Pro-gun, pro-NRA guy, willing to comprimise!

[2aguy]

Because I know if they are legally able to own a gun; I don't need a background check for that.

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. Everyone has to undergo background checks. Sandy Hook should be more than enough reason to include family members.

If I know my bother is a felon, it is illegal to sell him the gun; I'll either obey the law and not sell him the gun or break the law and sell him the gun without the background check. Either way, the background check is unnecessary, does nothing and therefore there's no need for it.

Nope, public safety is first and foremost. If you want CCW then you have to meet the same standard that applies to LEO's.

Then you aren't talking about reciprocity, you;re talking about a federal CCW permit, which is not the same thing
If you want the UBC, you give nationwide reciprocity of existing state permits.

That's pretty steep.
What are you willing to give me in return?

The national gun/owner registry is negotiable. The ammunition taggants and sales registry is not.

Ok... and so, what do I get in return? What will you give me in return for giving these to you?

Don't give them one more law...they will just come back for more and more, until you have nothing....and not one gun crime will be stooped and not one mass shooter will be stopped...

 

[2aguy]

Ok, here is what I will give up.
No background checks for family
and no gun/owner registry.

In return I want the taggant/sales images database and all gun owners to carry 3rd party liability insurance for any harm caused by their weapons irrespective of who uses them.

Carrying a gun is not the same thing as having a drivers license so as far as the federal CCW is concerned if you want state to state reciprocity you will have to abide by the FBI LEO training.

If you only want your local state CCW then you don't need the federal LEO training but for reciprocity you have to meet the federal guidelines.

Do we have a deal?

Lets not conflate items that aren't related.

Initially....
I offered giving UBC with family exemption. In return, I want 50 state reciprocity of existing state CCW permits.
You agree to the limited UBC, but you do not agree to 50-state reciprocity of existing state CCW permits.
Correct?
If so then we clearly have no deal as there's no reason for me to give something up w/o receiving something in return.

Separately....
You want taggant/sales images database and all gun owners to carry 3rd party liability insurance for any harm caused by their weapons irrespective of who uses them.
I ask again: What do you offer in return?

I have told you I don't want UBC for families anyway so you don't get your 50 state CCW permits without giving up something else in return.

I have also given up the national gun/owner registration database so that is off the table.

The taggants/sales database should be a no brainer since it works to the advantage of both sides.

So that just leaves the liability insurance. If you can show the insurance company that you have passed the FBI LEO training you would get a discount and your 50 state reciprocity.

How is that not a compromise?

No training requirement...that is simply a way to make it harder for the poor to access their right....

 

[PredFan]

Here is the only deal I'm willing to make with the gun grabbers:

You don't want a gun? I won't force you to have one. In return you leave me alone unless I commit a crime.

 

[2aguy]

What, if anything, are you willing to give me in return for agreeing to full UBCs?

Nothing, since there is no value without the national gun/owner database.

The taggants/sales database is a win-win for both sides so nothing needs to be exchanged. Basically it takes more gun toting criminals off the streets which means that gun owners no longer have to deal with the negative association to their guns. So that should be something you are willing to agree to since you get an automatic benefit.

All we have left that we want is liability insurance. If you want 50 state CCW then you get that for agreeing to the liability insurance.

the sales,data,base,is pointless and stupid......criminals will get around that. They will have relatives buy their bullets....but...it does give the gun grabbers the ability to say....


We can't make the data,base effective without.....microstamping bullets........something they have wanted for a long time...since it makes guns more expensive, has never been shown to be workable, and thus will allow them to later say...hey, we can't make it work so that means...no guns for anyone...

 

[2aguy]

Here is the only deal I'm willing to make with the gun grabbers:

You don't want a gun? I won't force you to have one. In return you leave me alone unless I commit a crime.

Exactly....bargaining away a little bit of your freedom to keep another little bit of your freedomf is no deal.......

CCW reciprocity should already be allowed....it is a Right to carry a gun.........not a privelege....

 

[M14 Shooter]

So far you haven't compromised at all.
In fact you don't seem to understand how compromise works.

I have indeed.
I offered you something in exchange for something - UBC for 50-state reciprocity. You refused what I offered.

You then said you wanted something - taggants and an ID database for ammo purchases, and liability insurance.
i asked what you offered in return; fior taggants and the ID database; you offered nothing.
For liability insurance you said 50-state reciprocity. I said that wasn't enough, and that I wanted the a relaxation of the rules for MGs relaxed. You refused.

I offered several things in an attempt to compromise; the failure to reach that compromise stems from you refusing to make an acceptable offer in exchange for what i was willing to give up.

Case in point:
You yourself said there did not be an exchange for taggants and a related ID database for ammo purchases because they were "beneficial" to both sides -- this is YOU refusing to offer something to me for something I was willing to give up.

So:
You were unwilling to take full UBC in exchange for 50-state reciprocity.
You want taggants and a related ID database for ammo and powder sales - what do you offer in return?
You want liability insurance. I want the stated relaxation on the regulations for the transfer of machine guns.

Compromise is based on the willingness to give a little to get a little - are you willing to compromise or not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't give them one more law..

This is a demonstrative exercise.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So far you haven't compromised at all.
In fact you don't seem to understand how compromise works.

I have indeed.
I offered you something in exchange for something - UBC for 50-state reciprocity. You refused what I offered.

You then said you wanted something - taggants and an ID database for ammo purchases, and liability insurance.
i asked what you offered in return; fior taggants and the ID database; you offered nothing.
For liability insurance you said 50-state reciprocity. I said that wasn't enough, and that I wanted the a relaxation of the rules for MGs relaxed. You refused.

I offered several things in an attempt to compromise; the failure to reach that compromise stems from you refusing to make an acceptable offer in exchange for what i was willing to give up.

Case in point:
You yourself said there did not be an exchange for taggants and a related ID database for ammo purchases because they were "beneficial" to both sides -- this is YOU refusing to offer something to me for something I was willing to give up.

So:
You were unwilling to take full UBC in exchange for 50-state reciprocity.
You want taggants and a related ID database for ammo and powder sales - what do you offer in return?
You want liability insurance. I want the stated relaxation on the regulations for the transfer of machine guns.

Compromise is based on the willingness to give a little to get a little - are you willing to compromise or not?

Does this sum it up?

M14 wanted	M14 offered	DT offered
50-state reciprocity	UBC	FBI Training instead of UBC	M14 rejected - no reason given
Machine guns	Liability insurance		DT rejected as too little offered in exchange for asking for too much

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

DT wanted	DT offered
Taggants/Sales DB	compromise because of equal benefits to both parties			M14 rejected - wants more but won't say what.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[prison/con.net]

I want the COPS to show me that they can pass basic skills tests, along with knowledge of gun laws! As in, react to the beep of the timer, draw and hit the chest at 10 ft, reliably, 5 try average, start hands at sides, ccw or secured duty rig, in 1.5 seconds. if the COPS aint got basic skills, why demand it of citizens, hmm?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does this sum it up?

\

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This sums it up:

1: I offered full UBC in exchange for 50-state reciprocity for CCW permits.
Status: You refused. No deal, Moved on.

2: You want taggants and a related ID database for ammo and powder sales - you offer noting in return.
Status: In limbo; I cannot accept or reject because you have offered nothing in return.

3: You want liability insurance, . In return, I want the stated relaxation on the regulations for the transfer of machine guns.
Status: Jury still out as you have not responded.

This is a clear indication that I am willing to compromise. Waiting on you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We're to assume, of course, that the topic of this thread is outside the realm of the courts, as much of what's being proposed is Constitutionally problematic, such as what states can and cannot be compelled to do with regard to their concealed carry laws.

That said, UBC in conjunction with citizens being allowed to conceal carry in all 50 states and all jurisdictions is not so much a compromise as it is a correct and accurate understanding of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For example, a resident of Florida with a License to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm should be able to travel to New York City and carry a concealed firearm in that jurisdiction lawfully; where both his License and firearm were acquired pursuant to a background check.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We're to assume, of course, that the topic of this thread is outside the realm of the courts, as much of what's being proposed is Constitutionally problematic, such as what states can and cannot be compelled to do with regard to their concealed carry laws.

That said, UBC in conjunction with citizens being allowed to conceal carry in all 50 states and all jurisdictions is not so much a compromise as it is a correct and accurate understanding of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For example, a resident of Florida with a License to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm should be able to travel to New York City and carry a concealed firearm in that jurisdiction lawfully; where both his License and firearm were acquired pursuant to a background check.

Thank you, captain obvious.
.

 

[2aguy]

Don't give them one more law..

This is a demonstrative exercise.

Yeah...just demonstrating my points on this........notice how dealing with this guy gets you nothing for what you offered? Never ever trust an anti gunner.....thanks for this exercise, it is always good to expose them.

 

[2aguy]

We're to assume, of course, that the topic of this thread is outside the realm of the courts, as much of what's being proposed is Constitutionally problematic, such as what states can and cannot be compelled to do with regard to their concealed carry laws.

That said, UBC in conjunction with citizens being allowed to conceal carry in all 50 states and all jurisdictions is not so much a compromise as it is a correct and accurate understanding of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For example, a resident of Florida with a License to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm should be able to travel to New York City and carry a concealed firearm in that jurisdiction lawfully; where both his License and firearm were acquired pursuant to a background check.

Background checks are pointless.....and especially among private citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We're to assume, of course, that the topic of this thread is outside the realm of the courts, as much of what's being proposed is Constitutionally problematic, such as what states can and cannot be compelled to do with regard to their concealed carry laws.

That said, UBC in conjunction with citizens being allowed to conceal carry in all 50 states and all jurisdictions is not so much a compromise as it is a correct and accurate understanding of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For example, a resident of Florida with a License to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm should be able to travel to New York City and carry a concealed firearm in that jurisdiction lawfully; where both his License and firearm were acquired pursuant to a background check.

Background checks are pointless.....and especially among private citizens.

The state may not presume all who seek to exercise their right to arms are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.
Just ask Clayton.
Voter ID How about this US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[2aguy]

We're to assume, of course, that the topic of this thread is outside the realm of the courts, as much of what's being proposed is Constitutionally problematic, such as what states can and cannot be compelled to do with regard to their concealed carry laws.

That said, UBC in conjunction with citizens being allowed to conceal carry in all 50 states and all jurisdictions is not so much a compromise as it is a correct and accurate understanding of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For example, a resident of Florida with a License to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm should be able to travel to New York City and carry a concealed firearm in that jurisdiction lawfully; where both his License and firearm were acquired pursuant to a background check.

Background checks are pointless.....and especially among private citizens.

The state may not presume all who seek to exercise their right to arms are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.
Just ask Clayton.
Voter ID How about this US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See....now you did it....you called out the idiot clayton......now he is going to get all pissy.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

We're to assume, of course, that the topic of this thread is outside the realm of the courts, as much of what's being proposed is Constitutionally problematic, such as what states can and cannot be compelled to do with regard to their concealed carry laws.

That said, UBC in conjunction with citizens being allowed to conceal carry in all 50 states and all jurisdictions is not so much a compromise as it is a correct and accurate understanding of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For example, a resident of Florida with a License to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm should be able to travel to New York City and carry a concealed firearm in that jurisdiction lawfully; where both his License and firearm were acquired pursuant to a background check.

Background checks are pointless.....and especially among private citizens.

The state may not presume all who seek to exercise their right to arms are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.
Just ask Clayton.
Voter ID How about this US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See....now you did it....you called out the idiot clayton......now he is going to get all pissy.....

I've posted that a hundred times.
He ignores it because he knows it is sound.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I will give you universal background checks, with exclusions for family members.
In return, I want federally mandated nationwide CCW reciprocity.
Deal?

OK... your turn.
What do you want, ad what are you willing to give me in return?

Thought you believe in State's Rights? Guess not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I will give you universal background checks, with exclusions for family members.
In return, I want federally mandated nationwide CCW reciprocity.
Deal?

OK... your turn.
What do you want, ad what are you willing to give me in return?

Thought you believe in State's Rights? Guess not.

In other words, you fear an honest discussion of the subject.
No worries -- I'm not surprised.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In other words, you fear an honest discussion of the subject.
No worries -- I'm not surprised.

Ironic since the OP hasn't managed to come anywhere near close to doing that himself.