repeal of the Hughes Amendment and re-opening the NFA registry to new weapons would seem to be appropriate.

UBCs without anything in exchange since I find them relatively harmless. Oh, and almost completely ineffectual with respect to mass shootings, though they might do something to cut down on keeping firearms out of the hands of felons.

As for what I'd like to see in return, nationwide reciprocity wouldn't be a bad thing, nor would agreement to forego any attempt at a national registry.

If you want to actually cut down on accidental injuries and deaths, an even better exchange would be CC reciprocity with mandatory training -- too many people own a firearm but don't understand basic firearm safety.

Lets not forget, what we're referring to, is federal government intrusion into private intrastate person to person sales of private property, something which it was never granted explicit authority to do. That's a big intrusion, and should come at a hefty price, with rock solid guarantee of the absolute prohibition of any sort of registration.

They shouldn't happen for free.

1. Mandatory gun safety training in high school.

2. nationwide CCW reciprocity

3. Nfa register re-opened, with a provision that if it gets closed again, the background check law sunsets immediately.

4. Tax stamp price of NFA items reduced to 25 bucks.

5. 10 year federal moratorium on any new gun control.


Note, 2 3 and 4 effect me in no way. I'm not an nfa owner, nor a concealed carrier. The point is, those things I listed, combined, are in my view, about equal to the magnitude of crossing the line into intrastate private property sales. If universal background checks are going to be enacted into law, require they be enacted into law with an equitable return in other areas.

"Compromise" as the other side of the issue used to say, but no longer seems interested in.

would be felony prison time and lifetime debarment from government service for any official who uses or assists in using UBC to compile a registry of lawful owners. I'd also like to see a cessation of all attempts to restrict rifle aesthetics/ergonomics or mandate silly magazine capacity restrictions, given that all rifles combined kill fewer people than bicycles. Those things might help restore some of the trust that has been broken, stomped, and ground in the dirt by Bloomberg's sockpuppets over the past few years.

...I'd like to see felony prison time and lifetime debarment from ever receiving any government monies, benefits or pensions or from profiting in any form from any further publications, appearances or related activities during, concerning or incident to any past government service or subsequent imprisonment or other sentence.

Freedom isn't free and those that seek to deny it should pay the dearest cost.

The truth is, the gun control side, simply does not want to "compromise", they want to "dictate"..

So, they should be treated accordingly. Since they have went off the deep end, over the last few years, they are not even worthy of debate. Much less sitting at the table to have an adult conversation with. When the current crop of "over the top" B.S. passes, we will see. Until then, we simply have nothing to talk about.

Not a single reply from the pro-control side.

We're supposed to keep giving up bits and pieces of our rights, so they can feel better, out of respect for their sheer moral superiority.

We had a recent thread where it became apparent after just a few posts that "compromise" is not what they want. "Just shut up and roll over", seemed to be the overwhelming point of view.

When quizzed about why we should give them anything more in the way of gun control, the responses, to paraphrase, were; "Why should we have to give up anything for more gun control?" and "Well, just because we're smarter and morally superior than all of you gun humpers".

For a few we even had to define what a compromise was and they still thought we should just give in.

That thread was the best argument I've seen for just ignoring the control side and rolling right over them politically when necessary.

They have no intention of discussing "compromise" in good faith or leaving well enough alone if they do get some traction, "Its a good start" comes to mind.

...for a pro-control LEADER. Not some statistics spouting "I'm better than you" gumby that announces things like:
- magazine limits
- ban CCW
- register all guns, knives, brass knuckles, baseball bats and boy scouts who know how to start a fire
- "you can have a musket"
- if you want a gun, join the national guard
- your gun is more likely to hurt you than an assailant

I'm looking for a true leader. A respectable individual who has insight and can tell the difference between a problem and slogan.

I believe one thing he will do is burst the 'assault weapon' bubble for the meaningless distraction it is.

Or maybe the one that demands all guns be confiscated immediately, damn the constitution!

Or possibly the one that strings together the most insults in a single post, entries must include at least one direct penis reference.

That's about the state of discussion these days.

...as I work as a systems/software engineer this demonstrates I have a high tolerance for boredom.

Two of the "big" gun control supporters on DU do nothing but cut and paste other people ideas and writing.

Another only posts other people's cartoons.

I don't think there's an original idea or thought in the bunch.

Obama calls for states to lead on gun control as Congress still fails to act:
< http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/03/obama-san-bernardino-shooting-gun-control-state-legislatures >

Maybe the ideas about "...tighter gun controls..." but moving to encourage states to take a role is a basic acknowledgement of the lack of federal jurisdiction.

Organizing, circulating petitions, showing up at town halls and such, meeting face to face with legislators and their staff.

We just went through it for Concealed Carry, even after the court ruling there was still a ton of work to do to shape the "Shall Issue" law.

There were hundreds of us working the legislature and only 1 or 2 lobbyists from Brady and Bloomberg, no grass roots people from the control side. I saw how "top down" they were first hand. We would have a few people sitting outside legislator's offices and a guy in a New York suit would be trying to schedule a "special phone call from Mayor Bloomberg" to talk about gun control.

But doing anything in the "real world" seems to be a challenge for our control minded friends.

Thy are big supporters of anything it takes ... for somebody else to pay for and do.

"Sure I believe in stronger gun control!"

"Write a check?"

"Go to an organizing meeting?"

"Get off the couch?"

"Use my vacation days to go to the state capitol?"

"You know I'd really like to, but my knee is acting up."

So far their commitment level for the vast majority of them is "pout rage" level 10

And the best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior!

1998 is the last time you could come up with? Here is your groups stance on this topic. Not what I call a pro-NICS stance.



Gun control supporters initially opposed NICS. However, once they recognized that NICS was inevitable, they began advocating steps aimed at incrementally transforming it into a national registry of guns. At first, they wanted background checks required on all private (i.e., non-licensee) sales, trades and gifts of handguns. Then they wanted background checks on private transfers of all firearms at gun shows. Now, they demand background checks on all private transfers of all firearms, regardless of location, and they want the FBI to retain, for an indefinite period, records on people who pass NICS checks to acquire firearms.

NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.

Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years.

You show an example where the NRA "compromised" on an issue.

I could have also cited the compromises they worked into the Illinois concealed carry laws about restricted spaces, training requirements, qualification requirements.

But you didn't put a time limit on examples. So I could also have used FOPA or others I guess.

So, show us all examples of the recent "compromises" gun control has made legislatively?

That's the problem with the gun control movement, a lot of mouth, not too bright or able to learn from their mistakes.

That's why they've gone over 20 years with nothing to show for it.

Just keep pissing and moaning about the evil/wicked NRA "Buying Congress" as an excuse, ignore the fact that racist PoS Bloomberg spent $50 million for gun control last year and keep doing the same thing over and over with the only result a bunch of posters trying to out do each other with their Pout Rage.

That's why most of us just ignore control posts now.

You started a thread with a reasonable question. You got polite answers and now it's turning into the usual insult fest.

Why bother even trying to talk reasonably.

You guys are doing so really "well" legislatively and judicially, without the help of us "Gun Humping, Penile Compensating, Ammosexuals".

Just get that 90% of people that agree with you to show and vote for gun control candidates, no problem.

Ted Nugent insults Obama weekly and no real organization would keep him on the board.

You are insane if you think the NRA is anything but a wing of the GOP.

The NRA would agree to NOTHING anti-gun people propose. People like you would throw a fit if they did.

But, if you and your control minded buddies want to keep using them as your excuse for a steady stream of political and judicial losses for the last 20 years, be my guest. That brick wall must leave a hell of a flat spot after all that time.

That says that either they are pretty powerful and smart or gun control and its supporter are piss poor weak.

Doesn't matter if they are a wing of the GOP, the GOP still controls both houses of Congress, so if you want anything done on gun control you have to find a way to compromise. And you don't get people to compromise by calling them names all the time.

Buh bye.

really think the NRA is a legit group? Ted Nugent on their board. Right Wing nut all of them.

Do away with the stupid engravings that have to be done on receivers of SBRs, having to set up trusts, form signed by a LEO and shit like that. If you can pass the background check to own a firearm and submit a designated form, $10 fee and fingerprints one time, you get a federal license to purchase suppressors and receivers for SBRs through a licensed FFL. Normal background checks could apply when you pick it up at the FFL. I'm fine with them being registered if they want to waste the money gathering and keeping up with all the data.

Let the states handle CCW. A national CCW law is likely to be too limiting, IMO. NY would never allow the carry laws we have here in TN and I don't want to be limited to what they would allow. We've got it good here and I don't want it ruined by a prohibitionist state that I would never bother to visit in the first place.

I didn't say the national CCW permit would replace any state issued permit. I was just hoping that by having all the states accept a federal permit, those that wanted an "any state" permit would have an option. Folks in those states that have looser laws or no requirements for CC are fine, they wouldn't change. I guess what I'm suggesting isn't really reciprocity since the permit would be federal.