NRA member and pro-gun guy willing to compromise

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by TOG 6, Nov 30, 2015.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot enforce a law that you cannot prove was violated.
    This defeats your statement on its face.

    You mean registration is necessary to enforce UBC.
    They remain separate issues; if you want gun owners to compromise on UBC AND universal registration, you must offer then TWO things in return.
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has no effect on my statement in any way. And you prove the law was violated if the person can not provide a NICS transaction number corresponding to the firearm they are found in possession of.

    i meant what i said.
    Nope. It's the same issue.
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except disproving it.
    The state cannot enforce a law it cannot prove was broken.

    How does the failure to provide this number prove the law was broken?

    Which only means you're wrong on purpose.
     
  4. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except it didn't, since it had no effect what so ever on it.
    Clearly. But that isn't the case here so I am at a loss as to why you keep repeating it.


    If you don't have a number you didn't do a UBC to obtain the firearm. Pretty elementary stuff here.
    uh, except I was correct.
     
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And how does that prove I broke the law?
    You understand that the state has to prove an number of things before it can prove I broke the law - right?

    If UBC, whenever enacted, also enacted universal registration at the same time, then you might be
    That's not the case,
    And so, you aren't
    Nothing about UBS necessitates the concurrent enactment of universal registration, and thus, they are separate issues.
     
  6. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are in possession of a firearm without having a NICS number corresponding to that firearm, you are in violation of the law. this is the last time I will explain that.
    All it has to show is you don't have a number to correspond with that firearm. Just like all it has to show is you don't have a form 4 to correspond with a suppressor.


    That is the case, as its my proposal.
    Of course I am.
    Nope. UBC's necessitate a registration. It's the same issue.
     
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :lol:
    I have guns that I bought in 1968. No NICS number. How does the this prove I broke the UBC law?

    Issues you clearly do not understand:
    -It is not illegal to possess a gun purchased w/o a background check, it is illegal to SELL one. Onus is on the seller.
    -The state must prove that when I sold a gun, I did not run a background cheek; I need produce no evidence to this effect.
    -The state must prove the sale took place after the law took effect.

    They do not, as several states currently prove.
    Thus, separate issues.
     
  8. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait a minute, you are not in the "gun culture", you disdain the gun culture, you think people who support and are represented by the foremost gun rights voice in the nation are simple blind minions, so how would you know who supports Constitutional Carry?

    What you are doing is rejecting facts that don't agree with your bias, just like a typical banner.
     
  9. SteveJa

    SteveJa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only one of those that makes sense is universal background checks. None of the others does a thing to keep the guns out of the hands of the unfit, or even make it more difficult for them to obtain a gun, which is the issue really, not guns in themselves, or the bullets used with them.
    I would propose this
    1. Universal background checks
    2. Overhaul of the mental health system, so those that need help get help
    3. Offer optional free education and gun classes for first time owners and low cost for all others.
     
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    already been over this. amnesty period to register the guns like after the NFA period. If not registered and found in possession, you broke the law.

    not after UBC is enacted.

    not after UBC is in effect.

    already addressed this

    this is my proposal, not yours or what some states may already have. mine requires registration, so it's the same issue.
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah.
    So you want to register guns, remove the burden of proof from the state AND require universal background checks.
    What do you offer gun owners in return?
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the burden of proof wasn't on the state to begin with. My proposal is for UBC's which require registration. that isn't 2 separate things.
    I'm a gun owner. But what would you like in return?
     
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excepting innocence by reason of insanity, the burden of proof is always on the state.
    You seek to remove that.

    There's nothing you can offer that will balance out removing the burden of proof.
     
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to be purposefully not getting this. It's the same as having NFA items now. You must provide a form 4 upon request if you are in possession of a class 3 item. If you can't produce it, you are in violation of the law. Same thing with UBC and NICS number.
    nope. was never there to begin with.

    I can't remove something that was never there.

    Are you going to let us know what you would like in return, or are you going to keep throwing out strawmen?
     
  15. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's nothing I would accept for this draconian level of gun control.
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    proving that extreme gun nuts can't/won't compromise.

    there is nothing at all unreasonable about my proposal and does not in any way infringe on any legal persons ability to obtain a firearm. Hell, it's not even gun control as it doesn't ban or restrict the ownership of any weapon at all. It just expands NICS checks to every single transaction instead of just FFL transactions.
     
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is of course, a lie, proven so by prior conversations in this topic; the fact that you seek something that I will not compromise on does not in any way mean that I am not willing to compromise.

    Please feel free to try again.
     
  18. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to Nunn v. Georgia, people have the right to open carry in public, they have restrictions to that open carry though. States are allowed to regulate concealed carry.
     
  19. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, it's a spot on description of you. you are setting up strawmen to argue against and then railing against the "draconian" nature of my proposal (which is a complete fabrication of my proposal) and then pretend to take some sort of high ground by refusing to compromise. pathetic.

    I don't need to.

    but here is the rest of the post you chose to ignore, because it makes your position silly..................
    there is nothing at all unreasonable about my proposal and does not in any way infringe on any legal persons ability to obtain a firearm. Hell, it's not even gun control as it doesn't ban or restrict the ownership of any weapon at all. It just expands NICS checks to every single transaction instead of just FFL transactions.
     
  20. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It could be argued that bearing arms is open in nature. But, we all know that criminals conceal no matter what the laws are.
     
  21. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    exactly.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except that I have already proven otherwise, in this topic.

    I laugh at you.

    Registration is a restriction on and a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same and is therefore an infringement; as there is no sound argument as to the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the 300+ million guns in the country, there is no sound argument that registration will meet the requirements of strict scrutiny.
    That being the case, it violates the 2nd Amendment.
     
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    uh, no you haven't. obviously.


    which in no way changes the fact that nothing in my proposal is in any way a restriction or infringement on any legally eligible citizen to obtain a firearm. Nor does it in any way restrict the type of firearm able to be obtained. All that is done is NICS checks are required for every single transaction.

    I've already demonstrated otherwise. NFA items are but one example.

    the supreme court disagrees.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course I have. I've offered an extremely reasonable suggestion which in no way impedes any lawfully eligible citizen from obtaining any firearm. you stomp your feet like a petulant child and say "I won't compromise".


    Strange, since I've done exactly that. It's even in the quote you are responding to. NFA items.
     

Share This Page