGC. That is classic definition of a loophole IMO and should be fixed. If the Dems or the prez compromise on this one point, shame on them and I would lose all hope with them WRT gun issues.

Lastly you say that our present laws are not enforced now. Perhaps. But please show me how enforcing present laws even to the fullest extent would eliminate the scenario that I am most concerned/obsessed with. In fact logically speaking the BGC requirement for FFLs cannot possibly stop (m)any felons from obtaining guns unless one is not a just a felon but also a moron. Any felon with a fourth grader intelligence would go next door to a gun show and buy their guns there.
This is a valid point. If this is illegal, then it should also be illegal for requiring a BGC for an FFL transaction. If this is illegal, then I wonder why Lapierre (1999) supported it and agreed we should close this loophole.

If indeed this is illegal, then I would not want it to be legislated and I would redirect my efforts to amend the constitution. (At the very least I would also make resale of guns illegal in addition to making sale of guns extremely restricted and regualted.)

And you are right that there is something inherently distasteful when our basic rights become conditional. I would only agree to that for a good reason. And I think denying guns to those who cannot get guns from FFLs is a good reason. But that might be me.
You are correct that I am fixated on this, perhaps even obsessed about it. I am fixated/obsessed, if any, because of the flagrant illogic involved in the position of those opposing it. Start with denying that such is a loophole, to requiring proof that such requirement would reduce gun crimes, to claiming that the existing (crappy) laws are not being enforced so therefore we should not pass any new but meaningful laws, to the absurdly illogical position of supporting BGCs for FFLS but not for private sellers (there is one or perhaps two forthright posters here who voice their opposition to BGCs for FFLs -- good for them).

This is the core of what I am interested in though I don't want to ask in a condescending tone. Sadly, much of the gun discussion on this forum has devolved into bickering. I of course will blame the other side because my hands are clean....:eek:

But seriously, I would like to hear what the gun control advocates think. What rules or things that gun rights people have been asking for would the control advocates be willing to negotiate on. What laws, if any, would the gun control members be willing to liberalize.

The secondary concern is cost. Why would one spend an extra ~$50 to transfer an old .22 rifle when the asking price is $100-$150 ?

From memory a pro-gun poster has often reminded us that (only) 7 states do not allow that. If that is not correct, please tell us how many.

Good point.

Would you be willing to compromise such that BGCs don't record serial #s of guns and rather just focus on the individual buyer and his/her criminal background? No one wants criminals to have guns, but gun owners don't want a national registry of gun owners and guns either.

I know some will assume UBGC will be some sort of magic pill to solve gun problems but I really doubt they will do much of anything unless you add a tracking/registration provision. Instead, as a compromise provision they will probably offer an exception for family and no registration provision. Even without the family exception, without registration and the like the laws won't be effective. When that is show, will we retire the law or just pile on a new set of restrictions?

Here's a good read for the people who assume UBGC, though nice in principle, will actually work
http://blog.cleveland.com/letters...hy_un.html

Good question. I have not given much thought to this and therefore I do not have a firm opinion on it.

My guess is that I would require air-tight registration and complete documentation of transfers even between family members else people will be able to claim they lost a gun or it was stolen years after the fact, rendering BGCs useless. If I recall correctly skiman, with whom I almost 100% agree on gun issues, has indicated and given arguments that BGCs without air tight paperwork that will identify ownership is kinda useless.

I realize that registration could be used for two distinct reasons: to pin ownership to a person, and to use it for confiscation of guns after making possession illegal. I have no interest in the latter even though I wish gun ownership was not so easy and so rampant in this country. I would like to see registration for pinning down ownership. I am ok with having these data be kept by non-governmental agencies, say like Visa or Experian and have individual information available to the authorities upon request and on a need to know basis perhaps even with judicial approval such warrants. This should give some comfort to those who are worried about this supposed slippery slope that says registration will lead to confiscation. If you have other suggestions that would not compromise pinning down ownership and would not make a mockery out of BGCs but will make confiscation less likely, please make it.

Lastly I will honestly tell you that I do accept the suggestion that an armed populace will make a tyrannical government less likely. THAT is where I am willing to make all sortsa compromises. (I have suggested in the past the possibility of having thousands of well-regulated local militias under the control of non-governmental agencies such as AAA, NRA, churches, YMCA, Salvation Army, etc.....)

It is not a freaking gun show loophole! How many bloody times do you have to be told.

Yes, a felon can try to buy privately (at a gun show or not!) if he would not pass a BGC. And, while the felon would have to be a moron to not try this, the private seller would have to be a moron to not do some checking of his own. You gripe about how IDs aren't required in private sales - only a moron wouldn't check the ID of his buyer, to at least verify his state of residence. Only a moron wouldn't talk to his buyer a bit and try to learn at least a little bit about him. Smart sellers would also draw up a little contract of sorts when selling to an unfamiliar person.

Do you at least agree that it is indeed a loophole?

Now, look, the problem is that selling to a person without checking their ID is not illegal in most states. And if one private seller requires a contract or a long chat or a psychological evaluation of the buyer to ascertain if the buyer is likely to be a felon or a lunatic, guess what, the buyer would/could go to the next private seller.

You can make this big loophole to have the illusion of being small but in reality it is a huge one.

The private seller exception isn't a loophole, it reality. It's states and the feds being realistic. They understand that it's pointless to have a law that can't be enforced and just serves to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Some of the anti-gun people in this thread really can't understand that which is why they will push for laws that will NOT be effective and will hurt their cause. As an example of a law that hurt their cause, the totally useless 1994 AWB is a perfect example. It has hurt the cause of any future such law because it does two things. First, it shows how these laws are often ineffective. Second it illustrates the slippery slope argument at the federal level. The 1994 law was passed, shown to be ineffective thus we need to make it tighter. Since that sort of law will never be 100% effective there will always be an excuse to tighten things further and the process repeats.

Consider the complaint that the law doesn't require private sellers to check ID. Why bother having that in the law? I can understand a suggested list of things for a buyer and seller to do. For example I would strongly suggest both buyer and seller create signed bill of sales with copies of ID on the BOS. But how can the government enforce such a law? Since they don't know if a gun is sold its kind of silly to demand people perform some sort of sales ritual just because it makes some busy bodies feel safer. What about a transfer between father and son? Should the father face charges because he didn't ask his son for ID?

The UBGC without registration is a hollow law that won't be effective thus a rational person would say don't waste our federal tax dollars on the system. Adding registration will be a non-starter. Run all the poles you want and that claim we need BGC (we have them) and you will find the overwhelming support for BGC will go away if the system includes registration.

Finally anyone who claims this is a big loophole should prove it by showing how many transfers to forbidden owners will be stopped by closing this "loophole". After all a cost benefit analysis should always be part of such a policy. Perhaps such a law could have a grand father clause stating it will end unless some target level of effectiveness/compliance is reached AND the law has to be renewed. That would at least give some people the data to show that their wish list is or isn't effective.

http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/



The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is one of three branches of the Texas Military Forces (TXMF), reporting to The Texas Adjutant General located at Texas Military Forces HQ, Camp Mabry (Austin), Texas. The Commander in Chief of the Texas Military Forces is the Governor of Texas. The other two branches are the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) and the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG).





Your President has no authority.

That's something I hadn't considered during all of the BGC discussions, and a valid point.

I am concerned about firearms falling into the wrong hands, as I believe most everyone here is, because that it where much of the problem exists. However I'm also very concerned about overzealous politicians seizing upon the opportunity of registration so that when they finally get around to confiscation, they already have the database of who to start with.

I believe there should be a background check for every lawful gun sale, without the means for registration.

If anti-gunners truly want "compromise", they should be willing to try to devise a way to facilitate a legal sale between a lawful buyer and a lawful seller without a registration database.

Here's what I would suggest:

Criminals and the mentally ill should be "registered", in that they should be (and in most cases are) tracked by various databases. A means for a comprehensive national checking system for both needs to be established.

Federal law should specify that:

1. All firearms sellers and purchasers, commercial and private must complete the same standardized form (or very similar) that current commercial firearms dealers must fill out.

2. Commercial sellers process the sale as they currently are doing so with background checks.

3. Private sellers along with the purchaser must take the completed form to their local PD or SO for completion of the background check.

4. The local PD or SO would verify the ID of the seller and the purchaser and check for warrants and criminal / mental history on both. If warrants are outstanding, an arrest must be made for the person with the warrant.

5. If the national criminal and mental database is standardized, it should only take a few minutes for the PD or SO desk clerk to verify that neither the seller nor the purchaser is on the database.

6. The PD or SO desk clerk would then stamp the form PASS or FAIL with the date using some way of a pass/fail marking of the form that couldn't easily be forged such as a Notary impression stamp. The law should specify that PASS or FAIL only means that the buyer and the seller passed or failed the BGC process, not whether the local PD or SO approved of the sale or the buyer/seller. If the form is stamped FAIL, the PD or SO must return the form with a standardized form explaining why the process failed. (Buyer failed BGC, Seller failed BGC, etc.)

7. The law should specify that the PD or SO is prohibited from retaining any of the information on the form, and the original form is then returned to the seller to complete the transaction.

8. Seller keeps the original and gives a copy of the form to the purchaser and the sale is completed or discontinued depending on the results of the BGC.

9. The law should specify that the seller must retain his copy of the form for X number of years and the purchaser must retain his copy for as long as he owns the firearm.

10. The seller then has proof that he sold the firearm to a legal purchaser and the purchaser has proof that he has complied with the law during the private sale purchase.

11. The law should specify that the cost of the BGC verification process is not to exceed $X, or perhaps a percentage of the sale?.

No ones right to keep and bear arms is infringed with the above procedure, any more than the existing commercial sale BGC process, other than the PIA of going down to the local PD or SO.

(The above process is just an idea that probably has lots of holes in it once it is closely examined, but IMHO there should be some similar process that could work).

Of course consistent enforcement of the laws prohibiting the sale to an unlawful buyer is absolutely the key and is essential.

not all rights are created equal. rights that lead to thousands of people dying should be taken away. if they actually existed in the first place (they didn't). rights are not more important than lives.

amazingly enough your entire post sounded just like you were arguing to enforce voter ID Voter ID laws..

I don't agree it's a loophole though. There are no true "loopholes" to even state that means the government created laws about gun control in the fastest most simplistic manner possible. I'm sure when this was created they absolutely new this would occur. What you're requiring though borders on what's indefeasible to do though.

Let's say.. I'm a private collector and I just want to get rid of everything I own. I can post of craigslist, newspaper etc.. or try and finish it quickly at a gun show. This isn't my business, it's my personal stuff. I have no Tax ID, registered business.. So now I'm required to check credentials of individuals.. How? In my state you to fill out a form, send it to the state police and wait a week or two (plus send $10-$15).

I suppose this is all well and good.. but is the state/government going to give access to private individuals to now obtain this data free of cost. Not only obtain but obtain it easily. Possibly even place a PC at each gun show that verifies identity. But we still have to take it one step further. What about private people that sell at their home? We're going to have to give them access also. Not just PC access but, telephone access because we can't require everyone selling to have a PC.

I suppose we can do all of this to end this supposed loophole. When this is done, I'll guess we'll have to end the voting loophole. The one where you give your name to verify identity..

Good idea. :thumbup:

Let's abolish abortion once and for all....

It is not a loophole. The intent of the law is to require BGCs for all interstate sales of guns. It does this (and a little bit more, by requiring BGC for all intrastate sales by an FFL, as well). A loophole would be a situation which got around that intent. This is not.

And if that's the case, one of several things will happen:

1. The seller will contact a LEO about somebody who may have tried to purchase a gun illegally. LEO goes and picks up the felon.

2. The felon will keep going to the next private seller, until he finds one who will sell to him - somebody who likely wouldn't call in a BGC if such were required.

3. The felon will go to a corrupt FFL and buy from him by falsifying the BGC.

4. The felon will buy a gun from the street, from somebody who would never, ever call in a BGC.

Which is the most likely scenario?

At least in some states, a business owner or similar can put up "gun-free zone" signs and have carriers leave, but since they are restricting everyone's rights, they then will be more liable if something happens that carrying could have prevented. So the business owner can restrict your basic rights on their property, but then they take on the responsibility for having done so.

I can argue multiple ways on that, but that's how some states do it.
Registration leads to confiscation. It's just a question of when.
Look at not only the passing but the renewal of the no-warrant-needed electronic wiretap law. Look at how the internet and credit card companies were given free passes and free from lawsuits after they spied on and gave out people's information to the government.

:D
I'm not too interested in the random person I just bought a gun from knowing where he can come steal it back from if he wants. Don't want him to have a copy of my I.D., either.
The government doesn't know how many guns are transferred via "loophole," but that doesn't stop them from pretending they do and trying to take your rights away because of it.

Page 6. No compromises yet from the usual suspects.

Page 3 ya noob :P

Then we just have to disagree.

But do give me an example of a loophole as you see it. Make it simple and make it typical. And tell us if you think for something to be a loophole it must be illegal. Thanks.
I say 2 and 4 as I see 2 and 4 functionally identical to each other.

You are not gonna get much sympathy from me. Recall that personally I am for making all resale of used guns illegal. So the inconveniences that you mentioned does not impress me at all.

Also, in principle I am all for a national ID. (Are you?) But realize this: the voter ID is usually used as a political and partisan tool. I certainly would not trust a party who wants to make early voting shorter and shorter and salivates for long lines in traditionally democratic districts. I also do not think someone voting fraudulently will result in 20 small children dead.

The easiest example of loopholes are taxes, say being able to deduct interest paid on a mortgage for a second home. It would seem that the original intent of the tax code which allowed mortgage interest to be deductible was to make it easier for people to own homes. Not an issue when you already have a home and want to buy a beach house, and therefore, it's a loophole.

By definition, exploiting a loophole is legal. It becomes illegal when the law is amended to close the loophole (for instance, by clarifying that only interest from the mortgage(s) on a first home is deductible). If you then tried to deduct that interest, you'd be in violation of the tax law.

And I don't. Street sellers (#4) know they're probably selling to felons, regular private citizens (#2) probably aren't.

I wonder what you liberals think of this President simply ignoring the law when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act.

by that would most likely violate a whole number of legal issues. Purchasing something you can never sell. Keeping the cost of guns high (forcing you to buy new) and making it difficult to express you constitution right etc.. etc..

I'm simply for what logically makes sense.. I believe equal (if not extremely similar). Voter ID laws should have very similar standards to gun laws. As for dead children I actually touched upon this prior. Obama single handedly (without congressional approval) attacked Libya. This did result in people dying. Therefore voter fraud could modify the much larger scale results.

In fact if voter fraud ended up electing say a madman who quickly started a new nuclear war.. now we've comparing 20 dead children to basically the end of the world.

In my opinion the intent of the law must have been to deny felons purchase of guns, and therefore the designation "loophole." I think it is kinda silly to claim that the intent of the law was to not allow FFLs to sell guns to felons.
What? street sellers are not regular private citizens?

I say there us no functional difference.

So the same private seller that sells in a gun show on Wed is #2 but when he sells on the street on Saturday is #4?

So you are basically arguing that a vote is as deadly as a gun?

Say a "madman" is elected in an election that included some fraudulent votes. What per cent of votes do you claim is needed to be fraudulent in order to elect a madman? Please give an estimate.

Here is a good article from a non-gun site talking about the potential pitfalls of increase scrutiny in the back ground check system. Basically it asks are we happy with all the things that would put people on a no buy list and all the ways the information is to be gathered.

Ever had a failed drug test at work? That, according to the law, should have you on the no-buy list.

Wow that has to be the most stupid thing I have ever read on this forum

well.. considering how many people want(ed) Bush tried and imprisoned for war crimes etc.. etc.. The election of 2000 was essentially decided by Florida, which was decided by 537 votes. So just going by the entire past 5 years of Bush blame for destruction of the economy, war mongering etc.. um.. 537 votes?

There were 5,922,531 votes in Florida.. so roughly .009% of the population .. Point being .009% decided an election. What if one could prove a tenth of a percent voter fraud in that state? what if Gore would've wont that election.. would everything be the same as it is today?

Interesting Tidbit for those who want more gun control and believe it would make a meaningful difference.
http://www.patriotthoughts.com/20...anization/

The Latest Murder Statistics for the World From the World Health Organization
Posted on January 3, 2013 by onemansthoughts
Murders Per 100,000 Citizens:

Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d’lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2

All The Countries Above America Have 100% Gun Bans Or Are Close To It.

And United States 4.2

Exactly. If the liberals want this so bad, it should be paid for by the government.

Post #101. Any compromises from the usual anti-gun suspects yet?

What's wrong if government keeps records? What is the government going to do to those people?

Why should the government have these records, and what purpose could they serve that is not a violation of constitutional rights?

Then I completely misunderstood your terminology. To me the problem of "what if a madman wins election by vote fraud" meant a person who otherwise would not get but a few percent of the vote due to people's stupidity or deception but would then win the election by cheating.

Yes, you could say Gore lost by 500 or so votes in a sense but at that point the portability of Bush being a "madman" was more or less the same as Gore being a "madman."

Based on what I perceive people discuss at dinner tables and based on actions they take, such as buying guns and at the same time opposing rampant gun availability, my assumption is that people are indeed concerned about guns at the wrong hands and not much concerned about a few ID-fraud votes.

Also ok, say there is about 0.01% of voter fraud but is there an evidence that this is a conspiracy and that these people are in cahoot to elect a "madman"?

To connect a gun used in murder to an owner.

Now, how could that possibly be unconstitutional?

I've heard both concerns. In my scenario I only hear complaining about the possibility of having guns taken away. I've actually heard it for years but always dismissed it as nonsense.. Regulation tends to lead to more regulation (which is why two parties have opposing views).

The only thing I've heard about voter fraud is people reading a story and why people raise such a fuss about needed ID. I've had a Photo ID card since I was 16. If you want to step back I even had a Photo ID in H.S. (school ID). I'd wager 99.9% of the people I know could state the same. So the notion of never having an idea is foreign and someone ridiculous (because most of us believe you need an ID just to function in daily life).

I could honestly care less about political sides in these matters. Obviously there are two political agendas going on. Commonsense rules and regulations should apply to all. People who don't have handguns should not, people who shouldn't vote obviously should not. Now all you have to do is implement regulations that makes this work to a certain degree without severely inconveniencing the larger percentage.

The Illinois legislature has been ordered to draft legislation legalizing concealed carry. Washington DC might be ordered to do the same soon.

Who made the order to Illinois legislature? Courts?

3 Judges of the US court of appeals 7th circuit.

Oh. Well, that was in response to a bill re CCW that was introduced (passed). At nay rate.....

...maybe Illinois should pass a law saying they will ignore any federal law/order wrt to CC. :lol:

If someone is a power-hungry despot, they will not necessarily appear that way to the voters. Learn your history. Hitler was democratically elected in 1932. The people probably didn't think there was much chance of him being a madman either. If there happened to be voter fraud, it wasn't to elect a madman, but merely to support their own candidate.

In fact that is exactly what I was alluding to. Madmen have in the past gotten elected, many of them democratically. But to pretend that the concerns over a very small number of fraudulent votes is election of a "madman" seems a case of very weak logic to me.

It's not a concern, it was used to demonstrate a point. There can be unintended consequences to many things. You blame lax gun laws for the death of 20 children but it is much more complicated than that and at the same time ignore any good that guns in our society do. In the same way, voter fraud will probably not lead to a despot, but many people have made the claim that W was responsible for many more deaths than if he wouldn't have been in office. The point is that you cannot take a complicated, intricately woven series of events and (easily) claim that this or that law would have resulted in fewer deaths.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else. On numerous occasions I have stated that private ownership of guns can save lives.

As others have said, I haven't seen any suggestions of compromises from many who have argued against guns.

I did a search for the word "compromise" in every gun thread I have participated in since I decided to joint the gun talk on this forum. I have to admit there was less than I thought.
Gun control mega thread:
http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
RHCCapri: I don't often agree but rational was offered with the suggestions
Another member suggesting 7 bullets is a compromise

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
skiman and another poster discuss compromise. Skiman acknolwedges the difficulties and limitations of some ideas. The other poster encourages talk of compromise.

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
Compromise in this case is less than 10 bullets without rational.

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
Talk of compromise gun for home defense.

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
skiman makes a reasoned case.

A bit of compromise here
http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise

I see very little in the way of compromise. However, in reviewing the old threads I did see a lot in the way of people not thinking out their suggestions for new laws and rules.

See you all later.

Maybe ignore was the wrong word yet you are ignoring the point of my post. You have this way of picking up on wording used by a poster and focusing on that tangent while completely not responding to the general point trying to be made.

Your characterization of me going to a tangent is not entirely unfair. We all have our peculiarities and interests. But I can assure you my going to tangent, if any, is not as a result of animosity towards the poster and trying to make a gotcha point. You and any others are free to either respond to those interests of mine or ignore them.

In this case I was genuinely interested in the claim that a very small percent of fraudulent votes can cause the election of a madman*. I just think that is a very weak logic/reasoning if not a fallacious one.

* The irony of this is that just recently you mentioned that more than one factor goes into crime and its prevention and here we are dealing with a claim that a tiny percent of fraudulent votes may cause the election of a madman.

A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F" ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.

A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Obama's gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun shows, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.

The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2...z2KyYDbzV3

Actually, that's not true in several states. For example, in CA, all sales of firearms have required backgrounds, waiting periods, safety testing, fees, and other rules and regulations, for many years.

Most of those aren't compromise though... One side wants to take. That's it.

Whenever someone says "compromise" when talking about guns it's like this,...

"You're going to jail for 20 years"
"WHAT?!!! that's not fair, I haven't done anything"
"Ok, let's compromise, 15 years".
"I am not going to jail, I haven't done anything"
"I can't believe you're not willing to compromise, that is really telling"
"Look, I haven't done anything, you're not being reasonable"
.....

One less gun to worry about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl...e=youtu.be

LOL

The most crucial thing everyone is forgetting is that the right to bear arms is in the U.S. constitution. While people are having a discussion about gun rights, they completely ignore that gun rights are SUPREME LAW. Not "guns, except for _____ & _____ and only _____ amount of bullets"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seco...nstitution

The federal government has been caught red handed smuggling weapons to criminals, like during the fast & furious operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_...ng_scandal

Now the federal government wants to take away the legal right of citizens to have certain types of weapons. They can't force us to give up our 2nd amendment rights, that's why they have to convince people to give them up voluntarily, and a lot of people are being scared into doing it and are trying to force their decision on others.

During the waco siege, the government killed 70+ people, much more than Sandy Hook
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

More recently, the LAPD shot at innocent civilians during their manhunt for Christopher Dorner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/201...38701.html

The Supreme Court ruled the police have no duty to protect you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28....html?_r=0

Why should U.S. citizens lose their rights because of a crazy man? Lunatics will always exist, but you don't lose your rights because of lunatics. This implies that the gun caused the crime, when it didn't.