NRA member and pro-gun guy willing to compromise

Deal, which is what I was offering. I have no problem with conceal carry since I have one myself, along with class 3 FFL permit as well.

- - - Updated - - -

just proved you wrong.

 

Nothing in this statement...
I would take universal background checks and make it similar to applying for a concealed handgun license.
...implies an offer of 50+ state recognition of existing state CCW permits.

 

Correct, after 90 years of experience with the gun banners showing they cannot be trusted, gun rights supporters refuse to fall into the trap of trusting gun banners. We have compromised for 90 years, and the gun banners always want more, they renege on their promises.

And why should we give up more gun rights, we have spent the past 30 years in a hard fought battle to regain lost rights, more people own guns than ever before, and gun crime has dropped steadily 55% since 1991. The data is clear, more guns means less crime, and the places with the most severe gun control have the highest violent crime (such as DC and Chicago).

***

So 2 replied, but where are the hard core fanatical grabbers that demand "common sense" gun "safety" measures and complain that gun rights supporters are unreasonable? You know, those people that swamp the forum with gun ban demands every time there is a publicly hyped death that the banners can use to make an emotional but factless argument? Here is their chance to work with a gun supporter, but there is silence. Because banners want to ban guns because they think no gun is safe, nobody has a "need" for a gun.

 

The Founders' gave us the only acceptable compromise, the amendment process...

 

It's a false premise. The compromise is that if you want to own guns you need to help create laws that will prevent their misuse. As the right is fond of saying freedom isn't free. So the question remains what are you willing to sacrifice for the freedom to own guns? Because so far all you gun lovers seem to be willing to sacrifice is other peoples children and family members. Where is your sacrifice?

 

THAT is a false premise - the right to arms inherently harms no one, and so those who exercise that right are under no burden whatsoever to devise ways to prevent harm to others.

So, what do you offer in exchange for universal background checks?

 

So what exactly do you mean by "universal background checks"? Are you familiar with UBC's that have been proposed by gun grabbers in some states? We already have the NICS that does background for every legal firearm purchase. Do you mean that a father who gives his single shot .410 shotgun to his 14 year old son must be subject to a background check? Specifics so we can debate, please.

 

Also, "shall issue". That is, if you pass a background check for CCL and any training requirements, the issuing authority shall immediately issue the license without delay.

 

Come back in late January of 2017. The word compermise isn't part of Barack Obama's vocabulary. He always wants it his way or no way but is more likely to crap of the Constitution and do it his way by abusing executive orders.

 

I would only compromise on the first as a pro-gun guy. #2 and #3 are a made up issue. They make up almost no crimes.

In terms of UBC, I would propose an opening up of NICS type checks to buyers. In order to buy a gun, you would have to put your personal information into a NICS buyer website. That would provide you with a numbered gun buying certificate that would be good for a week. The seller would have to go to a website to enter the number from your certificate for confirmation of the certificate's information. In addition, the buyer would have to submit a photo id that exactly matches the information in the certificate, and sign the certificate. Then the seller would keep the certificate as proof.

Two demands: 1) Concealed carry permits would be like driver's licenses--and honored in all states for up to 30 days as tourists/visitors. If the CC permit holder moved permanently, the new state would have to issue a CC permit to the person (with a NICS background check as proof). This is just a bit more restrictive than driver's licenses currently are. 2) The current NFA process would be made cheaper ($50 for the end owner's stamp (manufacturers and stores wouldn't have to pay it)), and new full auto weapons could be purchased (not just pre 1986).

 

You don't seem to understand what a false premise is. Can I legally own chemicals? Yep clean with them all the time. Can I own biological weapons? Nope. And it's not because they smell bad and the neighbors would consider it a nuisance.

Every freedom is this country is restricted by things called laws. Your freedom is to own a gun. Adjusting laws around that freedom to protect the society as a whole doesn't require that you get something extra in return because the laws are to protect you as well.

How many thousands of guns have been purchased in this country by terrorists who can't even board a plane? If I wanted to put a law on the table that would prevent them from being able to buy guns would you ask for something in return? I just want a good measure of your hypocrisy because it appears you could give a damn about your country and would never do anything that doesn't directly benefit you even if it means others will suffer.

What, aside from other peoples children and family members are you willing to sacrifice for the freedom to own a gun?

 

I already have the right to own firearms. I am not giving up any right I have now. As was said you offer to not take something from me in return for me giving something else up. That is not a compromise.

That's silly to say I am willing to sacrifice other peoples children. I retain my rights to protect my children and family members as well as, maybe, yours. In that respect I am sacrificing nothing involving anyone else. I am not responsible for the actions of anyone but myself. I do, however, have an inherent human right to self preservation and that implies the right to the MEANS of self preservation. That right exists whether any temporal government recognizes it or not.

Further. Passage of more laws will do nothing to stop evil people from doing evil deeds. After, say, Paris, how much proof do you need that the existence of laws does not create absolute safety from evil people?

 

I do. You laid one out for the reason I described.

So, what do you offer in exchange for universal background checks?

 

So if you want guns registered like cars, you would have the exception for use on private property. I can buy a car, and as long as I only use it on my property, I don't have to register it or even have a driver's license.

 

I want UBC to be the same type of background check when one applies for a conceal carry license. Same methodology, same department conducting the background check, user fee required for the application, and same areas to look at for in the background.

 

When I hear leftists demand that we work together and "compromise" I am reminded of something I read once.

You want to invade my lands, steal my animals, burn my house and barns to the ground, rape and torture my wife, take my children into slavery, torture and murder me.

I want to be left alone.

Exactly where do we "compromise"?

 

Yes, but you are adding a more restrictive law without taking away a restrictive law. That's not a compromise, that's extortion--give me this, and I won't try to take the other two.

 

What do you think I meant that background checks should be done similar to conceal carry license? Or did you just assume like you did with your OP?

 

If we use Vermont background requirements for concealed carry, it's a deal.

 

the only common sense I see is with UBC's but then again, the NRA and the GOP did not pass a law that would allow terrorists to purchase firearms in the United States. go figure.

 

When I got my CCW I underwent a background check, just like when I buy guns.
When I buy a gun, I undergo a background check, just like I did when I got my CCW.
There's no necessary relationship between that and 50+ state recognition.

 

What about a father who leaves a gun to his son? Or an uncle who gives a christmas present of one of his MSRs to his 16 yo niece who wants to compete in 3 gun? I have a CCL so I have gone through all the checks. Right now, in Texas, I can present my CCL and buy anything I want. Under UBC can I still do that? Some of the extreme versions would create a gunowner database and defacto registry. They would prohibit a brother from sharing a gun with his sister at the range without a background check. Those kind of things that make gun owners opposed to UBC legislation, not background checks per se. Then NRA supported the NICS when it was put in place, but opposes specific proposals of the gun grabbers under the rubric of UBC.

 

The UBC is the least restrictive of the three proposed. UBC is used when you apply for a conceal carry and yet no one from the 2nd amendment group complains about the background check or the fee when applying for a CCL.

 

Like the fog surrounding "cop killer bullets" bans (legislation included definitions that would have banned commonly used hunting rounds) or "plastic gun" furor during the intro days of Glocks being sold in the US (no they were not undetectable by airport scanners), you are talking Democrat talking points.

The NRA and GOP don't support terrorists getting firearms. They opposed specific legislation that would have allowed the government to insert restrictions NAMES placed on terrorist watch lists without identifying specific individuals or the reasons the names were on the list. In other words, a Washington Times columnist (Steve Hayes) who found his name on the list would not be able to purchase a firearm even though his name (or the name of someone else that sounded like his) was on the list for unknown reasons and he was not a terrorist and could not find out how to get his name off the list. Senator Ted Kennedy was on the list as have many other innocent people. No one should be prevented from buying arms because some bureaucrat placed their name on a list for an unknown reason. In the age of Obama where political enemies are targeted by the IRS, you can see the potential for abuse of such a list.

The left does this kind of thing all the time.

 

UBC was used when you applied for that CCL. If something came up in the UBC, you would not have been approved for the CCL. You also paid a fee, depending on several factors such as veteran, over 65, ex law enforcement, etc, on what that fee was. It ranges generally for the original fee from $25 (current and retired peace offers local, state, or federal and veterans) to $170 for all others. Seniors are $70 and current military persons are $0. And yet, no one complains about the fee, which is far higher, generally, than the standard NCIC check from a FFL dealer.