I believe we may have come up with a viable compromise.

They get no concessions from me.

If they wanted to stop crime, they would be going after criminals, not guns.

Any thing we concede to will be used as precedent towards confiscation. We know how that will end. They don't have the guts.

 

Please show evidence that this is a real problem, not just part of your vivid imagination.

- - - Updated - - -

Before we make concessions, we need to get something in return--say nationwide ccw permit validity.

 

How did that go for Czechoslovakia?

I refuse to give anything to those that would take everything, unless they deliver on a concrete prior offer something of greater and equal value in return - compromise is a two way street; appeasement is failure disguised in a misunderstanding of your opponent's intent.

So, as to this idea...
If you, the seller, are worried about the guy trying to buy your gun....
Every person who seeks to privately sell a gun already access to the NICS - they need only take the gun to a dealer and sell it to him for the arranged price. The dealer then runs the background check and sells it to the person who wants to buy it, for that price plus handling fee.
Done. No need to change anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Key word highlighted.

 

I already have a card like that. It's my Concealed Carry Permit. In my state, it allows me to walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm without any NICS BGC. The 4473 is still completed and retained by the dealer. So, what's in this for me, again?

"North Carolina law allows for the purchase of a single handgun with a single valid purchase permit. Multiple long guns may be purchased with a single pistol purchase permit; however, they must be purchased in a single transaction. It is the opinion of the United States Department of Justice that a valid North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit may be used as an alternative to a NICS check for the purchase of firearms." (source pp5)

 

we don't need UBGC since

you cannot enforce them without registration (which is what the gun banners mainly want as do those who only pretend to want UBGC)

criminals almost never get guns from people who DO NOT KNOW they are criminals

but if you want a real compromise here is what you do

when you turn 18 or 21 you get a notation on your driver's license noting you have a clean record

a seller of a privately owned firearm to you must see that

if he doesn't and you use the gun in a crime he may be civilly liable

if you had the clean DL he is absolved from liability

 

No appeasement. We've all seen how well that's worked out historically (and yes I can cite more examples than the nazis)

 

They want authoritarian, dictatorial rule. They're not going to settle for a voluntary-compliance UBC system that preserves individual liberty and personal responsibility. They've already demonstrated that 'logic', 'reason' and 'common sense' are secondary to their goals. Once this system goes into place (doing absolutely NOTHING to affect or deter any bad guys) and another mass shooting occurs, there will be another push for further infringements.

The efficacy of this 'give them an inch so they won't take a mile' strategy is suspect. I'm all for doing something. I just want whatever "something" we do to have some positive effect on the problem we're trying to solve. I have a really hard time getting behind feel-good do-nothing legislation for no other reason than to temporarily appease the authoritarians.

Perhaps if there was language in there that guaranteed no further anti-gun legislation in exchange, I could get behind it. Of course, no self-respecting authoritarian will ever agree to that.

 

VA just dropped 25 of the 30 states they had reciprocity with.

I want a federal law, backed by the "full faith and credit" clause to allow CCW nationwide. Honestly, I don't see how it's constitutional to block out of state gun permits, per the full faith and credit clause and the 14th amendment. Again, until we get this, I will not agree to any other gun law.

 

Let them saber rattle and threaten. Their attacks are only increasing due to desperation. They are seeing the wind shift into our favor more than ever before.

They are the ones who should be worried, not us.

 

"Perhaps if there was language in there that guaranteed no further anti-gun legislation in exchange, I could get behind it. Of course, no self-respecting authoritarian will ever agree to that"
nor would subsequent Legislatures be bound by such a thing.

 

Let's first register members of violent street and prison gangs and all their associates. When any of the members of these gang are convicted of conspiring together to commit any felony---they can then ALL be put away for many years on RICO laws.

Once the major gangs like the Crips, Bloods, M-13, Mexican Mafia, and Latin Kings are contained, then the vast majority of gun related murders will go down to a point where gun control will not be a significant issue.

 

Anyone remember the parable about the camel sticking his nose into the tent?

 

See whats in red? That's your mortal flaw. The banners "aren't going to just go away and stop pushing for more laws" no matter what you do.

You propose we compromise with the gun banners. What is your motivation for this compromise? Its not public safety, your proposal will have no impact on crime. Your motivation is to give the banners something so they will be satisfied and stop pushing for more gun control. They will not be satisfied. They will not stop pushing for more gun control.

Have they ever stopped pushing for more gun control? Do they stop pushing for more in DC, Chicago, LA, New York? NO! They do not, they even try to dodge the supreme court rulings against them.

The people are speaking every day with their wallets, they are buying guns like never before. Every national gun control measure since Sandy Hook has been defeated. Every state except a handful are moving strongly away from gun control. Even in the few states that have forced gun control upon their people, the people are broadly disregarding those laws.

Gun rights are winning. Let the gun banners compromise.

NO to your proposal. NEVER.

 

Sure, just like there was legislation in the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens that there will never be another amnesty. There is no guarantee. The gun banners will not go away.

 

Methinks they do protest too much!

(Apologies to the bard of Avon.)

The usual suspects are adopting their "cold dead hands" attitude and by doing so they are playing directly into the hands of those who want to keep guns away from the mentally unstable.

Public perception is key to understanding what is happening here.

The mass shootings/domestic terrorism is increasing and the media will report them because of the "if it bleeds, it leads" rule. No amount of denial will alter those two realities.

The American people will not only be aware of the increase in mass shootings/domestic terrorism but they will also be aware of the obstructionism on the part of the NRA and gun owners when it comes to finding any solution to this crisis.

By obstructing any and all reasonable measures the public perception will be that the NRA and gun owners are aiding and abetting the mass shooters/domestic terrorists.

Rightly or wrongly that is how it is going to be perceived!

So sticking to the "cold dead hands" attitude is going to guarantee that the American public ends up with that perception.

Alternatively reasonable and responsible gun owners can choose to address the situation by finding feasible ways to curb the mass shootings/domestic terrorism.

If they are perceived by the public to be helping to resolve the problem then there won't be a negative perception of gun owners.

So that is the very real danger that gun owners are facing right now and no amount of protesting about rights and the 2nd amendment are going to make the slightest bit of difference if gun owners fail to do what is right for the American people in this crisis.

Gun owners do have a responsibility here and if they all decide to be selfish and refuse to do anything at all then the negative perception will be a self inflicted wound.

Think about it.

 

As has been noted a zillion times:
Compromise requires that both sides give something in order to get something; those that seek more gun control do not seek compromise, but capitulation.
There's no sense whatsoever in capitulating anything.

 

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html


Read this. Compromise implies that they have something I want for which I would give up something. They've got nothing I want.


"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

LawDog"

 

Wrong.

Mass shootings are not increasing.

Terrorism is separate from the public sense of a mass shooting, to link the two is incorrect.

The people do not agree with you. You can bleat about "responsible gun owners" all you want to, it just rings of desperation in the peoples ears.

 

The facts provided by the FBI prove that the incidence of mass shootings/domestic terrorism has increased from one every 6 months to almost daily now.

There is most definitely a connection between the mass shootings and domestic terrorism when it comes to Planned Parenthood and those who advocate anti-government views.

 

Of course.
But that is beside the point -- they don't offer anything because they think they don't need to.

 

Just keep importing more terrorists, putting the criminals back on the streets, and keep blaming guns and the NRA.

That about sums it up.

 

Ah. The FBI.
You should be able to provide a citation then.

 

You misconstrue: I don't NEED to compromise because they don't HAVE anything I WANT or NEED. They could offer the moon: I don't NEED the moon.