OK, we've got a final post, we've got the fuck yous all around. Good, good.

So, now, we'll discuss this calmly and politely or we won't discuss it at all.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
This will be my last post on this thread.

My points were NOT a “pick what you want”. It was an all or nothing compromise.

Look, my reading comprehension is fine. I chose to ignore that qualifier because it’s wholly unrealistic to frame the argument in terms of “here’s what I think is ok as long as we get rid of the NFA” because the truth is, it isn’t going anywhere. We all know that. So instead, what we’re doing is kicking about limitations one of us has suggested would be ok on a public gun forum. A public gun forum. Your average anti-gunner has no idea what you’re actually arguing, and they wouldn’t care, but bet your life there’s people whose arguments we don’t want to bolster reading this forum.

So yes, I ignored your qualifier. I did it because it wasn’t worth discussing. What was important to me was tearing apart, utterly shredding your other suggestions to whatever degree I’m capable of. I did so without insulting you, or swearing at you, but I can understand your frustration. As gun owners, I think it’s important at this point to present a unified front, that being that we all say “no, fuck you, not one more inch.”

quote:

As gun owners, I think it’s important at this point to present a unified front, that being that we all say “no, fuck you, not one more inch.”

And there is the line we all need to stand to.
The same with every right that is being tested and marginalized too.
No more allowing gov control over every facet of our lives.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:

That’s my scenario, not one where you can pick or choose. (You are welcome to create that scenario, of course). It’s an all or nothing: Option 1 is status quo, with all of our waiting periods and background checks and red flags and pre-86 and NFA etc, and Option 2 is all of that is GONE, but we have to notify when we discover a theft.

That’s it. Up or down.

If that is it, NO.

Here's my scenario I would like to agree to, but still wouldn't because the GDC would simply renege on the agreement. Politics is the art of making promises you don't intend to keep in order to get what you want today.

1) The NFA and GCA are repealed. Never will any attempt be made by any branch of the federal government or any other domestic authority to in any way reestablish any form of restriction which in any way resembles any portion of the NFA or GCA.

2) The gun owner is required to report gun theft within 24 hours of discovery or the first day the responsible agency is open after that. The gun owner's timeline is never to be questioned. No additional requirements of any kind will ever be implemented for the purpose of strengthening storage or monitoring for theft.

We'd need some irrevocable document that prohibits the government from in any way infringing on this agreement.

In some magical world we might agree to this. Your question of whether this is a reasonable or acceptable compromise only works in the abstract. On those terms, yes I think it is probably a worthwhile trade. But in the real world we would only lose because the parts in italics above are not possible.

Remember, the opposition supports sending armed government agents to take your guns under threat of violence to you and your family.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
... but #4 should be critical.

You are the lawful owner of a firearm until you are not; once that changes, you MUST notify, else you are complicit in any crimes that occur.

NO WAY, the GOVERNMENT does NOT need to know that I own a firearm.
I do not trust them regarding firearms ... why do you?
This is as bogus as holding the manufacturer responsible for what criminals do with their product ... whatever the product is.

If they don't know I own it, how could they know who it was stolen from?

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
If they don't know I own it, how could they know who it was stolen from?

Bingo.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
If they don't know I own it, how could they know who it was stolen from?

We, meaning gun owners overall, need to look deeper than the issue raised by the opposition and look for their ulterior goals. Especially when there is logically no connection between the proposition and reducing crime.

Registration is one of the holy grails for the ban crowd, so they need a reason put in place which then leads to arguing registration needs to be added. Universal or expanded background checks is one, as would be a requirement to report theft. Both ideas even sound reasonable to the average non-gun owning American.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
If they don't know I own it, how could they know who it was stolen from?

We, meaning gun owners overall, need to look deeper than the issue raised by the opposition and look for their ulterior goals. Especially when there is logically no connection between the proposition and reducing crime.

Registration is one of the holy grails for the ban crowd, so they need a reason put in place which then leads to arguing registration needs to be added. Universal or expanded background checks is one, as would be a requirement to report theft. Both ideas even sound reasonable to the average non-gun owning American.

I couldn't agree more. I think we (the enlightened on Sig Forum) and most other free thinking Americans know exactly what their end goal is. Scary and dark stuff for sure.
As for what the average media driven, consumer American. I'm baffled by their ignorance. This video is pretty telling on how the legislature is able to get more and more infringements pushed through without being ran out of town on rails.
Warning NSFW language.

As said before, “Not one more inch.”

The very word “compromise” means we give up some (all eventually) of our God given rights for *promises* from a Politician.
Lying scumbags can promise all they want, I’m not trusting ANY of them.
Just say no.

Mitch is playing the Democrats on this.

Right now the Dems have nothing to run on and he's moving his pawns around and taking away campaign issues for them. The Dems are counting on Roe and gun control to galvanize their base and turn out the vote. By agreeing to this bill - it will be challenged in court and McConnell knows it - he takes away one of their campaign issues and gives them less reason to turn out.

As a conservative and gun owner, where are you going to go? You aren't going to vote Democrat if this bill passes. You will still vote for the conservative candidates and laws enacted are laws that can be overturned. Also remember that all that was announced with there is a framework of understanding but none of the actual language is known.

It could be that the language doesn't overcome the 60 vote hurdle and Schumer isn't going to waste his last reconciliation vote on this.

Well, I sent both my Senators (Cruz and Cornyn) messages that I wanted them to vote NO on any such legislation. I'm sure Sen. Cruz is OK, but Sen. Cornyn is very iffy right now. I told him his vote on such bills will definitely control how I vote in his next election run.

flashguy

Mitch is a career politician and this will not appease the left. The Republicans have seen internal polling that suggests gun owners are okay with this legislation. Of course, that polling occurred during the leftist medias latest push to 'do something'. People need to accept the absolute fact that there is nothing to do involving guns that will curtail mass shootings...it's a ridiculous concept and we'll lose rights every time and no one will ever be the safer. I understand that many believe these are reasonable laws that will not impact their individual rights, but we are sending the message that gun laws are a tool to fight mental illness. We will be the loser of this game McConnell is playing.

I heard it yesterday, "This is a good first step...." That right there is why I resist anything more on guns.

As a registered voter in Texas, I knew better than to count on RINO Cornyn. He and unfortunately Dan Crenshaw are about as squishy as Dems. I'm more disappointed in Crenshaw. I expected more from a SEAL.

+

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Well, I sent both my Senators (Cruz and Cornyn) messages that I wanted them to vote NO on any such legislation. I'm sure Sen. Cruz is OK, but Sen. Cornyn is very iffy right now. I told him his vote on such bills will definitely control how I vote in his next election run.

flashguy

I did the same except only to Cornyn.
I know Cruz knows better.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Well, I sent both my Senators (Cruz and Cornyn) messages that I wanted them to vote NO on any such legislation. I'm sure Sen. Cruz is OK, but Sen. Cornyn is very iffy right now. I told him his vote on such bills will definitely control how I vote in his next election run.

flashguy

I did the same except only to Cornyn.
I know Cruz knows better.

Actually, I sent a GOA message (with my additions) to both, and later an even stronger one of my own to Cornyn. I got a response from him on the first message--nicely worded affirmation of his 2A support (!), but none from the second one. Cornyn will probably go with the Dems, and I have to hope that some of the others will hold the line and keep the filibuster viable.

flashguy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: flashguy,

Red flag laws in the Chicago ghetto. Sure. The complianant winds up dead.

Let's hope everyone of the RINO's get's primaried.