close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Gun-rights group negotiates with lawmakers on background checks

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by HerrGlock, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. Where did these people learn to compromise?

    I thought a compromise is you get something and I get something. All we're getting is more background checks and the other side is giving up nothing. Next year they will go for more restrictions. What's the compromise then? Okay you can create a firearms database but you can't confiscate.

    How about this compromise: You can add mental health records to background checks but you have to agree that any further gun control measures put forward, ever, will be considered a felony with a mandatory 10 year federal prison term.
     

  2. Roering

    Roering Sorting nuts

    5,240
    151
    Feb 14, 2008
    Costa Mesa
    Sounds more like surrendering with conditions.
     
  3. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    23,796
    203
    Dec 28, 2000
    You ever notice that whenever there's a pro-gun organization mentioned that's NOT the NRA, it's because that group has agreed to the gun grabber's terms?
     
  4. SunsetMan

    SunsetMan Deplorable Lifetime Member

    2,442
    454
    Jan 8, 2005
    Kommiefornistan
    You had the compromise in your Gottlieb quote, Universal Backgroud Check in exchange for elimination of transaction records that would be a form of registration.

    I would think this would be better than the alternative that Feinstein, Biden, etc. would come up with which would undoubtably include registration.
     
  5. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    24,293
    874
    Jan 9, 2002
    Outside the perimeter
    Gun grabbers promising to destroy the records after the background check sounds suspiciously like someone promising not to do something in someone else's mouth.

    You cannot compromise on your rights. You can only surrender them.
     
  6. humanguerrilla

    humanguerrilla

    2,735
    0
    Jul 25, 2006
    the woods
    It is never enough. Look at NY. After passing the strongest antigun laws and magazine and semi-auto ban they are continuing to go after guns, looking to require a $1-2k/year insurance policy to own a gun or face confiscation.
     
  7. jdeere_man

    jdeere_man CLM

    2,678
    71
    Feb 25, 2007
    NW Missouri
    I don't see how that is a compromise. "Universal background checks" and gun registration are synonymous. Sounds like folding to me.

    Have you ever heard "we don't negotiate with terrorists"? I'm about a few thoughts away from classifying liberals as terrorists at this point.
     
  8. I see what you're saying. I misunderstood that in my first reading of the article. Yes eliminating the current data collection that is going on now is a consolation, albeit a small consolation IMO.

    Humangorilla said it: "It is never enough."
     
  9. SunsetMan

    SunsetMan Deplorable Lifetime Member

    2,442
    454
    Jan 8, 2005
    Kommiefornistan
    Believe me, I can relate to "It is never enough." This new round of California legislation is depressing.

    I had a discussion with a moderate democrat friend. He didn't understand why we resisted the universal background check. I think most that are on the gun control fence feel similarly. I explained to him that we feared registration, extra fees and inconveniences. He seemed to get it.

    I told my friend, Enough! I said we'd given up enough already. Like what?, he said. My friend has a inherited revolver. He is smart and probably representitive of a lot of democrats. They don't think we have given up anything yet (he was talking on the national level). These are the people we need to educate.

    If universal background checks are inevitable, I'd rather see us word the legislation.

    If we refuse to compromise, we should do a good job of explaining why. The fence sitters don't understand "What part of "Shall not be infringed." don't you understand?" or "From my cold dead hands.". The main steam media has made them immune to these statements.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2013