Reader Ian W. writes:

I’ve been going back and forth with a gun control advocate on Facebook in the aftermath of the Umpqua Community College shooting.  She wants us to #DoSomething, I ask what exactly more gun control will accomplish.  She calls for universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons, and online ammo purchase limits. I point out the pointlessness of such things. I post cited facts, she ignores me. So goes the usual go-nowhere pro-gun/anti-gun “discussion.” But to prove that, contrary the chronic anti claim, gun owners aren’t unwilling to make compromises (just opposed to pointless and/or redundant laws and “compromise” that is nothing of the sort) I posted the following . . .

A proposal for a reasonable compromise on gun control

Pro-2A agrees to universal background checks with a statutory maximum on the fee for the check (say, $5).

Pro-gun control agrees to national concealed carry reciprocity, removing the NFA restrictions on short barreled rifles/shotguns, AOWs, and suppressors, and repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act.

Both sides agree to better fund enforcement of existing firearms laws, especially with regard to straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.

Since both sides already agree that the NICS background check system is broken, let’s fix that. As the system is (among other things) overworked, instead of restricting all felons, limit the check to violent felony convictions, wanted fugitives, firearms traffickers, and the mentally ill who have been properly judged to be a threat to themselves or others and/or mentally incompetent. This will also reduce the workload on the states and help to get reporting to the NICS system accomplished in a timely manner. And it preserves the right to due process as well as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Both sides agree that training with firearms and safe storage are important, so let’s work on that, too. Fund and expand the Civilian Marksmanship Program and subsidize the cost for safety and proficiency training. Provide subsidies and/or tax breaks toward buying gun safes, and promote and fund (rather than hindering) child safety programs like Eddie Eagle. Take advantage of gun owners’ enjoyment of shooting and the basic human nature to take advantage of a perceived deal to encourage training on an perpetual, ongoing basis (instead of one-time mandatory minimums).

Does that seem like a reasonable start?

Recommended For You

211 Responses to Reasonable Compromise on Gun Control – A Modest Proposal

      • Never trust an anti gunner they might appear to offer a compromise but the new law would have your provision amended out. The corollary to the above is never trust a Congressman, they lie to your face and stab you in the back!

    • I want the NFA repealed. I wouldn’t trade universal background checks (as they are generally understood) for it though.

      • Universal background checks requires a national firearm registry. What would I trade for that?

        Repeal the NFA and 1968 GCA for starters, but really every single one. Replace them with national constitutional carry, everywhere, including courts and legislatures, unless the locations are protected by full-on metal detectors, and cops get the same treatment. If cops aren’t willing to surrender their arms in these so-called protected environments, neither am I.

        As for prohibited persons with firearms, no. If they aren’t to be trusted with a firearm, they aren’t to be trusted in any other manner — lock ’em up or set them free, no in-between.

        But I still won’t trade that for UBC. First off, it requires that universal registry, and that can’t be put back in the bottle when the hoplophobes find excuses to implement common sense gun control. Second, I don’t have the right to tell anybody else to go through UBCs and end up in a universal registry.

        • I am only for compromises that are win/win for the rights of all Americans.

          Strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment nationally. Zero government intervention or oversight. No background checks. No restricted items – sbr’s silencers etc. National constitutional carry. No more poll taxes on firearms. No taxes in purchasing firearms or ammunition. Abolishment of the F in ATF. Immediate destruction of all defacto registries and previous background checks. And so on.

          In exchange, end the the abortion debate. Pay for this out of your own money or private funds. No taxpayer or any other public coercion. Just like what is proposed for firearms, it’s nobody’s business but your own.

          National legalization of marijuana. Handled mostly the same as alcohol or not. The idea is less government interference. May not be taxed, excised, fees, etc for a sum total of no more than 10% if purchased commercially. You may grow for personal use or sale. Come up with your so called “reasonable restrictions.”

          Bring on the “you’re evil/stupid/etc” comments.

        • States’ rights CANNOT trump individual rights. If there’s an individual right to concealed carry, then the federal government should enforce that right against all the states’ infringing on it.

        • “As for prohibited persons with firearms, no. If they aren’t to be trusted with a firearm, they aren’t to be trusted in any other manner — lock ’em up or set them free, no in-between.”

          This. If you have paid the price you should get your rights back. If you are unable to live within the law, you should have never been let loose.

        • Interestingly it used to be that when you were released from prison out here in the west, you were given a pistol and a rifle and $20 to get your life back on track($20 would be the equivalent to about $350 in today’s currency). Either you are reformed, or you should not be released. Fix the prison system to stop turning out criminals that are worse than they went in.

        • Not exactly. I do recall reading a UBC proposal that RF semi supported that didnt. Basically it was an expanded version of the NICS system. Where a buyer can go online and get an approval code. The seller would log in and input the auth code with a drivers license number of the buyer. To enforce this, if a gun used in a crime is traced back to the seller, he/she would have immunity. Otherwise no immunity for not using the system. Tie that with either national reciprocity, dumping machine gun registry, and/or repeal the NFA. I would be for that.

        • False. Universal background checks don’t require a national firearms registry, they only require such a registry in order to be effective. Since the anti-gunners don’t seem to ever be bogged down too much by making sure their proposals actually work, I’m pretty confident we could push through UBCs that don’t actually work and it would satisfy them just fine.

          Just gotta stroke that #DoSomething spot behind their ears and they will sign right up.

        • The way UBC’s should work (not that I agree with them) is that (for private sales, FFL sales would be the same) a buyer would call NICs; they would give their information over the phone (name, dob etc) and the number off a piece of any gov issued id (say a drivers licence, military id# etc). The NICs operator would do a background check, tell the person if they are approved or not (as in are they a prohibited person or no?) and if they are, the operator would give them a transaction number to give to the seller and it would be good for 7 days approximately (more or less could be decided upon, and any number of gun purchases in that time, unless the buyer committed a disqualifying crime in that period).

          The seller would call NICs, enter in the number provided to the buyer and it would confirm that the background check was passed and read off their name, dob and the identifying number they chose (ie if the buyer gave their driver’s licence # it would read that off while the seller was confirming with the buyer’s physical driver’s licence.)

          After 7 days, the information/BC pass information would be automatically deleted and entering the number after the 7 days would return a “this number is invalid”.

          The system wouldn’t ask for what type or how many guns were being purchased, nor form whom.

          As with any UBC law, it would have to run somewhat on the honor system (though undercover operations would play some part in enforcement) but it would also give sellers peace of mind that the buyer is not a prohibited person and they are now making an “illegal sale”.

          In step for it would go like this:

          1. Buyer finds gun he wants, contacts local seller for face to face.
          2. Buyer then calls NICS, gets a Background Check Approval Code (BCAC)
          3. Buyer meets seller. Before exchanging gun for money; the buyer gives seller his BCAC
          4. Seller calls NICS, enter buyers BCAC though touchtone, while holding buyer’s chosen ID
          5. NICS States the approved status then reads off buyer’s full name and DOB and the number from buyer’s chosen ID
          6. Seller is now sure that buyer is not a prohibited person and happily exchanges money for his firearm to the buyer.

          Now the Buyer can reuse the same BCAC for next 7 days (from when the check was made) and after that 7 days, all information he provided to NICS would be automatically deleted and the BCAC rendered invalid. If the buyer wanted to make another purchase, 8 days after the first check, he would have to call and obtain a new BCAC.

    • Fix the lautenberg ammendment or repeal it. A misdemeanor domestic violence conviction was never supposed to be a life time ban BUT congress has not funded the program allowing people to get their rights back. Also make it so people who pleas guilty BEFORE the ban are not subject to it. If you get charged it is common even if not guilty to plead out misdemeanors for time served. Make all domestic violence plea agreements have to sign a form informing them that. Their rights are taken away OR they are not subject to the ban/ can ask for a trial.

      Put teeth in the anti registration law. The atf is violating it. Allow gun stores that close to have records stored with other gun dealers not the atf.
      Environmental groups have standing to sue over environmental laws. Give nra GOA etc automatic standing in. Any 2a cases

      Make a pistol always a pistol. The NFA SBR provisions where to prevent making a pistol or hand gun from a rifle, not the other way around. This part of te law is so obsolete that it has come to be enforced backwards from people lengthening handguns. Pass a law that says once a gun is manufacured as a handgun NO modification shall make it a rifle for legal purposes without filing a form with atf. This way putting a stock or forward grip will not make an SBR.
      In states that have legal hunting with silencers allow a CCW permit to serve as permission and background check on place of cleo sign off. THIS SHOULD BE EASY TO PASS!
      If we can’t get national concealed carry, let’s get a law that says while traveling your permit is good for up to 30 days in any state. And let’s fix the laws protecting firearms transport. People have Should not be eating arrested at airports if they hve a layover in NY. While we are at it, let’s make unlawful violation of your 2a civil right a codified offense carrying 10 year min prison sentence. Let’s also use RICO to go after police departments police unions and other groups that try to deny those rights as a group.
      Let’s make new atf regulations and any changes require a comment period of at least 1 year. Let’s also make any change recieving more than 20k comments require a vote in congress to sustain for more Than 1 year. Or better yet let’s make all of them sunset after 2 years without a vote. Let’s make them all sunset every 5 years and require a vote of congress to approve. Keeps congress busy AND give us a chance to repeal regulations every 5 years.
      Let’s make minor violations a civil offense only so nobody goes to jail for something g stupid or accidentle. We can do this by making most technical violations require the ATF give notice or it be a repeat violation for criminal prosicution

      And universal background check? ONLY if there is no registry even one that is deleted. I just can’t see how that would be pulled off. You could allow citiZens to use nice system and require records of private sales key 1 or 2 years and then DESTROYED. Or require states to put a mark on prohibited persons ID so we would know not to sell to them.

    • Limiting the fee to $5 will result in no one doing them, in other words a shortage. Let the free market decide how much to charge.
      Why ask for more government control over something?

      • The major argument here needs to be that if the Feds want BCs then they must make it as EASY as possible to get BCs at the most competitive prices. Give NICS access to every law-abiding applicant: ranges; gun clubs; hardware stores; coffee shops; gas stations; notaries public.
        The Anti’s want to choke-off access to FFLs. No kitchen-table FFLs; no non-stocking dealers; minimum stock levels. Make sure that rural states can support only 1 FFL so it’s hundreds of miles from the average customer. Major metropolitan areas can support zero FFLs. Well, OK; if that’s what they are striving for then we can’t rely on FFLs to do NICS checks. We need to be sure that every straw-buyer, trafficker and burglar has ready access to a NICS-check resource in his ‘hood so that he will undertake to BC his buyers.

    • Tell ya what.

      The Hoplophobes get Universal Background Checks on the condition that ONLY criminal status is checked and that only convicted felons are denied. We do not need the BATFE deciding that wanting to buy a third AR-15 or a 1000 rounds of 5.56mm is a form a mental illness and sufficient to deny purchase.

      In return we get:
      National Reciprocity / National Shall Issue Concealed Carry / National Open Carry
      National Castle Doctrine.
      National Stand Your Ground.
      Remove NFA restrictions from Everything.

      Basically we want BACK what was ours all along. We want our cake back.

      How ’bout that?

    • Not bad! Still, with all the false compromise we have had, the “control” side should get nothing.

      Compromise is not when the “control” side doesn’t get as much restrictions and controls as they want ( but they still get some. .for now), and you don’t lose as much freedom as they want you to lose.
      Compromise is supposed to be less win/ less win. We get no upside, and they just keep coming back with more proposals, and more compromise. All compromise does is slow down the speed of their enacting their goals, every attempt is only half successful.

    • The only proper “Gun Control” is hitting what you aim at.

      The proper compromise with anti-Second Amendment advocates is this, and only this: “Screw you. Repeal all your useless and unconstitutional gun laws. Get the government out of my natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      Any compromise on any of these points means that we don’t actually believe that the Second Amendment means what it says either.

        • Why shouldn’t they? Do they not also enjoy the same rights everyone else does? Just because they are foreign, doesn’t mean they don’t share the same natural, civil liberties.

  1. Sadly the other side would never go for this. I’d trade silencers and sbr’s for universal background checks at the drop of a hat. That’s just me. I’m sure I have peers who disagree.

    • Since every firearm transaction I can legally do in NY State has a 4473 attached to, I would say that UBCs are a small price to pay to get SBR, AOW, and suppressors. Select fire would be nice as well, but since I can’t afford to feed one I can live without it!

    • Yes, yes you do. Universal background checks are a non starter for me. As soon as we lose the ability to buy, sell, and trade firearms privately…moving them around without government checks (aka tracking) at every step, we open the door to eventual confiscation.

      I’ll take semi-auto firearms that they don’t know I have, over full auto firearms that they know I have, any day.

    • I’d go for your proposal and I personally think that most ammosexuals can’t be trusted with anything more powerful than a slingshot. But with that said for those of us that can qualify for a concealed carry permit we should be able to buy weapons that unqualified people should not be allowed to possess.

      • I think you have a god complex

        Lets just trample on the rights of the innocent you believe aren’t good enough and on the poor who can’t afford a license plus training all up front. Personally, i say no compromises and we get another gun friendly judge on the Supreme Court so they can finish off these gun laws.

        • Keep in mind the it was God who allowed his “chosen people” to be disarmed and led to slaughter in a little incident historically referred to as “The Holocaust.” Seem like exactly the entity we DO NOT want to be taking arms control advice from.

      • If you want to be taken a little more seriously, even as a troll, you really need to dispense with that ‘ammosexual’ BS. Please.

        Then select a more redeeming name. Please.

        Thank you.

        Tom

  2. Pro-2A agrees to universal background checks with a statutory maximum on the fee for the check (say, $5).
    The Gun Show Loop Hole is not the problem. For most practical purposes, the universal background checks already exist.

      • True, but most gun shows are almost all FFL dealers selling their wares. As I mentioned earlier, for all practical purposes there is no gun show loophole.

      • There is an issue we need to be conscious of: creeping UBC State-by-State. Several States already have requirements for BCs or paperwork on some or all non-dealer transfers. Washington and Oregon are merely the latest cases. As the number of these States increases the liberty to transfer privately dwindles.
        You are found in possession of a certain gun: Make X Model Y Serial Z. Where did you acquire this gun? Since the date of manufacture, in which States did you reside? Were all those States have UBC laws since date of manufacture? If so, then you have to prove you passed a BC somewhere or you must be guilty of having received the gun without passing a BC.
        At some point, the number of States where you would remain free of UBCs might be few and sparsely populated. At that point, de facto UBC would govern most of the population.

    • If we got something for it I would agree to a law that required nics check when buying a ticket for an adult at a gun show. As long as no record of purchase is made. This could easily be policed. ATF goes to bigger gun shows anyway. This would affect only gun shows which we could define as a venue having nore than 300 people and charging admission fees and also selling booth or Tabek space. Most tables at my local gun show are FFLs anyway.

      • Interesting idea; however, a simpler scheme would be to simply authorize gun-show promoters to access NICS and perform BCs on behalf of non-dealer attendees.

        However, I argue against obviously partial solutions because they invite incrementalism. Suppose we got a Gun-Show NICS check; the next day the Antis would demand an “Advertised-sale” NICS-Check. Then, a Range NICS check. Then a Back-of-the-Bar[n] NICS check; and a Yard-Sale NICS check.

        The problem here would be that law-abiding people would strive to consummate a sale outside ALL of the regulated venues. How many blocks do we have to walk-away from the: show, advertisement, bar[n], yard-sale . . . to legitimately avoid the requirement? Would a prosecutor argue that if buyer and seller walked hand-in-hand until they reached the 3-block limit that they were evading the regulation?

        If we contemplate any sort of non-dealer BC we ought to think about it carefully. There should be a sharp line between when the requirement applies and when it does not apply. And, it should cover the territory completely. I.e., we don’t want BC to come-up again. We should want to be able to maintain that “We agreed to non-dealer BC, now you have it. This topic is closed.”

        Of course, the Antis will regard the issue never to be closed. Instead, we need to sustain this position with the voters and their Congress-critters. The voters should be persuaded that the last BC law comprehensively covered the issue and there is nothing more to be done on this topic that makes opening this can of worms again.

  3. Create an NICS system that civilians can use and is divorced from defacto registration. You ask for a background check on yourself that when approved is a printed out on a piece of paper that you can present to a private seller. This check doesn’t list what firearm was purchased or who the seller was or even if a purchase was completed.

    • Exactly right. But Gun control proponents will never go for this because it’s not about background checks, it’s about setting the stage for eventual registration and then confiscation. I don’t know why this isn’t pointed out more by our side.

      • So, why are you eager to subscribe to the Antis’ agenda?

        When the polling companies asked about UBC did they ask if people wanted Universal 4473 forms? No? Well, then what did they ask for? BCs? OK, then why should we allow Bloomberg write a bill requiring UBCs to be conducted in an FFL where a 4473 form must be filled out?

        If the voters think they want security theater in the form of UBC then given them something that seems to look like UBC but does NOT include a trip to the FFL nor a 4473 form.

    • Now this is a good suggestion. There is no reason that the firearm needs to be listed on the background check (we’re not checking the legality of the firearm, we’re checking whether the purchaser can legal obtain ANY legal firearm). Removing the firearm from the background check would go a LONG way towards reducing the likelihood that UBC would turn into a “gun registry”.

      • Just let dealers keep the forms and require them destroyed after the next ATF inspection. They come in check your books. Does every sale have a background check or record of CCW ? Ok you Lss your audit not destroy the information.

    • Yes, this is key. BCs and paperwork are independent issues. What do the Moms Demand? Do they demand BCs? Or, do they demand paperwork? Pick one to the exclusion of the other so we can understand what their priorities are.

      Now, then, if what they really demand is paperwork, then lets have a conversation about paperwork. Why do FFLs have to keep 4473s for 20 years? What is the distribution of traces by number-of-years since sale? What is the distribution of useful information pursued by number-of-years since sale? If traces are useful only up to about 5 years then we could negotiate a reduction of the retention period for ALL paperwork to 5 or 6 years.
      The OP is a really good idea for smoking-out the Antis. If these SOMEthings that they DEMAND are so “common sense” then what are they willing to concede?
      Now, if the answer is “nothing”; then it’s incumbent upon THEM to explain why not. Defend silencers under the NFA. Defend SBRs and SBSs. Defend the $100,000 fine and 10 year sentence for failing to buy a $5 stamp for an AOW; and, then, same for the $200 stamp.
      What happens if we schedule a debate and the Antis won’t show up? Do we win by default?

    • A background check should be verifying the identity of the buyer. Ban any information about the firearm from being collected (because we know they can’t be trusted to discard it once they’ve got it) and I’m completely OK with background checks. I have a carry permit, the feds already have my fingerprints and know I own firearms.

    • Pete, that seems so obvious once it’s been suggested. Such a system wouldn’t even tell anyone that you’d bought a firearm — I can see college kids doing it just to find out if they could pass it.

    • There’s an easier and cheaper solution to background checks. If you’re a prohibited person, you have it marked on your driver’s license. Dealer checks your license when you want to buy and if it’s marked prohibited, they tell you to get out. Cheap, simple, and no matter registry or other infringements on people’s rights.

    • How often does this need to be repeated?

      There is no provision in the Second Amendment allowing for the government at any level to create a list of citizens who are not allowed to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

      There is no provision in the Second Amendment for the government at any level to establish criteria as to which citizens are unfit to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

      If you allow the government at any level this authority you have just agreed to the repeal of the Second Amendment.

      If you allow the government at any level this authority, how will you keep your name off that list?

    • Although I’ve been told that the Ca DOJ doesn’t call it that, California has had mandatory handgun registration since 1991 and long gun registration since 2015. And n, they do not update their records o record sales of previously purchased firearms–once you’ve bought it, the DOJ has a record of you owning it forever (which is a major reason that seizures from prohibited persons are going so slowly and costing far more than anticipated–because the DOJ records are not reliable enough to support the issuance of a warrant.

  4. I just want our cake back… That’s all I want! (Hopefully you all know which graphic I’m referencing to.)

    Personally I don’t want to keep losing rights even if there is a better material trade off. We’ve been compromising since the 30’s right? Granted it’s always been a one sided compromise, but I still am weary of the term “compromise”.

  5. Unfortunately things like that, in my experience, are all none starters because they while they would do something to address gun deaths they don’t further the move toward the outlawing of guns which is what it seems people really want from their claims of stop the violence.

    I asked a couple friends the other day, would you still vote for gun registration and universal background checks if it was done with a stipulation that it had to be free, that it couldn’t lead to confiscation without actual due process on an individual level, and that there would be no class of banned firearms or magazine restrictions. Basically what the antis say they are after. But point blank both of them, who claim they aren’t for a ban on anything, immediately said no they wouldn’t vote for that because it didn’t go far enough.

    And that’s where things seem to stop, you can’t reach an agreement with people who have no desire to acknowledge the counter argument and it’s just that simple. Antis refuse to see any redeeming quality to any firearm and therefor aren’t interested in any agreement that doesn’t lead to a full ban. They’ll take incremental steps to a full ban, but nothing that would limit the ban istelf.

    • This is accurate, and it’s not spoken about enough. Most anti’s do not understand or value guns, so they have no reason to value gun rights. The second amendment is a throw-away amendment to them, because they attach absolutely no merit or benefit or beauty to a well-made firearm – they are just so much wood and metal, best destroyed.

    • You are right. It’s a non-starter for the Antis. So, what do:
      – WE have to lose by proposing a deal?
      – THEY have to lose by refusing to debate?

      Can you (a member of the PotG) answer these questions. Under the supposition that it’s a non-starter, then it doesn’t go anywhere. There will be no deal. We have lost nothing in the offer that is never accepted. Do you see how this works?
      When the Antis refuse to debate then we can excoriate them for their refusal. What are THEY afraid of? Why won’t they defend their positions in public debate. Are they afraid of going face to face with people who know what they are talking about. Why wouldn’t they want to debate Chief Craig or Sheriff Clarke? Why wouldn’t they want to debate the NSSF as a representative of the FFL community? And so forth.

      • “We have lost nothing in the offer that is never accepted.”

        Wrong. We have lost everything since we have agreed, openly and in public, that “…shall not be infringed.” does not mean exactly what it was meant to say and that they are now free to dismantle the Second Amendment in any way they choose.

  6. I would never support that.

    * A $5 limit on the background check could hurt FFLs. It would force them to work at a loss.
    * I don’t want more enforcement of existing gun laws, because they’re all unconstitutional. Look at the straw purchase conviction in Abramski v. US.
    * The government shouldn’t fund the CMP, gun training, or other fun stuff any more than it should fund abortions, the arts, or welfare.

    • A $5 limit on the background check could hurt FFLs. It would force them to work at a loss.
      Who cares? Why do we need FFLs in the first place? Why do we need the stupidity that created the FFL legislation?

      • We have a perfectly good model for what happens when private businesses are forced by the government to provide their services at a loss, it’s called Obamacare’s expanded Medicaid. Congratulations, you have ‘free health care’. Now take a number and wait. We should be able to get you in sometime in the next 6 months. Do you want that kind of service when it comes to transferring a weapon?

        • Read my post carefully. Why do we need the stupidity that created the FFL legislation? Get rid of the badly needed legislation that created the need for an FFL.

      • Under current law, we need FFLs to be able to buy and transfer firearms. This compromise said nothing about eliminating the FFL concept.
        What’s to keep a bunch of anti-gunners from taking a pile of $5s from Bloomberg into a gun store and transferring a firearm back and forth until they bleed the shop out of business? If the law puts a limit on how many transfers a person can take part in per day, then they just have to be a little more clever. Also, if they’re required to perform the transfers, but not required to perform their normal sales activities, anti-gunners can use spam transfers to perform a DoS attack on gun purchases.

        • This compromise said nothing about eliminating the FFL concept. True, but I am bringing up that the whole FFL concept is just dumb and needs to go into the potty.

    • I think it’s critical to keep UBCs OUT of the FFL sales floor. Why is the FFL sales floor the “magical” venue for doing a BC? Can the Anti’s explain this?
      Perhaps the “magic” lies in reducing the number of FFLs year-after-year so that it becomes increasingly impractical to either buy a gun from a dealer or transfer one between non-dealers. Make sense?
      If we are going to toy with possibilities of UBC then the objective ought to be to open access to NICS as widely as possible. A great place to start would be notaries public. These people already have credentials as responsible people who know how to check IDs. They are broadly distributed throughout the communities. They will work cheap.
      I’d advocate that any responsible person ought to be able to have access to NICS. Hardware stores, feed & grain dealers, coffee shops, rod & gun clubs, ranges, etc. Why any limit whatsoever (apart from passing a BC as a law-abiding citizen).

    • Well, there’s a difference, Jason, because funding those firearms-related things is actually authorized in the Constitution. The CMP can be justified easily under discipline for the militia; it’s firearms discipline.

      And under the militia model the Constitution relies on, Congress SHOULD be funding such things. Article I Section 8 is the link between the “militia clause” of the Second Amendment and the “rights” clause: the way you get those individuals with their rights to be something resembling a “well-regulated militia” is to fund organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia (“discipline” there isn’t like parents punishing children, it means training to a disciplined level of functioning). So since that “well-regulated militia is necessary”, Congress has a duty, not just the authority, to help us all get better trained (for starters).

    • Why are we even discussing a government mandated fee for the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right? I seem to recall that SCOTUS has already ruled that a poll tax is unconstitutional.

  7. We cannot negotiate with those who say, “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.” – John F. Kennedy

  8. Both sides agree to better fund enforcement of existing firearms laws, especially with regard to straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.
    The straw purchasing is not a real problem on the grand scale of things.
    Most of the criminals get their guns by stealing or borrowing them from strangers, companies, carriers, friends, relatives, government agencies, military, cartels, organized crime.

    • Is straw-buying a problem today? Who knows? We really don’t have any data because the ATF won’t investigate straw-buying cases.
      Will straw-buying become a problem tomorrow? Suppose the fantastic; just for the sake of discussion, suppose the major source of supply were choked-off. Maybe we PotG start buying gun safes as a serious obsession (mine’s bigger than yours). Where’s the slack to be taken-up? Probably, the next easiest source of supply is straw-buying.
      We ought to push for mandatory sentencing for straw-buying so that we can enjoy watching the Congressional Black Caucus explain why their constituents shouldn’t be sent to a distant Federal penitentiary far from their young children’s residence in foster care.

      • Is straw-buying a problem today? Who knows?
        A good indication of straw buying are guns confiscated which are very new. Most of the guns confiscated are of medium age. Inmate surveys do not favor straw buying either.

  9. You ,sir, have too much faith in the opposition. Say this goes through, and the PotG agree to universal background checks, and the antis turn around and say ,”Um…yeah, we talked it over, and we decided that we don’t like the machine gun thing, but hey, at least the enacted some #commonsenseforduhchillerns. Now, let’s make a deal for national registration.”

    • I am seriously beginning to think that this was an intentional Troll job meant to get TTAG comments to go on record as supporting unconstitutional government infringements on the Second Amendment.

      If so it was masterful and you have all taken the bait. Congratulations.

  10. Both sides agree that training with firearms and safe storage are important, so let’s work on that, too.
    I am sure the gun grabbers would have a sensible and reasonable field day with this one.

    • Absolutely; uniform training in gun safety and marksmanship/carrying under Congressional power to prescribe the discipline for the militia and the States to train according to that discipline.

      • That’s why private sales are so important. Buying from very old men eventually provides an even greater level of privacy.

      • We are most of the way; but, not all the way. The FFL mandatory retention for 4473s is 20 years. And, when an FFL goes out of business its archives to to the ATF for perpetual retention. This 20 year/perpetual thing is an issue none of us is complaining about.
        My theory is that the Antis see themselves one short stroke away from a quasi-national-registry if only all transfers were under 4473s.
        One path of resistance is to keep private transfers UN-documented. Is that the only path? Or, do we PotG have greater imaginations than that?
        What IF the 20-years/perpetual retention period were shortened substantially? What if it was no longer than the term that the ATF has found useful for tracing purposes? E.g., 5 or 7 years. What if – when an FFL goes out-of-business – his archives were turned-over to a registered archivist who would undertake to destroy the records after the mandatory period were exhausted. Well, then, the national distributed collection of 4473 forms would be far short of sufficient to support a confiscation.
        I would prefer to see non-dealer BCs with NO paperwork whatsoever. However, if we had to negotiate for the transferor keeping a record for 1 or 2 years then that would serve for tracing purposes but would be far short of what would support confiscation.
        The most useful attack on record-keeping would be a Congressionally mandated study of the efficacy of the existing 4473 record-keeping and tracing. To what extent does it serve useful law-enforcement purposes? To that extent – and no further – ought we to support record keeping. This debate ought to be our opportunity to take a “paperwork-reduction” approach to trim-back the 4473 form regulation. The ATF ought to be held to account for their use of these records. Beyond the extent that:
        – the ATF can show that they use 4473 forms; AND
        – the ATF can shoe that such use is PRODUCTIVE,
        then they are NOT entitled to any more record keeping.

  11. Problem is you get this kind of deal going and then some politician slips in a rider that makes it difficult to qualify or bans something. The chances of the left giving up ground on NFA are slim to none. The chances of them creating another Hughes amendment are guaranteed.

    They want us to ask for a law so they have free reign to craft that law. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

    • Less, Tom, less than rocks. After all, there are rocks which are inherently dangerous, as M. Curie discovered the hard way, even when just sitting on a shelf, but there are no guns which are inherently dangerous.

  12. Any universal background check MUST be done in such a way that it cannot act as a firearms registry. In IL now, for private sales you must call a number and verify that the buyer’s Firearm Owners Identification Card is in good standing. This has a similar function as a background check. However, unlike going through a dealer, there is no permanent record of the transaction and the state has no idea what, if any, firearm is changing hands.

    Anything that can even possibly become a de facto firearms registry is completely unacceptable under any circumstances.

    • Ha…you’ve gone from registering the guns to registering the gun owner which is just as bad!

      Fact is..they’ll never be satisfied with any background check on private sales as there is no way to verify people are complying without a paper trail. The antis will call it s “loophole” and demand that be closed with registration.

      NO COMPROMISE….period…of your rights.

  13. I don’t believe we should trade anything for anything. That’s because…..wait for it……..
    we already have the right and the Constitution guarantees that right.

    and on their side, they have ……… what?

  14. Reasonable-ish. If we want to ease the load on NICS how about instead of a check with every single purchase we make it annual or semi-annual. It’s plenty stupid that if I were to buy two guns in a day I’d need two checks run. Or tie it to permits. I have a permit so I clearly passed a check. Why so redundant bureaucracy?
    And really concretely absolutely make sure records are not kept. Records is registry. They can play semantics all they want but there’s no getting around it. Record keeping is a registry.

    • You know, that would be easy to do: Just add a card to the NICS form, onto which the check number is printed, which is then handed to the buyer and next time can be shown to the dealer instead of another background check.

  15. Absolutely no subsidies for training or gun safes. Subsidies only result in a price increase for a good or service by the amount of the subsidy.
    Owning a forearm is a right. But I have no right to out the coat of me owning, storing it training with my firearms onto my neighbor.

    • But you’re not putting a personal cost on your neighbor in the case of weapons: since a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, any subsidies covered by Article I Section 8 are not for you personally, they’re in the national interest. All your neighbor would have to do to get subsidized himself would be to similarly act in the national interest.

  16. Universal background checks won’t do anything without a gun registry. Without a registry, the government doesn’t know who breaks the law unless a law abiding citizen willingly participates in it in the background check. When it doesn’t do a damn thing to prevent crime, they will say, “We need a gun registry.” Then when that doesn’t work and they know who the gun owners are, they move onto confiscation.

    So, no on the universal background checks.

  17. NO NO NO NO remove all restrictions to gun ownership without delay period. I don’t need 2A to lawfully defend myself.

    Criminal get guns. Felons get guns. Mentally ill get guns. A right delayed is one denied and the wholesale murder condoned by local, state and federal government is immoral.

  18. UBCs as they want them are ridiculous. Simply selling a gun without a BC is a crime against no one but statue.

    IF they insist on UBCs, it should be so that if you conduct a private firearm sale with a UBC (that the seller of course passes), you are immune from any civil and criminal liability for their actions. If you do not do a BC, then you are at the whims of the criminal justice system IF the buyer does something nefarious.

    to be clear: i’m not saying i support this. UBCS (and BCs in general) are pointless security theater. I’m mostly just saying that theres nothing common sense about creating another victimless crime…so if we were stuck with UBCS some day i would at least think you’d structure them so there needs to be an actual victim to prosecute anyone.

    • A better approach is (what I will call) Un-BC. Slightly change the existing law such that selling/giving a gun to a prohibited-person is a crime (whether or not you know he is prohibited). Then, make a safe-harbor if the transferor does a BC on the transferee. (Showing a FOID or CWP is a BC). (Open access to NICS very broadly.) Now, then, you can’t be convicted for neglecting to do a BC. You can ONLY get convicted for transferring to a prohibited-person – and then only if you neglected to run a BC on him.
      Under Un-BC we would carry-on as we have always done so for about 90% of sales. All we have to do is run BCs on the 10% or so of buyers that we might meet at a gun-show, bar, shooting range, etc. With wide access to NICS, it would be rare cases where it would be inconvenient to run the BC.

      • right on. i’ve had the same idea before as well.

        actually i prefer a hybrid: the person has to be a prohibited person AND commit a crime with the firearm for the seller to face any liability.

  19. No compromise. We have compromised already – many many times.

    No universal background checks. They are solely for the purpose of linking all people with the firearms they own. It is for traceability for law abiding people (the lawless won’t follow this law) and their firearms. Absolutely not. How many gas cans, kitchen knives, bags of fertilizer, baseball bats, pocket knives, and firearms I own are absolutely none of the government’s F Business, none of my neighbor’s business, and none of nosy gossiping old ladies who vote either.

    If they don’t like it – they can form the republic of New Yorkistan out of the new englander states, and leave those who doesn’t want to be force fed their BS, to form a newly sovereign nation who still can understand the definition of the word “freedom.”

    • I live in Oregon, and before 941 passed, I could sell a gun to a long time friend with no hassle. Now, we both have to go to a gun shop and plunk down $40 to $50 to let someone else let us know it’s OK to buy and sell a firearm.
      Why can’t we perform a background check ourselves? The person buying the gun could call in, and the buyer could be listening in to assure it’s OK to make the transfer. There could also be sent by email, a conformation.
      The way it is now, if I have a gun worth say, $175 or so, and I’m willing to let it go for $150, I’ve got to lower the price down to $100 bucks or so, to get a buyer, because he knows he’s got to fork over $50 or so, to a “dealer”.
      I am not in anyway supporting background checks, but if we cannot get away from it, like Oregon, we should not make it prohibitive to sell a cheap firearm because of the fees!

      • Why can’t we perform a background check ourselves?

        Form 4473, that’s why. Yeah, the G might allow private checks, but how can it make you fill out and keep the 4473? And if you have to send the 4473 to some government agency to seal the deal, it’s not a private background check, is it?

        Here’s the upshot. The background check isn’t what the G and its lackeys want or care about. It’s all about the 4473.

        • True enough. I guess I was just dreaming that I should be able to sell a gun without unreasonable fees.

  20. No, that would not work. It would never be accepted by the socialists. Regardless of the proclamations and often sincere concerns from the minions, the people in power that are driving the agenda are not in the least concerned with anyone’s lives. No matter what compromises you make, they will not be sufficient. The goal is civilian disarmament and State control of the population. Everything else are just window dressings.

    • Perfect! You promise it will never be accepted by the socialists? If so, then the law will never pass. We claim the high-ground. We proposed a “reasonable” scheme for BCs by non-dealers; the Antis didn’t want it; so, OK. There will be no new BC law.

      Both sides know that BCs are a waste of time and energy. We make no claims of efficacy for our proposal; we offer it as mere security theater to satisfy uninformed public clamor. Now that our generous offer has been refused let’s waste no more of the public’s time on this nonsense.

  21. I suggest a family vacation to Auschwitz is in order…it’s lovely in the fall! To walk to the remains of the main ovens, you get to follow in the steps of the Jewish women and children and others who couldn’t work. Be sure to put your hand on the remaining boxcars; it’s almost as if something unspeakably sad still lives in the old wood. Walk through the display rooms, the tons of “harvested” women’s hair and the German uniforms made from the fabric with “XX% of Jew fiber.” See the boxcar loads of children’s clothing and toys, slated for German children, since the Jewish kids didn’t need them anymore. I definitely suggest a stop at the last remaining oven, essentially the test device, as the perfect place for selfies…make sure you use a low angle, so you can see the claw marks from the dying children etched into the stone walls!

    The Jews of Europe profoundly believed in compromise, and in the truth of the deals once made.The Jews couldn’t conceive that when the other side said they wanted every Jew in the world dead they actually meant exactly that.

    The other side has said repeatedly that the ONLY thing they will ultimately settle for is the 100% destruction of the gun culture in the United States, the removal of every firearm from civilian hands, destruction of those firearms and draconian penalties for anyone possessing a firearm.

    Instead of pulling on Obama and explain away that the Iranians shouting “death to America” and “Kill All Jews” is nothing more than the Islamic equivalent of a Sunday football chant, I suggest we take our blood enemy at their word.

    Every and any compromise is nothing more than a step toward the boxcars.

    Michael B

    • Well put. I suggest that we have film and slides at Congressional gun-control hearings. Lots of testimony on the history of democides from all countries; with special emphasis on the US Cavalry on Indians and Southern constabulary collaborating with the KKK.

  22. The problem with this is that any framework that enables a gun registry with the stroke of a pen or only a slight change in the direction of the wind at any of our favorite alphabet agencies. So no I won’t trade universal background checks for anything. as it stands it still (hopefully) would take an act of congress to change the laws, ubc’s are the toe in the door for arbitrary executive/extrajudicial actions.

  23. The antis already got background checks back in the 90s. Look how ineffective they have been. Why would we want to allow more of the same with a wider net? I say, show me the proof that expanded background checks, weapons registration, and restriction of certain weapons would prevent murders. They can’t, because the data that is out there shows otherwise. This is especially true for their favorite two countries to point to, Australia and the UK. Australia’s murder rate went up after the Port Arthur gun laws and “buyback” before trending down at the same rate it had been trending for the past two decades. The UK’s murder rate cracked the 1.2 per 100k murder rate after their stricter gun where it had been in the .7 per 100k rate. The laws did not have the intended effect because those laws were not affecting the root cause of murder. Those two countries have not had a mass shooting due to their gun laws but because they just haven’t had one. The latest murder of a police officer in Australia could have easily been a mass murder if they choose the right area, but the shooter had a different motive.

    All of these gun laws the antis want are like placing a bandaid on a severed artery. The bandaid may prevent a few drops of blood at the expense of the patient bleeding out.

  24. As a Liberal, I have to agree with those who say no further “compromise”, for several reasons.

    1.) First and foremost, it’s a Constitutionally-enumerated right.
    2.) The antis aren’t interested in “compromise”. I know, because I used to be an anti.
    3.) The antis have made it clear, throughout the decades, that they want civilian disarmament, i. e. CONFISCATIONS. We’ve already seen that in California recently.
    4.) The Second Amendment has never been about “hunters and sportsmen”. Rather, it’s always been about making government officials think twice about oppressing Us, The People.

    The only “deal” I would be willing to make with the antis is a repeal of the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and the Hughes Amendment. Folks, we cannot allow the antis to take us backwards. Something about Constitutional rights not being subject to the vagarities of popular thought of the day, and all.

    – T

  25. Keep in mind it’s useless arguing with idiots! When someone argues based on emotion rather than fact they lose the capability to come up with real solutions. You will never change their mind

  26. I think that’s a fair trade, but the instance of BC’s needs to be changed. If national reciprocity is initiated, a small piece on your DL could be changed just to identify who is able and not able to purchase. Like an organ donor marking. Maybe not the best idea, but an idea.

    • Who decides which citizens are able or not able to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? This authority is nowhere present in the Second Amendment.

      To continue the Godwin’s law theme in these comments, the lack of that mark on your driver’s license would be the equivalent of being force to wear a pink or yellow star on your lapel.

  27. Here’s a quality compromise for you:
    I like guns, so I will keep them and bear them.
    You don’t like guns, so you don’t have to do either of those things.

    • Heh.

      Though “liking” isn’t really relevant: I know several people who don’t like guns at all; the things make them nervous — but they own some for defense of self and home anyway, as a rational decision.

      • Actually, when you cut through their rhetoric, their essential premise is:
        “I don’t like guns so you shouldn’t have them”.

        • But the moment you say “I like guns”, you’ve thrown out the reason we have them and gone to their playing field.

          So “liking” is irrelevant, even though it’s really their only reason.

  28. Universal background checks ONLY WORK if there is national gun registration…otherwise how would you know who owned it prior to the person who possesses it now?

    next…

  29. I equate the right of the people to keep and bear arms with the right of the people to their own bodies. After all, bearing arms is about defending yourself from whomever might unjustly harm you. This would include would-be rapists, so let’s run with that analogy.

    Firearms freedom is the default condition. Not being raped is the default condition. What assortment of compromises makes one getting raped more palatable?

    Restrictions on the number of guns one may buy in a period, or rapes one may legally commit in a period? What about background checks and licenses, so only the right people are authorized to rape? The less said about restrictions on high capacony rapists, the better, as now we’re getting crude and I’ve already made my point.

    The starting point is each person living in peace and initiating violence against no one who hasn’t himself already presented a threat of injury or to property. How dare you recommend a compromise from that position?

    • Very well put. I live in the (still) Free Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I’m satisfied with my right to OC without permit and my $21 permit to CC.

      OK, so, I drive 2 miles and cross the river into NJ; I drive another 75 miles and cross the river into NYC. There, I will be imprisoned for carrying on my PA license. There, I’m vulnerable to rape and plunder by any criminal who defies the law.

      What do you suggest for me and those like Shaneen Allen or Carol Bowne?

      Do you suggest that we all free ourselves? Just like the slaves of the South before the Civil War?

      Do you suggest that we all move-out and stay-out of the Won’t-Issue States? That all these Progressives move to free States and register to vote?

      I’m not advocating that we give-in; I’m advocating that we think about how to play the political game to better effect. If we propose a “trade” that gets us more than we give-up, what’s the down-side?
      – We win and get more than we give?
      – We don’t get anywhere and we get to blame the Antis for refusing to negotiate?

      • That’s just it, you never get more from these people in exchange for your compromises. It’s always an additional chiselling of your rights. They move the goal post such that you might not give up as much as they at first wanted to take from you (for example, no ban on semi-autos, just a reduction in magazine size), but that’s just a slight trimming of the travesty. That’s not justice.

        Name ONE expansion of firearms freedom offered by the Hillary/Bloomie/DiFi disarmament complex. It’s too much to name one that actually justifies the balance of compromises and erosions they’d impose, of course. So I’ll be generous and only ask for one nominal expansion they’re offering. I’ll wait right here, eagerly watching the Weather Channel and awaiting the blizzard to hit Hell.

  30. Let’s turn the background checks around. I know there have been similar ideas tossed around so I won’t claim that this is my great idea, it’s just something to throw out there in the “discussion” with Antis.

    How about we have every state add a data field to the drivers license file, and every citizen of driving age and above gets an entry, either “No record” or “Restricted” The courts, the police, the mental health authority, have the power to submit an entry to motor vehicles when someone qualifies as a restricted person due to felony conviction, court order, mental health issues, etc. Any FFL or private seller can in the blink of an eye access a secure website, enter the License number from the buyer’s ID, and get a GO/NOGO decision and print it. No record of the transaction need be made for private sales, no waiting period, the FFL’s would still need to record the sale in their “book”. No registration and with every single US citizen prechecked for firearms purchases we would be lost in the herd. Same deal with ammo sales if you want to throw that in. Denials can of course be appealed through the usual court process.

    Thoughts?

    • I’ve thought of the driver’s license (or state ID) angle and it makes sense: it doesn’t say you tried or even want to buy firearms, it just says whether you’re prohibited.

      As for the records of sale, there shouldn’t be any name attached, unless a system such as has been suggested where the government never, ever gets to keep any originals or copies of those forms.

    • This idea of branding citizens as undesirables is so patently ridiculous I am speechless.

      See my comment above on what color star you should be required to wear on your lapel.

      • Comparing public marking with a star, a la innocent Jews and the Holocaust, to a restriction on a convicted felon’s I.D. card as the result of exhaustive due process, is absurd in the extreme. Why don’t you come back when you’re sober?

  31. I’m tired of these “modest” proposals. No compromise ever!
    We have the moral high ground and more and more people wake up to the stupidity of gun control.

    • To a point I agree, but it’s a matter of beating them at their own game. They cry about “common sense” gun laws and “compromise” so let’s offer them real common sense and compromise. It’s win-win because the Antis will NEVER accept less than full on confiscation as the end game.

      In fifty years of gun laws of all types, what benefit have we as gun owners received as our end of the bargain? Nada, zip, negative numbers.

      This power struggle we live with daily has to be won on the field of public opinion and you have to be able to appear to be calm, reasoned, and committed to reducing violence through the lawful use of arms. It comes down to voting in politicians that agree with us, and when they flip-flop on the issue, yank them back out. Do it consistently and after a while you have the representation to hold the line and possibly get some rights back. Angry protests may get attention but they will alienate some people that are undecided about gun control. We NEED those people on our side of the fence, not Bloomies.

      • The exact moment that the POTG offer ANY compromise on the issue of the Second Amendment the anti-2A side wins EVERYTHING since we have gone on record as stating and believing that “…shall not be infringed.” is a negotiable point.

      • You are correct; except that we are entitled to express anger at the prevailing infringements on our rights. We present our case clearly, calmly, logically while keeping our handguns in our holsters and observing muzzle and trigger discipline with our long arms.

  32. National concealed carry reciprocity means little for states like MD and CA. First we need to establish recognize that every law abiding citizen has the right to carry a weapon for personal defense outside the home, then let’s discuss reciprocity.

    • Little; but little enough. Step by incremental step. Out-of-State visitors – particularly OCing – will make a statement. After a couple of years of people walking around the malls of the Won’t-Issue States observing holster discipline will do a lot to disprove that MD is different from VA; NJ is different from PA; CA is different from OR, NV, AZ.
      The intrepid residents of these States will learn that they can establish residency in neighboring States, get a carry permit from that neighboring State and then carry in their May-Issue State. It will be very hard for the legislatures of these States to stand-up to such evasions.
      Generally, all that is necessary is to open a very small fissure and then work to widen it. The forces become irresistible.
      The difficulty with the existing system (with no National Reciprocity) is that it’s altogether too easy for a legislature to insist that they really are different from their neighbors; their own citizens can’t be trusted. When their own citizens realize that their neighbors are walking – ARMED – among them they will find it increasingly painful to maintain cognitive dissonance.

  33. Nope. I’m old and remember a time when one could buy a long gun from the monkey ward catalog and it was delivered to your door. I remember about a week after returning from Vietnam walking into a hardware store and buying two handguns. Put my money on the counter and walked out with the guns. I remember opening up the local paper to the classifieds and seeing columns of firearms for sale. Take us back to that time and I’m on board. Anything else is infringement.

    • Background checks are worthless.
      They are worthless with a national registry.
      They are worthless without a national registry.
      They are worthless with ice cream.
      They are worthless without ice cream.

      They are worthless inside an FFL.
      They are worthless outside an FFL.

      BC is different from 4473 forms.
      We had 4473 forms before BCs.
      We had BCs before 4473 forms (AKA, “No guns for Negros!”)

      Why are WE, the PotG, INSISTING on tying BCs to 4473 forms?
      (Admittedly, the Antis have this in mind implicitly; why are we PotG so eager to go along?)

      Are we PotG limited in our imagination? Are we UN-able to conceive of a world where 2 undesirable things might be separate-able?

      It’s useful to ask ourselves the question: What are voters who talk to pollsters interested in? Do they desire:
      – BCs?
      – 4473 forms?

      Suppose we offered them BCs withOUT 4473 forms? Would that be enough security theater to satisfy them? What if they asked them:

      – BCs with NO civil war; or
      – BCs, with 4473 forms AND civil war.

      Which would they choose?

      How about: We agree to make it against the law to transfer to a prohibited-person – knowingly or unknowingly; safe-harbor if you transfer to a criminal or crazy who passes a BC. Is that enough BC to satisfy you? Then, make NICS checks readily available (hardware stores, ranges, clubs, notaries public).

      Granted, the Antis won’t be satisfied. I’m not interested in satisfying the Antis. I’m interested in placating voters with enough security theater so that they don’t subscribe to the Anti’s proposal. If we can get some trade-offs (National Reciprocity, NFA reform, reduced 4473 retention periods for FFLs, etc.) so much the better.

  34. So now we’re supposed to trade some rights for other rights as if they were Pokemon cards or something? No. Not now, not ever. NO.

      • Like that deck of cards that some US soldiers carried after the fall of Saddam Hussein? Okay, I’m down with that.

        • What a coincidence, Ralph. Last week a friend walked into our Range with one of those “THE ULTIMATE IRAQI 52 CARD PICKUP GAME” framed prints with a fighter jet superimposed over pictures of the worst-at the time- of the worst that we were fighting. We have it hanging in our classroom and it’s still pretty cool.

  35. Why even debate the notion of compromise? Obama’s about to pull another unconstitutional end run, and it’s coming real soon.

  36. Here’s how we sound “reasonable” and torpedo this all at the same time:

    Allow NICS to be opened for non-gun inquiries. Allow the public to run background checks on job applicants, babysitters, 4H leaders, people you’re dating, school applicants… everyone.

    Sounds reasonable, right? Just think of how you could sell this women: “Know that you’re not dating a felon or a domestic abuser!” Women would buy that in a New York Minute, right?

    Liberals will go through the roof. Dead deal right there.

    • Now you are thinking! An absolutely brilliant idea!

      The huge impact would be to bring the advocates for the mentally-ill into the debate. So, a woman suffers from postpartum depression. A young fellow is diagnosed with ADHD. Now, s/he comes up “DENY” on a NICS check. Does our society really want this?
      It’s for the children! This woman might get a job as a sales clerk in the children’s section of a department store. This boy might become a scout master. Who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of (wo)man?
      We need to be thinking of ways to disrupt the Anti’s plans. This is one of them.
      Likely, as we negotiate a bill, there will be compromise. NICS might not remain fully open; however, we can push for it to be open-enough to minimize the inconvenience of getting a BC. Clubs, ranges, coffee-shops, gas stations, notaries public. When just about any law-abiding person can get a NICS-user account then NICS will be – for all practical purposes – open. And, then, there will be concern on the part of advocates for the mentally-ill and released prisoners. This will serve as the platform for reducing the prohibited-person criteria.
      Think about it. What represents the greater threat? The NICS check that a vet with PTSD can’t pass? Or, the simple fact that a VA clerk can send the vet’s name to the FBI marking him a prohibited-person? Can we tell the difference?
      How important is it to enable the vet to bypass the NICS check at the FFL if – when he’s pulled-over for a broken tail-light – he is found to be carrying while being a prohibited-person? Can we figure this out?

    • How about this?

      Have the Feds run a NICS check on everyone every six months. Send out a letter saying you passed. Make it required to show the pass letter to anyone who wanted to see it. That way you could check your barber, doctor, pastor, attorney etc. to see if they were felons or mental cases. No letter – no business. Show me your papers!! Think of all the problems that would solve.

  37. Nice try…but, NO!…let me think on that again *1/1000th second goes by* um…NO!

    It’s a twisted game, where everything the anti’s want is just a prelude to “something more” until there’s nothing left but repealing the Second Amendment altogether and forcible confiscation from all law-abiding Citizens.

    Sounds like you have made a reasonable attempt to inform and persuade this intellectually and emotionally stunted ideologue…Welcome to the Club of “those who have tried to discuss gun rights with a leftist ideologue and learned there is no point in doing so”. .

  38. As others have said, the “Anti’s” will never go for it.
    I would be willing to agree to a “competency” requirement as well.
    Not training, a simple test. Do you know the basic safety fundamentals and can you hit a man sized target consistently at 15 yards.

    The UBC is agreeable if that is all it is. As others have said it absolutely can not be a registry of any kind.
    This can easily be accomplished by not making any mention of what you are buying part of the check, issuing a “confirmation” number good for a minimum of 30 days (preferably 180 days) and having no limit on what\how many you can buy using the issued confirmation number. If you pass the background check it shouldn’t matter what or how much you are buying.

  39. Generally when i argue/ “discuss” I outline the rules of the debate before doing so. I also ask why they want to have the discussion.

    That being said, I wouldn’t comprise with in the gun laws. I would use trade, environment, punitive laws as the part to compromise on.I would look at reforms that would address multiple issues and leave it general as possible so that the law would affect multiple areas. Generally a poor law in one area is just a reflection of a poor law in another area.

    When I look at the cost of doing back ground checks and compare to the crime rates, I can’t support doing any back ground checks. There is better ways to spend the money to lower crime.

    Cheers

    • You are taking a sober view of the topic.

      Where are the costs of the “BC”? I suggest that we don’t know enough but we ought to know more.

      Most of the costs are probably in compiling the database. This database must be compiled IN ANY CASE whether there is UBC or FFL-BC. This database is used by law-enforcement to find fugitives, identify arrestees’ prior arrests and convictions. To enforce the prohibited-person law. (E.g., suppose the police detain an individual for any reason and discover he possesses a gun. How do they know whether to charge him with felon-in-posession? Send letters to 10,000 courthouses throughout the nation?)
      Now, let’s suppose that the FBI is going to continue to maintain its databases, gun BCs or not. What does it cost to run a BC for an FFL?
      If the BC is processed without human intervention I suspect the cost is negligible; under $1.00. If it requires human intervention then it’s probably pretty expensive. What’s the ratio of non-intervention to intervention cases?
      Let’s suppose it costs a lot to process when there needs to be an intervention. Say $100. OK, then issue that individual an FBI ID card (as is already provided for) so that when he needs another BC (for job, gun, etc.) he is automatically disambiguated. Now, the subsequent costs are negligible.
      We can have this discussion with the public. And, throughout the discussion we have the opportunity to reiterate that this BC business is all security theater with respect to guns. Criminals and crazies will bypass the BC and buy a gun on the black-market. We really only need these databases to find fugitives, retrieve rap sheets, enforce felon-in-posession, and for employment BCs. Gun BCs are just fluff.

  40. I post cited facts, she ignores me.

    Every argument with an anti.

    Does that seem like a reasonable start?

    Not for an anti, they want full disarmament.

  41. Here’s a “compromise” I could support:

    They get a community-based mental health system with drop-in centers that have professionals on hand, attached to housing for the mentally ill homeless, Congressionally funded; we get tax credits for gun safes and annual training, and federal subsidies for establishing shooting ranges in communities without any.

    • Skip the tax credits for training and gun safes. Makes it sound like we want some Federal pork.

      I like your idea. We should be in the forefront in pushing for treatment of mental illness.

      I also like your idea of promoting training: training the militia in gun safety, marksmanship and carry-woman-ship.

      Oh, the Anti’s don’t want training? No gun safety for children? No militia training for boys and girls alike? Don’t they want mental health services either? These are all for the children.

      Why are we PotG in the forefront and the Antis dragging their feet?

  42. The words reasonable and gun control shouldn’t be in the same sentence. I’m reasonable though, so how about we follow the law as laid down by the 2nd amendment? Pay very close attention to last four words. The way I see it is the founders intended the second amendment to be the foundation of the constitution. Its the only amendment that specifically says it shall not be infringed. Why is that? Because they knew that without the means to enforce what was written our rights would be trampled.

  43. I am against any comprise whatsoever on universal background checks and here is why. No. 1 it will not stop criminals and crazies from getting illegal stolen guns or people selling their private guns without going through background checks which will happen. No.2 Background checks will register everything and in the past the ATF has tried to put in a data base on every gun sold and even though they were temporarily stopped it does not mean they will not try it again. In the 1970’s the NRA tried appeased the gun grabbers hoping they would be satisfied and go away and the more you gave them the more they wanted, it was never ending, that is why the NRA today has adopted a no compromise stance. Fight them tooth nail and claw on everything as giving in gives us absolutely nothing in return except even more bans and regulations. This is historical fact.

  44. Here’s your reasonable compromise:

    Pro2A –
    o- No background checks
    o- National open carry
    o- Mandated firearms training in all public schools starting at age 10 and continuing through graduation from high school

    GunGrabber-
    o- Nothing. They have no leg to stand on.

  45. Followup, because I hit send too soon…

    Pro2A –
    o- No GCA, NFA, or any other regulations
    o- Especially no gun free zones, anywhere, for any reason

  46. We had this exercise in 1968. And periodically since. Each time the debate ends with compromise: we concede a handful of rights, short of whatever was demand and the confiscators concede a handful of demands.
    We are playing a fool’s game because we are giving up something tangible, while they only give up the THREAT of total confiscation.They bargain with Monopoly money and we bargain with cold hard cash. Throughout the process they insult us as simple-minded, sexually inadequate, psychotic, and more recently, “sad.” Their face men ridicule us with proclamations that “Nobody wants to take your guns….” implying paranoia, while the background boys assure the supporters that’s exactly what the ultimate goal is.
    The conflict is resolved with assurances from the confiscators that the dispute is resolved and all is well, and see? That didn’t hurt much, did it?
    But they always come back. Always have, always will. “That was then, this is now. Obviously our previous agreement was inadequate because it didn’t end violence.” When they do, we always have less to negotiate away but empty demands are in endless supply; consequently, we are pushed back incrementally.
    Confiscators are fearful, timid sheep and those people will always be among us. This fight is interminable – Google any current British article on “knife violence,” substitute “gun” for “knife” as you read. It could have appeared on today’s Huffington Post.
    Any negotiator knows that when the other party has an unacceptable end point, stop negotiating while you still have something left. Just say “no.” Game on. The smart ones know how soft their polling support is and they don’t want their impotence exposed. A small, and in some cases wealthy, percentage of the public supports confiscation but as Colorado demonstrated, money won’t swing a voter to a position he opposes.
    I don’t propose silence in the face of propaganda, but I support the line in the sand. We have 2A backing us. The essence of their pitch is that if we don’t agree to universal background checks, banning the most popular shooting platform in the land, etc. they’ll take it all? I don’t think so. Money talks, bullshit walks.

  47. As has been said here repeatedly, universal background checks sound like a great idea until all the mechanics are studied. All of the proposed laws require everyone to go through an FFL, who are not available in many big cities or in very rural areas. Here in Chicago, all the gun stores are in the suburbs and few if any are accessible by public transit. Private sales and transfers would not be allowed, even loaning a gun to a buddy to try out or for his personal protection. The problem is with illegal guns not legal ones as most shootings happen with illegally acquired guns.

    • You are absolutely right. UBC sounds good until you dig into the details. So, who do you want to be in the forefront of this debate.

      How about we PotG all sit back with our heels dug in, our figures in some orifice, shouting NO NO NO NO NO . . . . And, let’s have Bloomberg write the UBC bill he wants.

      On the other hand, I suppose we can always count on our Congress-critters – our friends among them – to stand-pat and stop any gun-control bill that is presented to them. Look how well that worked in the Federal AWB!

      Or, we could think about the public pressure for UBC. We could put forth our own proposal that would seem to address the so-called “gun-show loophole” with something that SEEMs to address the issue. However, it would deal intelligently with all the problems. E.g.,
      – why do a BC on a loan? If the lender knows the borrower well enough to expect to get his gun back, why go through the BC? (I left a gun with a family of friends when I was 17; picked up when I was 63. I never worried about getting it back; never worried about them doing anything illegal.)
      – why make someone a criminal for giving/selling a gun to a person who retains his 2A rights? No harm; no foul.
      – are we worried about prohibited-persons getting guns? Oh; well, then, how about we make it illegal to give/sell a prohibited-person a gun, whether knowingly or unknowingly? The transfer is legal if the prohibited-person passes a BC.
      – do voters want transferors to do BCs? Well, then shouldn’t we make it as easy and cheap as possible to encourage them to do so?
      – do voters want paperwork or BCs? How much paperwork? Enough to make it onerous? To make compliance hard? OK, so, we will make our own guns. No paperwork; no problem. The more popular cottage industry becomes the less we will have to deal with the ATF.
      – do voters want to make exercising Constitutional rights onerous; we’ve been there before. We will not comply.
      – do voters want gun-control badly enough to risk a civil war?

  48. Yeah there’s no compromising here people. Compromise is for when you’re working with people who are reasonable. And we’ve long sense seen the death of ‘reasonable compromise’ on guns here.

  49. NO. CRIME IS NOT AFFECTED. BY GUN LAWS. NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT WHATSOEVER. See Eugene Volokh’s Blog in the Washington Post last week.

    THE RKBA IS A. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO GIVE UP (e.g., a UBC system requires Registration and that leads to “the Australian remedy” of Confiscation).

    IN FACT, IT IS TIME TO REASSERT OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE RKBA.

    BTW, don’t be fooled. The number of innocent people murdered with guns in the US annually hovers about 2500 after you subtract all the suicides, criminals killing other criminals (80%), and justifiable homicides. In a Nation of 300,000,000 people, that is very low. IN FACT, IF YOU SUBTRACT THE FEW HIGH VIOLENCE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE 10 LARGEST CITIES, THE AMERICAN HOMICIDE BY GUN rate IS THE SAME AS THAT OF NORWAY.

    America has a SOCIAL PROBLEM with violence. It is not a gun problem and no gun control (see first sentence) can or will ever effect it.

    The OP and his correspondent need to tackle the causes of isolated neighborhood violence. Ask, like an epidemiologist, what is happening there that isn’t happening in safe neighborhoods? Identify that and you can start on a cure. P. S. it is not ownership of guns because these neighborhoods have fewer guns per household that most every other neighborhood in America.

  50. You want 2A people to stop fighting background checks (that don’t do sweet FA for crime rates)? Remove the gun information from the 4473. Antis get their background checks, 2A folks get their privacy and no government databases.

    Or not. I’m willing to fall back on “shall not infringe” as my baseline for compromise. Not what we have now, which is already garbage.

  51. I read all the extent posts. Nobody asked the question; What did she (a gun control advocate on Facebook) say to your proposal?

  52. Did the Founding Fathers “compromise” with the British? For a short time yes, they worked within the system to play nice, to be reasonable, to go along to get along. But there reaches a point at which one side has done all the going, and the other has done all the getting, and when that point comes, it is time to load that powder you have so faithfully been keeping dry.
    There should never have been compromises, but men of honor no longer exist in our government. They have not for well over 100 years. That is why discussing what compromise you could live with is moot. Those that oppose freedom will beg for compromise but give nothing up except YOUR freedoms. The slow erosion of liberty in the name of safety for those too weak or apathetic to ensure their own. Is that the eventuality to which this nation was founded? Perhaps, but not while men who understand what freedom truly means, live and breath within her borders. Enough compromise, enough pandering, no more fear of reprisal. WE MUST STAND UNITED!! For Freedom, for Liberty, for safety and security derived from the strength of personal determination. That has and always will be the ideal for which so many have given their lives. To falter now, to allow fear to drive us to depravity, drive us to restrictions on Freedom for the fleeting dream of safety bought from another; this is the true enemy. Fear must be conquered through knowledge, through planning, through preparation. For only when fear is defeated can Freedom thrive.

    So my call to you is this; Do not allow those among us to wallow in their fear and despair. Educate them, enlighten them to the price of Freedom and the bounty that it holds.

  53. Never argue with drunks or fanatics. Hell just stick it in the air and let your “advocate” have another go. Or let’s just repeal the entire Bill of Rights and then we can all go home. Sheesh.

  54. Said it before, I’ll say it again. If they want a COMPROMISE, then I’m game.

    We’ll give them universal background checks, no private sales, gun registry, waiting periods,mandatory training. Continuation of FFL semi- monopoly on sending guns through the mail.

    We get all guns, explosives, and accessories, deregulated. We get “shall issue” gun permits that allow us carry anywhere and to buy ANYTHING, full autos, shoulder fired guided missiles, crew served weapons, tanks, etc.

    That’s a compromise I’m willing to make. And nothing less.

    • So you want to corrupt the Second Amendment in two directions: allowing it to continue to be infringed, and going beyond what it says for private individuals.

      The militia concept did not have in mind individuals owning crew-served weapons. So unless you mean to have citizen militias formed, which under the militia concept were the proper owners & repositories of crew-served weapons, you’re distorting the meaning.

      Of course, organized citizen militias CAN own such things under the meaning of the Second Amendment. So if you want to organize a modern version of the Minute Men, with officers and command discipline, go for it — but remember that under that model, you’d be subject to call-up by the governor of the state in case of emergency.

      • “The militia concept did not have in mind individuals owning crew-served weapons.”

        Where do you find a basis for this statement in contemporary (18th century) writings? I’m really interested in knowing where support for such a statement can be found. In the absence of some line of reasoning from the text of the 2A or contemporary writings, I don’t see why we (the PotG) ought to be making up a definition of “arms” as used in the 2A from whole cloth.

        I’m perfectly willing to engage in a discussion/debate on the metes and bounds of the definition of “arms” as contemplated by the 2A. I’m not eager to concede any points in the absence of contemporary evidence.

        We know full well that privateers had cannon. We also know that Boston’s ordinance against bringing or keeping loaded arms took care to enumerate all sorts of arms, including mortars. Why were all these types of heavy artillery enumerated? You could argue that they were intended to restrict the crown from bringing these types indoors in military installations. Does that make sense? Far more likely, they were intended to govern the practices of ships chandlers who would keep these items in stock for privateers.

        My recollection (fallible though it might be) of the Whisky Rebellion was that a retired military officer had artillery pieces at his home.

        Given that the “right of the People” runs to the People and not to the militia, I think yours is a hard argument to maintain. Let’s imagine that in the ratification era all artillery – with a single exception – were owned by militia companies. One cannon belonged to some rich individual. Absent any showing of objection to that sole rich individual to his keeping a cannon, its tough to argue that there was any generally-accepted agreement that an individual did not have the right to keep a cannon.

        Now, look at all the rest of the cannon held by local militia companies. Who had title to these cannon? The governing State? Or, the municipality? Or, the militia company? You could ask the same question about the dozens of buckets owned by the local fire company. The answers are apt to be legitimate analogues.

        By what legal notion would militia/fire companies hold a legal title to property? I suspect because they were un-incorporated associations analogous to churches, or tea & poetry societies. How do such un-incorporated associations have the legal capacity of persons to hold title to property; to sue; to be sued? Is it not by virtue of being composed of members who are persons and who – in their capacity as persons – have such rights? If so, then these militia companies owned artillery because of their capacity as un-incorporated associations who enjoy person-hood by being composed of members who are persons.

        • It’s something I came across back when I was basically clueless about the Second Amendment so I dedicated myself to finding and reading 10k pages on the subject, from as far back as possible. I have no idea what sources I used — it was for my personal education, with no thought I might want to pass it on (idiot, me).

          This guy describes the matter fairly well, though without giving sources:

          http://m14forum.com/gun-rights/107175-18th-century-gun-control.html#post775010

        • Artillery pieces at a home were probably one of two types, both meant to be used to defend a wall against mobile artillery. While they took more than one person to operate (quickly, anyway), they were generally accepted as legitimate for people with large pieces of property, whether estate or business, as they were also useful for discouraging mobs (IIRC the calibers began at around .67 and went upwards to maybe 1.5, so one shot could go through multiple human targets and even disable a wagon engaged in carrying off stolen property).

          Hunting around for info on that I came across the same writer again:

          http://m14forum.com/gun-rights/107175-18th-century-gun-control-4.html#post776486

          From that article it seems to have been more custom, occasionally enforced by law, that crew weapons were the territory of the militia, with the exception for people with property sufficiently large (or of sufficient value) to justify more than personal weapons (i.e. “the weapons of the common soldier”). But then the whole militia tradition/concept was cultural anyway and only secondarily enshrined in law (which is why the people of Massachusetts, back when they were members of the phyllum Chordata, could eject officers with royal commissions from the militia and replace them: the militia inherently belongs to the people, who may adjust it at need).

          To draw a line between “the people” and “the militia” seems to me to do violence to the militia concept at its root: as was said in different ways, the people are the militia, and the militia are the people. The few exceptions were those recognized as unfit to bear arms, and those were not many (I wouldn’t say the same today).

          The militia as a corporate entity back then was no big deal; today it would require all the incorporation crap, though an organized militia (somewhere between us unorganized masses and the National Guard) would qualify as a not-for-profit entity, and thus not have to necessarily be a corporation under law (it is sufficient for certain classifications to be associations). But that does not mean that the right to have a crew-served weapon is an individual right; some rights emerge in common, as a community, i.e. associated individuals, rather than directly from being individuals.

          I also remember encountering repeated assertions that “arms”, in the terms “to keep arms” and “to bear arms”, in general referred to “the arms of the common soldier”. “Keeping” arms referred to all civilian use, not just storage; to wear an arm on one’s person came under “keeping” it (so personal self-defense comes under “keeping” arms). “Bearing” arms tended to refer almost exclusively to formal service in one aspect or another of the militia, everything from actually being engaged in a war to standing guard over prisoners; the exception is that when a known threat exists, anyone taking up arms for countering that threat would be “bearing arms” (e.g. known armed outlaws in the vicinity, or an intruder actually on one’s premises). The two are related in that “keeping arms” referred to the arms one would expect to have when “bearing arms” as a private soldier either in a formal military or in an active militia. (Of interest is that “bearing arms” does not seem to cover hunting; I have to wonder if it extended to defending against wild animals, though.)

          I found this, which matches my memory fairly well:

          http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
          (scroll down to “To Bear Arms” to compare to the above)

          There I bumped into something I’ve never paid much attention to, namely that only arms borne by the common solider, i.e. individual arms, were called arms at all; others weapons were allegedly called “ordinance”. That’s an avenue I’d like to pursue when I have time.

  55. I would accept this deal but I doubt it actually would move forward. I have lived in may-issue blue states most of my life, so for me mandatory background checks etc are already normal and it would be real progress to be able to get a carry permit in my home state. (I went through the process for a nonresident permit in a shall-issue state nearby, so I can carry there, but home state carry would be more useful.)

  56. UBCs further absolutely no public good, whatsoever.

    How about this for a compromise: shall not be infringed, and if you want to challenge it, start the process to amend the constitution.

  57. That picture is priceless. If we are going to negotiate let’s start with the bare bones 2nd Amendment and go from there. We already gave away the right to own machine guns, SBR’s etc. unless we pay the tax and get “permission”. So lets get rid of that to start with so we can start from scratch. Also get rid of the background check system and renegotiate that as well. What I am getting at is that we have already given up more than we should have so why give up more without getting something back before we begin ?

  58. How about this instead? All gun control laws are hereby repealed. Our compromise will be to not require you to buy and carry your own weapon. (After all the precedent is set, if Obamacare can require the purchase of health insurance or face penalties we could pass a law requiring all able citizens to buy and carry a firearm or face penalties. It’s just another type of insurance after all…)

  59. Everyone should own a minimum of ten guns .
    1. A good rim fire , a 10/22 , Savage or Remington SA preferably .
    2. A well made bolt rifle with iron sights in a 2.23/5.56 .
    3. A durable AR in either 5.56 or 7.62
    4. A heavy bbl. higher caliber , minimum 308 and preferably 30.06 .
    5. A 20 or 12 gauge shotgun .
    6. A rim fire revolver , Single Six is a good value .
    7. A small caliber pistol , 9mm is fine .
    8. A large caliber pistol , 40 minimum .
    9. A black powder weapon , 50 caliber is good .
    10. An air gun , break barrel 22 caliber preferred by yours truly .
    A minimum of 2000 rounds of ammo for each , not counting your practice stuff .
    AT least 3 good scopes and accessories .

  60. Boy, have I been through this wringer before, not only with the gat-snatchers, but with the ignorant Redskins Name-Changers.

    Here’s what I’ve learned so far, and I do not believe there’s anything else to learn about them: you can back up your position with all the facts, proof and logic in the world, and when you’re done – if they haven’t interrupted you – they will repeat the same argument you just destroyed, word for word.

    It’s all they know. All they have is their argument, unsupported by any facts or truth. All they are doing is repeating someone else’s talking points anyway.

    Your facts and logic mean nothing to them; their belief system is based in fear and wishful thinking. Some of them are actually quite insincere – they are just purveyors of lies and division. Talking to them logically is a fool’s errand, and frankly it’s more satisfying to ridicule and insult them!

    • I agree with you. That said, what is our strategy?

      1 – Articulate a position – e.g., repeal all gun laws – and threaten the Antis that we will hold our breath until our States turn blue? Meanwhile, we cheerfully carry-on with the status quo?
      2 – Argue with the Antis?
      3 – Target Congress-critters with any political threat we see will intimidate them?
      4 – Target State legislators with any political threat we see will intimidate them?
      5 – Promote our message with voters who are not deeply invested in gun-control?
      6 – Sucker our opponents into a debate about legislation that will embarrass them?
      7 – something else?

      Most of the commentary I see here on TTAGs seems to fall squarely into the 1st category. I’m sure it’s extremely self-satisfying. I retreated from NJ and I’m here in PA waiting for my State to turn blue. How’s this working out for Y’all? Is this the best we can muster? Clearly, if we aren’t more clever than to be able to think past #1, then we will remain vulnerable.

      #2 – Arguing with the Antis is a pure waste of time. Overestimating their numbers is defeat-ism.

      #3 – Targeting Congress-critters doesn’t seem to have been tried much; certainly not discussed. It seems as though most of the voters in most States are happy to return their 2 Senators and 1 Congressman (in each District) back to Washington. All that is expected of him is to bring-back pork to our own State/District.

      #4 – Targeting State legislators seems to have worked; we have 40 Right-to-Carry States. Why does grass-roots action work in State capitals but not in those SAME States’ elections for Federal legislators?

      #5 – The voters – these seem to be at the heart of the matter. Do we need to convince them to buy a gun? Join the NRA? I don’t think so. Instead, it is sufficient to convince them that gun-ownership and gun-carrying is NO threat to them; and, that the NRA is the FORCE that can’t be reckoned with successfully. Might as well concentrate on getting free-stuff from the government because the government isn’t going to take-away the guns.

      #6 – There is some cleverness to be exercised here. Can we play the game? Or, are we PotG too dim-witted to figure out how to play the game? Perhaps so. Perhaps among the 80 million of us there are NOT 2 good ideas to rub together; see #1 – at least it’s self-satisfying.

      #7 – What have I missed? I begin with the presupposition that I’m not the cleverest fellow in the forum. What other ways are there in playing the game?

  61. How about this?

    Fuck you and fuck anyone who would restrict, control or otherwise infringe on my fundamental unalienable individual Liberty, which is merely enumerated in Amendment II and wherein Amendment II places an absolute prohibition on government from doing so..

    I will not discuss it, I will not debate it and I will not accept or contenence any laws, rules, regulations, prohibitions or other government infringements on my Liberty to keep and bear the arms of my choosing.

    You can pass what ‘laws’ you want, but I will disobey them and flatly will not comply.

    If I commit an actual ‘bad-act’, e.g. cause actual harm to the Life, the Liberty or the Property of someone else, whether with a gun of not with a gun, then that is the only just and proper point for government to have a role and to intercede to punish or sanction me for that specific ‘bad-act’.

    So, take your ‘reasonable’ horseshit and your masked attempts at ‘dialogue’ and shove them directly up your saggy-ass. I ain’t having any of it and I WILL NOT COMPLY.

    If you collectivist puke-fucks want to precipitate a civil war, then you just keep on keeping on and that is what you will end up with.

    Out.

  62. In illinois we recently became saddled with a law requiring BC for private sales. Since we’re already tracked via FOID cards, it really is just a verification that the FOID has not been revoked. There are two good points to the system. 1. I get to verify the person I’m selling to is not someone I would not want to sell to (assuming I ever sold anything!) 2. There is no reference in the check as to what is changing hands, I can buy someone’s entire collection and it is only run once.

    • That’s the only way it would be acceptable: If it does not include the SN# of the transferred firearms and is a simple check: Eligible or prohibited.

    • You are thinking in a clever way. I agree with you.

      Bear in mind that you live in an FOID State. This is somewhat unusual; most States have no notion of any FOID.

      Most of the Right-to-Carry States are Shall-Issue; a system which I think serves our present purposes. (I will be happy to see Constitutional Carry gradually superseded Shall-Issue.) The problem with extending your idea to more States is that it pre-supposes either FOID or widespread voluntary acquisition of CWPs. We might get there; but I don’t think so. I think it’s going to be hard to sell PotG in most of the States on the idea that we should all get CWPs (or FOIDs) just so we can adopt the Illinois system of private sales after a phone-call to verify the validity of the buyer’s FOID.

      If we are going to flirt with some sort of BC on private sales I think we ought to emphasize opening access to NICS far beyond the FFLs. The important tactic here is to get the BC separated in concept from the 4473 form.

      The Antis want to herd us into the FFL’s sales floor where – of course – we will have to fill out a 4473 form. It’s only reasonable to do so! Nothing is more obvious!! Our great threat is not so much the BC; rather, it’s the 4473 form which becomes a proto-national-registration system.

      The voters (who talk to pollsters) want BCs, not necessarily paperwork. If private-sale BCs are going to work it makes sense to make BCs widely available. We want compliance? Let’s make compliance as easy as possible!

      Oh, you say that Bloomberg won’t accept BCs unless they are at an FFL and have a 4473 form? Too bad he doesn’t get his way. Too bad there was no new BC law because Bloomberg said No!

  63. How about this for universal background checks? Instead of going thru the check every time you buy a gun, they just put a Y or N on your DL indicating whether or not you’re a prohibited person? No need for a gun registry to enforce it. It’s already illegal for a private seller to sell to someone he believes to be a prohibited person (as far as I understand the laws). My Texas CHL basically does the same thing – I’m pre-checked so I don’t have to wait as long when I pick up a gun from the store.

  64. I don’t understand why Dan is proposing any type of compromise. It’s all there in the Constitution. Compromising with an anti is like owning a deadly snake. You think you are developing a relationship. It wants to kill you with extreme prejudice.
    Find a nice girl Dan. One you can take home to Mom and show off to your friends.

  65. Liberals and anti-gunners (and islamic fascists) have no honor and their word means nothing. It is all about the ends justifying the means.
    Look at the Income Tax. It originally was ” for taxing just the ultra rich” .. as in starting at 1% for people who made over what would be the equivalent of $460k in today’s dollars up to 7% for people making the equivalent of over $11m in today’s dollars.
    I pay a rate well almost 4 times that (25%) of what the people who made the equivalent of $11m back in 1913 (when it started) and I know I’m not making anywhere near $11m annually.

    Do not trust them. We need to “dis-empower” them with facts that prove how wrong their ideas and beliefs are, day after day, vigilant to their constant, termite-like, gnawing at our freedoms.

    We need better P.R. mechanisms, not compromise.

  66. I could totally deal with that provided all state gun laws are repealed and all gun laws are required to be federally legislated. If we’re to have consistency, then let’s have some. Guns were enumerated as a right of the people to the feds so the states have no authority to have their own idiot laws anyway.

    • Not quite: they just can’t have laws that are more restrictive. They could match the federal laws (silly, but legit), they could subsidize gun safes (a sensible idea), they could give a coupon for $300 to everyone on their 21st b-day for getting a handgun, they could require employers to give hunters up to three paid days for hunting, they could even decree an “Open Carry Day” where everyone within a sidearm gets to ride public transportation for free.

    • Strategically, this is NOT a good idea.

      From a theoretical viewpoint, what you say makes a lot of sense. The absolutists would argue that the 2A admits of ZERO gun laws; and, if this position held, we would be happy if we settled on ZERO Federal laws and ZERO State laws. Let’s imagine that there are some not-quite-absolutists. They would agree to a dozen gun laws. OK, so, let these dozen laws be at the Federal level and none at the State level. Might be better.

      Until, Congress adopted the 13’th and 14’th and 15’th law.

      As long as there is at least a little remaining respect for our system of “federalism”, we can argue that the regulation of domestic behavior is primarily in the hands of the States’ legislatures. Congress ought to confine its attention to inter-State and inter-national activities.

      The down-side is, of course, that we live under a plethora of State laws ranging from VT to NJ. Ugly; especially for those of us who travel from Free States (e.g., PA) to Slave States (e.g., NJ). The positive side of this is that Bloomberg needs to fight us State-by-State.

      Let Bloomberg take Washington; then Oregon; then Nevada and so forth. Each State battle is a costly undertaking. We all watch from the comfort of the sidelines. Eventually, enough of us get motivated to defend our own turf. Bloomberg’s task becomes increasingly expensive as he works through the soft underbelly and needs to confront the gristle.

      When the last State falls – e.g., Wyoming – then we the PotG will have only ourselves to blame. We didn’t rise up for Washington State; nor for Oregon; nor for Nevada; nor for . . . .

  67. If a background check wasn’t stealth registration, why do they need the serial number of your gun? They could reduce the load on NICS by checking you rather than your gun. Once you qualify yourself as a sane, rational, non felon, non liberal, you would be given a Firearm Owners ID card. This card would give you the right to own any gun you want, buy any gun you want and carry anywhere. If you do something to disqualify yourself, your card would be taken away. It’s stupid to check you out every time you buy a gun.

  68. Compromise requires both sides to give up something. When anti-gunners claim we’re unwilling to compromise, what, exactly, are THEY giving up in the deal? Could it be they’re giving gun owners the ability to still buy guns? Or that they are ALLOWING us to keep what we have(for now)?
    They never say what they are giving up when they talk of compromise, and they never will, either. Just like when they talk about “common sense” restrictions and such.

  69. If the background check is query-only without a transaction record, it would be a good starting point. I doubt the hoplophobes would ever agree though, because while this may be in line with their public agenda it is a major loss to their actual agenda of taking guns from civilians.

    • Raul said:
      “If the background check is query-only without a transaction record, it would be a good starting point.”

      Given what we know of the duplicity of the NSA and other government agencies on the subject of privacy of communications and tracking of citizens, this is *NOT* a reasonable stance. It cannot be enforced, or inspected for compliance in any reasonable manner.

      Kurt

  70. I have the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit. I was USAF military police honorably discharged.
    No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *