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

[2aguy]

I just posted about the D.C. police chief and how freaking clueless she is about what causes gun crime in her city. Here is my proposal for this debate on this thread...it concerns 30 round magazines, or the standard magazine for pistols that are more than 10 rounds.

I would agree to making it against the law to use 30 round magazines in crime. I would agree that if you are caught using a 30 round magazine in a crime you should get 10 years tacked onto whatever other sentence you get. So you rob a store, and use a full size pistol magazine.....12, 15, 19 rounds......because you used a magazine of more than 10 rounds to commit the crime, you get 10 years tacked on.

If you use less than 10 rounds you do not get the extra 10 years.

If you are a criminal and you use a 5 shot revolver...you would still get life in prison under my guidelines for committing a gun crime...but I am trying to work with the anti gun extremists and their antipathy toward standard magazines.

Also...if you are convicted felon, of a violent crime, and you are caught in the mere possession of a 30 round rifle magazine or a standard capacity pistol magazine.....you would get 10 years tacked onto whatever sentence you get for the crime you committed. Just for being in the possesion of the magazine, not even having the gun with it......that is how much I am willing to give to the anti gun extremists.

Of course, under my current beliefs, if you are a felon convicted of a violent crime and are caught with a gun...you get life in prison...

Now, I am also open to non violent felons eventually getting their gun rights back after a good behavior period.....

My proposal targets actual criminals and does not punish the law abiding gun owner.....if you anti gun extremists really want to stop gun crime.....but don't want to attack law abiding gun owners...tell me how this is a bad idea.


Now.......

Seeing how much I have given...what do we get in return?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why exclusions for family members?

Just because someone might be able to pass a sanity check doesn't mean that their rabid brother can.

Universal means universal. No exclusions or exceptions. Also since people get older and their eyesight and reactions fade there needs to be retesting on a periodic basis.

I will give you CCW nationwide provided the permit holders pass FBI firearms training courses similar to those that the police must undergo on a regular basis.

Which would quickly be made hugely expensive, nearly impossible to pass, or both...resulting in a de facto carry ban.

And since you asked I want a national database of all guns and who is the registered owner.

Fuck off!

I also want taggants mandatory in all ammunition and reloading powder supplies with a database of all sales showing images of the purchasers.

And you now want to de facto ban reloading.

Which of those are you prepared to give me?

All of them...on the second Tuesday of the sixth week of October.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So, you offer nothing in return - you do not seek compromise, you simply want me to give something for nothing in return..

That is completely false. I explained why it was beneficial to both sides. Do you seriously believe that reducing gun crimes won't be a benefit to law abiding gun owners?

Let's try and keep some degree of realism here, m'kay?

For a liability insurance mandate, which is far more onerous than UBC on several different levels, I want the repeal of the 18 USC 922(o) post-1986 transfer ban on machine guns as well as the CLEO 'shall issue' provision of the 1934 National Frearms Act with regard to the firearms mentioned therein.

Seriously?

You want unfettered access to machine guns in exchange for liability insurance?

Are you at all familiar with how the rules on NFA weapons work and how the 1986 ban works?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Not at all...simply invoke the Full Faith and Credit clause, just like I can drive in any state with the license from my state.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

This is, of course, a lie, as we both know the discussion wants on YOUR response.

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.

All three of these points show an clear willingness to compromise on my part.
Waiting on you.

It is impossible to compromise with demands that are unreasonable.
You keep demanding something that you refuse to identify.

Um....
I'm waiting on you to identity what you offer in return for tagganta and an ammo buyer database; I asked the relaxation of the transfer regulations for machine guns in return for your liability insurance requirements, to which you have not responded.
So, we're waiting on you.
Are you willing to compromise or not?

Why are you so unwilling to ask directly for what you want?

It is customary to READ a post before replying to it. Not mandatory, you understand...but customary.

 

[2aguy]

Why exclusions for family members?

Just because someone might be able to pass a sanity check doesn't mean that their rabid brother can.

Universal means universal. No exclusions or exceptions. Also since people get older and their eyesight and reactions fade there needs to be retesting on a periodic basis.

I will give you CCW nationwide provided the permit holders pass FBI firearms training courses similar to those that the police must undergo on a regular basis.

Which would quickly be made hugely expensive, nearly impossible to pass, or both...resulting in a de facto carry ban.

And since you asked I want a national database of all guns and who is the registered owner.

Fuck off!

I also want taggants mandatory in all ammunition and reloading powder supplies with a database of all sales showing images of the purchasers.

And you now want to de facto ban reloading.

Which of those are you prepared to give me?

All of them...on the second Tuesday of the sixth week of October.

Training requirements are used in Europe to keep guns in the hands of the rich and politicially connected, the poor are just out of luck and should submit quickly and quietly to their criminal attackers, then rely on the national healthcare system to treat their injuries.....no muss, no fuss.....until the next time they decide to murder large numbers of their citizens.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still looking for someone willing to compromise...

 

[2aguy]

Still looking for someone willing to compromise...

Notice how much we are willing to talk about....yet the usual suspects, the anti gun extremists......they want one thing, banning all guns in the hands of private citizens......they will do it one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time, but that is what they want...they will not give back one thing.......there is only the next thing they can scratch off their list....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still looking for someone willing to compromise...

Notice how much we are willing to talk about....yet the usual suspects, the anti gun extremists......they want one thing, banning all guns in the hands of private citizens......they will do it one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time, but that is what they want...they will not give back one thing.......there is only the next thing they can scratch off their list....

It's reasonably clear that their definition of "compromise" does not match that in the dictionary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still no takers?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still looking for someone willing to compromise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Offer is still open...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still looking for people who want more gun control and are willing to compromise to get it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. …

·
·
·​

Nope, public safety is first and foremost.

You should stop repeating this lie. Nobody with better than a room-temperature IQ believes it any more.

Gun control has always been, and will always be, about protecting the interests of tyrants and violent criminals at the expense of the safety and security of honest citizens; and we now have more than a century of established history that clearly shows this to be its intent and its effect.

How stupid do you think most people must be, to tell us that you wish to render us defenseless and vulnerable to the predation of criminals, in order to protect our safety? We know whose side you are on, and it isn't ours.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. …

·
·
·​

Nope, public safety is first and foremost.

You should stop repeating this lie. Nobody with better than a room-temperature IQ believes it any more.

Gun control has always been, and will always be, about protecting the interests of tyrants and violent criminals at the expense of the safety and security of honest citizens; and we now have more than a century of established history that clearly shows this to be its intent and its effect.

How stupid do you think most people must be, to tell us that you wish to render us defenseless and vulnerable to the predation of criminals, in order to protect our safety? We know whose side you are on, and it isn't ours.

Ironic given that it is ignorant gun fetishists like yourself that are arming, aiding and abetting the criminals with guns that are making society unsafe.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

I have a better idea.

You don't try to take my guns from me, you don't try in any way to impair my rights under the Second Amendment, and don't otherwise attempt to commit any serious crime in my presence, which would give me just cause to shoot you. In return for that, I will refrain from shooting you.

That is the only compromise that any American should ever consider agreeing to with any gungrabbing scumbag.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. …

·
·
·​

Nope, public safety is first and foremost.

You should stop repeating this lie. Nobody with better than a room-temperature IQ believes it any more.

Gun control has always been, and will always be, about protecting the interests of tyrants and violent criminals at the expense of the safety and security of honest citizens; and we now have more than a century of established history that clearly shows this to be its intent and its effect.

How stupid do you think most people must be, to tell us that you wish to render us defenseless and vulnerable to the predation of criminals, in order to protect our safety? We know whose side you are on, and it isn't ours.

Ironic given that it is ignorant gun fetishists like yourself that are arming, aiding and abetting the criminals with guns that are making society unsafe.

Ok look... a lie,
Further poof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Keeping and bearing arms is not a “state's right”, as distinguished under the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, to the state, or to the people.

The Second Amendment explicitly says to whom this right belongs, and it is neither the state nor the federal government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

I have a better idea.

You don't try to take my guns from me, you don't try in any way to impair my rights under the Second Amendment, and don't otherwise attempt to commit any serious crime in my presence, which would give me just cause to shoot you. In return for that, I will refrain from shooting you.

That is the only compromise that any American should ever consider agreeing to with any gungrabbing scumbag.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from having any of value to contribute. Then again I have yet to meet a gun fetishist who can actually think for himself. I suspect that self lobotomization is required in order to become a gun fetishist.

And now let's get back to the OP.