NRA member and pro-gun guy willing to compromise

And you know this just how? So when I ordered my AYA sidelock that was custom fitted, somehow this was because of my failures in life? Really? Laughable.

 

You assume those who would carry are not responsible enough to do so. Our founders did not place restrictions and neither should current governments. There are plenty of states that honor the second amendment and have no problems.

 

IMO, the whole "problem" with "gun control" is that it has already gone too far. Look at the crime Capitals of America. There is poverty, the drug culture, and what amounts to social ignorance, all running rampant. The people who are charged with running things have made so many gun laws that self defense is nearly impossible for nearly everyone. Very little if anything at all has been done to address the real problems.
We get the same offer of "compromise" from those who are in control as the people in those cities have. The controllers offer violent crime, burglary/home invasion and failing infrastructure in exchange for denying you and me the right to deal with it.
You're not going to "fix" anything by worsening my life.

 

Actually many gun right people oppose having to get a license to carry a firearm openly or concealed. If a person needs a firearm for self-protection but cannot get a license to carry, then he is disarmed and his right to bear arms has been infringed.

7 states have what's called "Constitutional Carry" - no permit required to carry a firearm openly or concealed, far left Vermont is one. Those 7 states are not having a problem with people carrying firearms.

A person should not have to ask the govt for permission to carry their firearm.

 

The NCIC does not verify mental health nor does it verify other inquiries that could potentially cause the denial of the firearm based on its use, aka terrorists or potential terrorists among others. The UBC will do that. All purchases would be required under UBC including individual sales through the state or local police department conducting the verification. FFL's would no longer be required to perform the purchase, just to verify that the piece of paper showing that the UBC has been completed and the fee paid.

Funny, all the so called pro gun enthusiasts on this board are not even willing to accept UBC or any other compromise for increased efficiency to prevent firearms from mentally ill, felons, or terrorists and yet the same so called pro gun enthusiasts are more than willing to increase government and federal regulation in the bedroom on who you sleep with, when you sleep with the person, and even what position to use when you sleep with the person.

 

I would not call it many, but few and those are generally sovereign citizens movement, militias, and those who think the 2nd amendment includes the ability to purchase cannons and other similar firearms without any restrictions. But most pro gun enthusiasts who are not the minions of the NRA do accept obtaining a license. What they may object to is the fee involved in that process.

 

No, that is where you are mistaken. I said a UBC similar to that when acquiring a conceal carry license. Or in other words, the same general procedure for the background when you apply for a conceal carry. Every time you purchase a firearm, you are applying for a conceal or renewing your conceal carry license through the background check.

 

I don't compromise the with people that want to restrict the Bill of Rights - there is no compromise there...

Next they will want to limit speech, then religion...

The people you're trying to compromise with hate the Bill of Rights and only support and cite the document when it works in their favor...

I won't move an inch on this issue...

 

Actually, it can be enforceable through a few changes although it will never completely negate criminals from purchasing firearms. Making the equivalency that enforceable should mean complete denial to all criminals is not only unrealistic from a practical perspective, it is a logical fallacy to a conclusion. In other words no law, under your definition, is enforceable because no law can totally prevent anyone from committing anything. And thus, your argument is simply not to have laws, aka anarchy.

 

Sorry, I'm not obnoxious because I refuse to bend on Civil Liberties...

 

Well, then perhaps your beef is with the Supreme Court who have ruled that commercial speech is not free speech, that yelling fire in a crowded room is not free speech, that public buildings cannot exclusively show nativity scenes from one religion and deny other religions the same benefit through the establishment clause, and the list goes on. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller decision that certain firearms can be restrictive under the 2nd amendment.

 

I think that those that are for regulation of our civil liberties should think about how many people died and suffered just so we could have them and be free, independent and have guaranteed rights, and a document that limits the government and not the people...

The soldiers of the Revolutionary War suffered severely - yet they fought because they wanted rights and freedom - not security...

Regulations are disrespectful to them, if those young men didn't sacrifice themselves we wouldn't be having this chat, hell it is possible computers wouldn't even exist...

We created all of this because of them, yet we honor them by having debates to regulate freedom and guaranteed rights?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course my beef is with the SCOTUS, just like Thomas Jeffersons beef was with the SCOTUS...

 

What a waste of time. The gun-o-phobes will never be happy.

 

That in no way makes it unenforceable. There would need to be an amnesty period like there was with class 3 weapons after the NFA to register all firearms. From that point forward anyone found with a firearm that wasn't registered or who can't provide a NICS transaction number for that firearm would be in violation of the law.

Completely enforceable, the same way background checks for FFL's are.

 

That's not really an assumption. There are a lot of irresponsible people out there who have no business carrying a deadly weapon.

Our founders also owned people as property. What they thought isn't really relevant.

true. And there are also numerous people carrying without proper training that negligently discharge their weapons.

 

Why do you think that background checks restrict gun owners rights?

 

Actually the revolutionary war was about taxation and economic equality.

 

E

Cops negligently discharge weapons. The second amendment is not a suggestion, it is the law of the land. "Shall not be infringed". Citizens are afforded trust and should be penalized after the fact. Police states operate under your ideology.

 

Uh, speech and religion is already limited. No right is absolute or unrestricted and never has been.

 

We have always been a police state to some degree. Even more so now after republican policies gutted the 4th amendment. Citizens are afforded trust to own firearms. If you want to carry them in public however, you need to demonstrate you are proficient with them as an untrained person is a public threat.

 

Not how this works.

I want a better society, you want a better society. We should try to find some kind of common ground between us where we can both feel safe and relatively free.

So I ask you; why is your ownership of guns so important?

Is it so that you feel safe from criminals? Then why is the US such a dangerous country, that you need a gun to feel safe?

Is it so that you feel safe from the government? Then why is your government so malicious that you feel the need to protect yourself from it? And do you think owning a gun will do piddly squat against the entire US military?

 

The NCIC is not used for this purpose. It's the NICS that is used, and it does include mental health, if the states report it per the law. The only thing that is allowed to be reported, due to medical privacy laws, is the involuntary incarceration into mental hospitals (which is a public record, and is also, per federal law, the legal standard to the mentally ill and gun buying). Please show a link to your "UBC." I've never heard of it as anything other than requiring a NICS check for every purchase, including those by private sales.

Love the strawman. I don't care who/how/when you sleep with a person, provided you aren't trying to wrangle children into that bed. I want less governmental regulation on almost everything.

Terrorists are not buying guns in the sporting market. They are buying them through the international black market for military weapons. The Paris terrorists didn't use American civilian AKs modifed for full auto, they used full auto AKs smuggled in from Belgium (and who knows where originally). Also, the Terrorist Watch list is created without due process, meaning that it is an arbitrary government action without any sort of legal safeguards to prevent the wrongly accused from exercising basic human rights.

The problem with stopping the mentally ill from buying guns, is the definition of mental illness. The current legal definition of mental illness that disallows gun buying is if the person has ever been involuntarily incarcerated in a mental hospital. This is a good legal standard, because it involves due process (a committment hearing). You anti-gunners seem to have a problem with the 5th and 14th amendments, which guarantee due process before the government is allowed to take away rights (like the right to own a gun).

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Not any UBC that's been proposed by anyone that I am aware of.
It CERTAINLY does not do this in any the states that already have a UBC.
UBC is simply the requirement to have a background check on private sales.

- - - Updated - - -

Which runs a background check to see if it is legal for you to own a gun.
That's it.

 

If the state cannot prove the law was broken, then the state cannot enforce the law.

Registration is a separate component.
For universal registration, you'll have to offer something else in return.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry -- I don't see an offer of compromise.
Please try again.

- - - Updated - - -

It IS how compromise works.
Why aren't you willing to compromise?

 

I have no idea how you think it's in any way contradicts anything I said.

Nope. Registration is part of UBC.