Them: We want to take away assault rifles.Because as long as the gun control people say "we're going to take", my side says "hell no". And we have enough in Congress to make "hell, no" stand. A toddler or two gets eaten by some alligators and the media isn't paying attention anymore to you guys.
Us: What are you going to give us in return?
Them: Nothing.
Us: Go fuck yourselves.
It doesn't have to be that way. But the gun control side has to commit to negotiating, and not on the Soviet model of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is up for grabs".
It's happened before. Thirty years ago, when my side wanted to fix issues that arose from the Gun Control act of 1968, the pro-gun control side agreed, if my side would agree to a ban on registering new machine guns. At the time, new machine guns could be registered to civilians. That bothered the gun-control crowd, because reasons.*
A deal was reached. Both sides got something out of the deal. Both sides could claim victory. Because that's how negotiation works.
Currently, I have the legal right to go to the local gun store and buy any semi-automatic that I want and enough magazines to go with it in an amount that would give Ted Nugent a stiffy. If you want me to agree to give up that right, what are you prepared to offer in return?
If the answer is still "nothing", then "go fuck yourself" is still my reply.
________________________________________
* The use of registered machine guns in crimes was and is exceedingly rare.
19 comments:
Hey, you already won. Stop complaining.
As a gun-owner, what do you as not have right now that you want/need? That could be provided by people you disagree with?
Question, what are you asking for? The people you are yelling about have no idea what your concerns are, just as you have little idea of theirs (both sides are equally ignorant of the others). So, what are you asking for in exchange for them getting something. There's always the possibility of an agreement if both sides find areas they can work on, but for now one side is convinced that all of the other side wants to take all guns away and the other side is convinced that the one side wants nuclear weapons and tanks for all.
The terrorist watchlist idea is born of no better option, give them an option. You want silencers unrestricted, make an offer in exchange. I suspect that 10% are take all guns and 10% are give me a chain gun and a tank, 80% are sick of the killings but don't have any real idea what would work and can't stomach either of the extremes.
If some people want carry in bars and other places, fine....but in exchange let's make it illegal to carry a firearm with a BAC over 0.02 (the limit at which I'm considered unable to work, in addition to the 8 hour bottle-to-throttle rule). Also increase/implement penalties for negligent discharge or unjustified brandishment of a firearm. Perhaps offer qualified immunity to a Good Samaritan using their weapon, as long as the use was reasonable and justified by a review (maybe a mixed professional/judicial panel).
Until each side can clearly explain their interest, the other side must presume the worst. This is an ideal situation for interest based negotiations.
1. Restore silencers to the status that they had prior to the `34 Act (unrestricted, unregulated).
2. Nationwide CCW reciprocity.
3. Permit civilian acquisition of new machine guns to Title III.
For that, I would accept that newly manufactured "assault rifles" would become Title III weapons (just like machine guns).
Use of a firearm (including imitations or threats ["I have a gun"]) in the commission of a felony becomes an automatic no-bail Federal crime with a ten-year minimum sentence. I read the paper for the nearest large city and it is insanely stupid how many men (and it's almost always men) are arrested for homicide are out on bail or probation for crimes where they used firearms.
Agree with all of your items there!
See, now we have some ideas...that both sides would have kittens about., that's a good sign. We'd have to find a way to make the Title III checks secure enough (they should already be, but I haven't seen any data on that and the use of weapons from licensees), and that could tie into a proper complete instant background check system that has a reasonable delay for people with questions (3-7 days?) in their background.
Domestic violence would be another issue. Surrender of weapons if charged is a silppery slope, but sometching has to be done...but what protects both sides well. Also, some way to properly hold people liable for their handling and storage failures, there are no gun accidents, just negligence.
The terror/ no fly lists can't be used, because errors are unfixable unless you are a US Congressman or an eight year old (and it's maybe for the kid).
CCW reciprocity does me no good, because although it is supposedly legal, in practice I can't get one.
What did we get in return for the '34, '68, "Brady bill", and "assault weapon" (still in place in Cali) laws?
The gun controllers want a total ban, but most are afraid to say that. I have heard from noone who wants nuclear weapons and/ or tanks. So stop with the false equivalencies.
I'm somewhat confused about the title III part, as I know some folks up north who own some heavy weaponry (cannons and an M-60) that they can only use at one 1,000 yard range outside of Garberville, but it's been a while and things may be different for them now.
I know you haven't got any of your reasonable sounding asks yet, but may I put in an ask of my own, not contingent on any political circumstance? I would like to get some funding for a stand-by trauma team at Highland hospital. Highland is a teaching hospital, and their trauma team is as good at saving the lives of gunshot victims as anywhere I have ever heard of. The stand-by team could not just save more lives in Oakland, but teach their skills to doctors and nurses who would then move on to other hospitals and boost the survival rates of gunshot victims in areas without such world-class trauma teams.
Maybe improve the situation without having to fight over gun regulations that we all know won't work that well in the first place? Just a thought.
-Doug in Oakland
3383, there is no false equivalence, I'm remarking on what the 10% who want all guns gone think. Read carefully what I posted, I'm a gun owner who is not suggesting either side. So you'd like a must-issue on CCW, to go with reciprocity, again, that's the discussion, both sides put out interests and seek to find ways to address the concerns of both?
Why is this important? Because, demographically, gun owners appear to be in decline. The increasing preponderance of less than gun favorable voters, often in urban areas, risks a steady erosion of rights over time. If the 80% in the middle becomes 70 or 60%, the time for negotiations are likely over, and the slide toward the loss of the 2nd Amendment will have begun, just my $0.02.
To own a Title III weapon, you have to apply to the ATF with fingerprints. If I remember correctly, the weapon has to be in your custody or control at all times. Not complying is a felony. Because they don't make fully-automatic weapons for non-cop/military use anymore, the prices are from "nice Colt Python" level to "you could get a good car for that much".
If you asked a real gun-control advocate (let's pick Igor Volsky), the exchange would be more like,
Us: What are you going to give us in return?
Them: We'll cut the rate of domestic-violence homicides by 46%; the rate of suicide in half.
And I bet lots of people would jump on board immediately with your last item. Things are changing. I think negotiation is possible.
Subject all regulatory, investigative, and Law Enforcement agencies to the same firearms restrictions as civilians.
I'm a far-Left wing nutbag, so I responded internally to some of your suggestions with massive internal twitching. Fortunately, there is a part of my brain that I call The Adult, which seems to function pretty well regardless of inner twitching. So after I first read your list, I began twitching, but after I read it through a couple of times, I realized it's a pretty good starting point. You get some but not all of what you want, and we on the Left get some but not all of what we want. I can be happy with that. And I didn't know about this Title III thing so I'm gonna study up on that for a while.
Comrade,
Silencers? OK. I'm well aware they don't work like in the movies.
Concealed carry is bullshit. If you need your murder toy to feel safe the rest of us should know that about you.
New machine guns to class 3? OK. But all assault weapons, new and existing, need to be class 3. And all owners will go through the process.
But if Trump blows the election badly enough we won't need your permission to do any damn thing we like. So keep up the posturing. And yes, I'm a gun owner.
OK, now I think I understand the title III thing a little better. And all of the sudden some things the friend I mentioned used to say make some more sense, and are in fact kind of hilarious. He came from a family full of master machinists who were all competition shooters, and because they made some of their own firearms (especially the cannons) from scratch, they had to have quarterly inspections by the ATF up at their house at the end of Pigeon Point Road. He used to joke that their ATF paperwork was kept in bound volumes which were stored in the scoop of a giant powder scale in the living room, with the proper weight to balance and let the ATF guys know what they thought about the volume of paperwork and expense required. I always admired their dedication, and apparently they won their matches a lot.
-Doug in Oakland
Lawrence, you, sir, are what we call a "Fudd".
"Murder toy"-- Take your priceless Purdy and cram it.
The term for Lawrence is: "I'm a gun owner butt...". In other words he's an ass.
Comrade is right - negotiations are two way.
A reasonable list of starting positions is good, and I like this list.
Full disclosure: I am one of those folks that have one or two guns and can hit what I shoot at for ranges that matter. I do have acknowledged anger issues and shouldn't carry a gun, so I keep mine stored safely.
I see some gun owners with obvious ticks and anti-social tendencies and these make me nervous about how easy it is to obtain high-capacity firearms. You have to be this tall and have cash, pretty much.
My ask is to raise the bar ever so slightly, slightly. I'm open to any option. I don't imagine a systematic collection/seizure, but I could support a discontinuation of certain classes of high capacity firearm magazines, make rifles long so they can't fold and hide, etc.
Perhaps require a better chain of custody, so liability for gun violence can be placed on the last yes registered seller (in absence of credible theft reported).
Open for any options or arguments.
For the funds that maybe shot a duck and likely missed twice. We aren't
talking hunting or shooting clays. But yes your shotty might be at risk if
its a pump gun and you might be inconvenienced if its only allowed in your
home only. Yes the gun grabbers really don't want you to have your Purdy
after all its a gun. As to murder toy. One last thing for you, if a
discussion is desired why bring a gas can and a lit road flare?
High capacity firearms or magazines, seriously? Two words RAT HOLE!
One bullet is more than enough. For that crowd, A gallon of gas is likely
to do as much and more. We have many horrific club fires to back that up.
Machine guns are not the issue and had nothing to do with Orlando or many other
mass killings. For that fact rifles are the low order of incidence and hard to conceal. I'd add at the current market price for machine guns for those that have the needed paper put them in the class of expensive to acquire and use.
The No Fly list is a start _if_ due course were even existent. Its a one way
list your on maybe/often enough by error. Getting off is a whole other thing.
To those that advocate it without repair, would you care if your name appears
on it? If so why? Oh, how inconvenient, report back on what it took to get
off if you did or maybe did not. Fix it and maybe no fly no gun, maybe no
car too, can't have a blacklisted person transporting gas or other dangerous
things. Since we have a black list who else can we put on it, humm? Consider
the implications.
We have a free society, that means we also are personally responsible for both
our safety and the person next to us. That also means life has some risk.
The upside is because we are free our would be invaders live in fear. Save
for those pockets of safety for them to act unmolested. Gun Free zones are
neither responsible nor safe.
Eck!
Post a Comment