[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

So you think the FOID cards which is what you are suggesting, have reduced crime in Illinois and kept the guns out of the hand of prohibited people? You are a Brady clone. You don't care about doing anything to reduce crime or prevent the wrong people from getting the firearms. You admit as much in with your 3%-5% statistic. Did you pull that number out of thin air or can you offer a cite for that? I think we both know the answer to that.

ETA:"Get something worth more" in return? What is worth your rights being taken away and you helping them being taken away?

Not sure about the FOID card - never seen one - never had one. Once you get this card can you buy all the additional guns you want without any additional background check?

Does it allow you to buy guns from out of state gun dealers and have the gun shipped directly to your home?


I do know - I have had numerous background checks in the last 10 years - I am pretty sure I will have many more over the next 10 years because I like new guns.

So from my perspective - the restriction imposed by background checks is already in full force.

So from MY VIEW the added burden of showing my CHL to a guy I just met at a gun show - so I can buy the gun he has for sale is a really small price to pay.

I did pull the 5% & 3% numbers out of my butt - I wasn't trying to mislead you - I said MAYBE 5% or 3%. These are small reductions. But still reductions. You are not saying the impact is 0 are you?

Could be 1% or 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1% I don't care - like I said - that is beside the point.

The anti gun members of congress must think this is worth something - and it is worth something to me to shut them up about the "gun show loop hole" and of course as long as I get SOMETHING else worth more in return.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Our rights have been disappearing because we've been negotiating them away.

By doing nothing proactive and just hiding out until some school gets shot up - then we all work to minimize the damage. Then go back in hiding until the next round of take aways.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

By doing nothing proactive and just hiding out until some school gets shot up - then we all work to minimize the damage. Then go back in hiding until the next round of take aways.

Not at all. "We" have been working to get shall issue CCW passed in many states, for instance. That may well be the reason we haven't seen a Newtown event in GA.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Not at all. "We" have been working to get shall issue CCW passed in many states, for instance. That may well be the reason we haven't seen a Newtown event in GA.

I have to agree - on a state level we seem to do good.

It is at the national level where things are more difficult.

I was thinking more about federal legislation.

[FloorPoor]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

The problem is that the law gives LE just another excuse to harm innocent people under color of law. I have been a victim of this. It isn't fun. Cops are going to enthusiastically abuse their power because they know what they can get away with, and they LOVE to harm gun owners, especially the law abiding kind.

I know of at least local 2 LEO's who will stand with the people if this stuff gets too crazy.




They're not ALL dicks.

[dogmower]

i tend to agree with z71bill. laws can be changed, and can add to our freedoms - just look at the expanded concealed carry laws in some states. i think we need to be clear up front, however, on what is and what is not negotiable. UBC, ok. Registration, no, and put some teeth in it. i personally would love to see the 86 ban on new full autos go away. i would lose a ton of money, but i don't care.

[racerford]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

If this is correct then why is this not being demanded now?

If the person that has possession of a gun has a legal right to have a gun - leave them alone.

If they are a criminal then prosecute them

Same as now.

If a felon is in possession they should be prosecuted. That is a federal law now. They do NOT prosecute it. They don't persue those that fail the background check now. HIPPA laws keep the medical records unavailable. Only if they are adjudicated is it in a court record.

You don't get it, they have the ability to stop many things now and they don't. Why give them more? It will not work. And then they will say, see universal background check is not enough, we have to have registration. Then that will not stop it. Then they will say we have to confiscate the Modern Sporting Rifles. We will still have school shootings because they will still be gun free zones. Then they will call for confiscation of semi-auto pistol because they are the ones used in most murders. After all they aren't any good for hunting.

They propose many things that wioll not work. Then of course they do not work. Then we must do more for the children!

They are against things that really work. There are two things that keep murderers from recidivism; life in solitary , no parole, and the death penalty. And yet they are against those things. There are two things make recidivism among child rapist zero: life in prison, no parole, and the death penalty. And they are against those. They want to reform child rapists.

When you suggest something that has proven to work, we will listen.

Having armed good guys at schools has worked. They poo-pooed the NRA suggestion.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by racerford

If a felon is in possession they should be prosecuted. That is a federal law now. They do NOT prosecute it. They don't persue those that fail the background check now. HIPPA laws keep the medical records unavailable. Only if they are adjudicated is it in a court record.

You don't get it, they have the ability to stop many things now and they don't. Why give them more? It will not work. And then they will say, see universal background check is not enough, we have to have registration. Then that will not stop it. Then they will say we have to confiscate the Modern Sporting Rifles. We will still have school shootings because they will still be gun free zones. Then they will call for confiscation of semi-auto pistol because they are the ones used in most murders. After all they aren't any good for hunting.

They propose many things that wioll not work. Then of course they do not work. Then we must do more for the children!

They are against things that really work. There are two things that keep murderers from recidivism; life in solitary , no parole, and the death penalty. And yet they are against those things. There are two things make recidivism among child rapist zero: life in prison, no parole, and the death penalty. And they are against those. They want to reform child rapists.

When you suggest something that has proven to work, we will listen.

Having armed good guys at schools has worked. They poo-pooed the NRA suggestion.

Only to get something else that I want more.

No gains in other things I want - no change to BGC.

Why is this so hard to get?

I am not saying GIVE AWAY anything.

But taking a position that is ideologically pure and politically stupid ends up in the long run - being a loser position.

This is true even if your position is the correct one.

You lose enough elections and the .22 single shot will be the only guns allowed.

The assumption that BGC must also include registration is wrong.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

Only to get something else that I want more.

No gains in other things I want - no change to BGC.

Why is this so hard to get?

I am not saying GIVE AWAY anything.

But taking a position that is ideologically pure and politically stupid ends up in the long run - being a loser position.

This is true even if your position is the correct one.

You lose enough elections and the .22 single shot will be the only guns allowed.

The assumption that BGC must also include registration is wrong.

The assumption that they will stop with Universal BGC is wrong.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

The assumption that they will stop with Universal BGC is wrong.

I know full well they will not stop fighting until every gun is melted.

But what does this have to do with anything?

Just because your opponent is not going to give up does not mean you should not try and gain something from them if the cost you pay is less than what you get.

Think of it like a war.

We captured 100 enemy soldiers - they captured 105 of ours.

Should we trade the 100 we have to get back 105 of our guys?

According to your line of logic NO - unless they agree to unconditional surrender - no trade can be made.

[dbcooper]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

Then what?

I say --

OK I am willing to eliminate gun free zones if you allow UBC.

Is this any different that saying.

I would consider changes to the BC system if we can get rid of these gun free zones.

---------------
I have a car for sale you want it.

How would you buy it from me using your make a demand system of negotiation?

Really - what is your opening statement.

I want your car!

No, they will never give up gun free zones, stalemate.

Comparing the debate to purchasing a product makes no sense, what you advocate is the same as me walking up and offering you more for the car then you are asking

[Mushinto]

I do not believe in gun free zones, but if anything this is a states' issue.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

I know full well they will not stop fighting until every gun is melted.

But what does this have to do with anything?

Just because your opponent is not going to give up does not mean you should not try and gain something from them if the cost you pay is less than what you get.

Think of it like a war.

We captured 100 enemy soldiers - they captured 105 of ours.

Should we trade the 100 we have to get back 105 of our guys?

According to your line of logic NO - unless they agree to unconditional surrender - no trade can be made.

You and your bad analogies again...

A proper one would be like when at war and you are under siege. With your line of thinking when the enemy comes under the white flag with the terms of the truce, They say we want all your land, all your women, and all your property. You counter with, just take half of our land. The other side gets something they want but don't deserve and never had to begin without offering up anything and YOU give up something that should be yours. This is the compromise you keep offering.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by dbcooper

No, they will never give up gun free zones, stalemate.

Comparing the debate to purchasing a product makes no sense, what you advocate is the same as me walking up and offering you more for the car then you are asking

Close. and telling him to keep the tires because he took your money...

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

You and your bad analogies again...

A proper one would be like when at war and you are under siege. With your line of thinking when the enemy comes under the white flag with the terms of the truce, They say we want all your land, all your women, and all your property. You counter with, just take half of our land. The other side gets something they want but don't deserve and never had to begin without offering up anything and YOU give up something that should be yours. This is the compromise you keep offering.

You have to start the process from where you actually are - not from some ideological dreamland of where you think you should be.

Face the fact that some of our rights have been "infringed".


You are saying there is nothing in the existing gun laws you want to get rid of and would be willing to trade for UBGC?

One of the BIG mistakes many make is assuming the other side will not give on some things.

How about if (in a state that schools are gun free zones) we propose extensive background checks & training for teachers that want to (their choice) CC while in school?


Would you agree to these BGCs? Or

Would you stand on principle and say no BGC should be required?


I have been in many negotiations with people I hated - that does not mean I refused to negotiate.

Few things feel better than negotiating a good deal with an enemy. By good deal I mean one where you get way more and give up way less.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

You and your bad analogies again...

A proper one would be like when at war and you are under siege. With your line of thinking when the enemy comes under the white flag with the terms of the truce, They say we want all your land, all your women, and all your property. You counter with, just take half of our land. The other side gets something they want but don't deserve and never had to begin without offering up anything and YOU give up something that should be yours. This is the compromise you keep offering.

That's very good, WFD.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by dbcooper

No, they will never give up gun free zones, stalemate.

Comparing the debate to purchasing a product makes no sense, what you advocate is the same as me walking up and offering you more for the car then you are asking

How do you know they will never give up gun free zones?

Your assumption is just that YOUR assumption. You could be right - but you will never know until you start negotiating.

BTW - I have had someone offer me MORE than I wanted MANY MANY times.

You know what I do then?

Ask for even more.

But honestly I bet I have paid more than I would have had to many times also.

One of the worst situations is when you are in a position where every option is BAD and you are just trying to negotiate so you lose the least.

Which is exactly where we will find ourselves after another school gets shot up and 20 more kids are dead.

Damage control VS being proactive.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

You have to start the process from where you actually are - not from some ideological dreamland of where you think you should be.

Face the fact that some of our rights have been "infringed".


You are saying there is nothing in the existing gun laws you want to get rid of and would be willing to trade for UBC?

One of the BIG mistakes many make is assuming the other side will not give on some things.

How about if (in a state that schools are gun free zones) we propose extensive background checks & training for teachers that want to (their choice) CC while in school?


Would you agree to these BGCs? Or

Would you stand on principle and say no BGC should be required?


I have been in many negotiations with people I hated - that does not mean I refused to negotiate.

Few things feel better than negotiating a good deal with an enemy. By good deal I mean one where you get way more and give up way less.

Trading one infringement for another infringement is not negotiating. Please explain anytime in history that we got more than we gave up when it comes to gun infringement. I'm using we and including you in the we, but I'm still skeptical you are part of we. You are the one living in fantasy land if you think we (Gun owners/lobbyist) can convince the antis to allow guns in schools or any of the other things on your "wish list" for UBC.

I see you have abandoned your inaccurate analogies. That's a good first step.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

How do you know they will never give up gun free zones?

Your assumption is just that YOUR assumption. You could be right - but you will never know until you start negotiating.

BTW - I have had someone offer me MORE than I wanted MANY MANY times.

You know what I do then?

Ask for even more.

But honestly I bet I have paid more than I would have had to many times also.

One of the worst situations is when you are in a position where every option is BAD and you are just trying to negotiate so you lose the least.

Which is exactly where we will find ourselves after another school gets shot up and 20 more kids are dead.

Damage control VS being proactive.

I'm going to try one more time, then I'm through. We obviously disagree.

Here's the deal. You do not offer one infringement on a God given right for another one and think you have won. You do not offer to allow an infringement if a different one is taken away. That's not negotiating. That is trading one devil for another.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

Trading one infringement for another infringement is not negotiating. Please explain anytime in history that we got more than we gave up when it comes to gun infringement. I'm using we and including you in the we, but I'm still skeptical you are part of we. You are the one living in fantasy land if you think we (Gun owners/lobbyist) can convince the antis to allow guns in schools or any of the other things on your "wish list" for UBC.

I see you have abandoned your inaccurate analogies. That's a good first step.

That is easy

Think any state that had previously banned all CC has now brought it back?

But were able to get it back with conditions (infringements).

Things like background checks, pass a written test, show some level of shooting proficiency --

You think people in these states are better off with no CC - or CC with "infringements"?

The people in these states accepted they had already lost the right to CC - then negotiated a change - gaining back a lost right.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

I'm going to try one more time, then I'm through. We obviously disagree.

Here's the deal. You do not offer one infringement on a God given right for another one and think you have won. You do not offer to allow an infringement if a different one is taken away. That's not negotiating. That is trading one devil for another.

So now avoiding a BGC is a God given right?



Its OK to disagree. I will try and not be personal about it - although sometimes that is really hard. Why can't people just accept that I am right and they are wrong.

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

So now avoiding a BGC is a God given right?



Its OK to disagree. I will try and not be personal about it - although sometimes that is really hard. Why can't people just accept that I am right and they are wrong.

Why don't you just move out here to CA so you can enjoy the benefits of having every firearm transfer of yours require an FFL and the attendant back ground check instead of trying to foist it off on those who don't want it? In addition to that reasonable requirement you get a 10 day wait placed on your property, can't buy any magazines over 10 rounds and can only order from an approved Safe Handgun List. It is a true paradise for people like you. Come on out - Live The Dream!

Oh, as a final selling point more reasonable restrictions are being proposed every year.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by G26S239

Why don't you just move out here to CA so you can enjoy the benefits of having every firearm transfer of yours require an FFL and the attendant back ground check instead of trying to foist it off on those who don't want it? In addition to that reasonable requirement you get a 10 day wait placed on your property, can't buy any magazines over 10 rounds and can only order from an approved Safe Handgun List. It is a true paradise for people like you. Come on out - Live The Dream!

Oh, as a final selling point more reasonable restrictions are being proposed every year.

I use to rotate - 3 weeks in Texas then 2 weeks in California - did this for about 2 years straight -

California is nice place to visit - but I would not want to live there.

I can't understand how so many misread what I am saying.

In general all I want is for pro gun legislators to take a leadership role instead of just always playing defence. Be willing to work on real solutions that keep guns away from criminals and crazy people - and negotiate to eliminate some anti gun BS stuff that doesn't work.

Why not try and develop a better way to keep guns from criminals and mentally ill?

Who do you think can do a better job coming up with things that would actually work - pro gun or anti gun officials?

We may even increase gun ownership and expand the rights of legal gun owners?

California may be too far gone to save - further proof that just playing defence doesn't work.

Lose enough elections because of ideological stupidity (not just gun issues) and you end up with SUPER MAJORITIES of "progressive liberals" that love to tax and hate guns.

[Spiffums]

Originally Posted by Bren

What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.

If the gun was made before the universal background check law, it means absolutely nothing that you don't have proof of when you bought it, unless you admit you bought it after or the government has an informant who says you did.

Too bad the media don't have to follow the whole burden of prove thing. Maybe we need a law so you can't report speculation and opinion like it was fact.

[gwalchmai]

Bill, no one has misread what you're saying. We just disagree.