Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by gwalchmai, Feb 4, 2013.
That's very good, WFD.
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. :embarassed:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bill, no one has misread what you're saying. We just disagree.
That's what these "gun owners" that keep pushing universal background checks don't get. We understand fully what they are saying. We just disagree..
Having been in law enforcement for 30 yrs, I can tell you I personally would VERY POLITELY tell the person asking that unless there is evidence that my weapon has been used in a crime, when, where and how I obtained my weapon is a personal matter that I will not discuss. If an officer then says they DO suspect a weapon I purchased has been used in a crime, I would then tell the officer that althought I have nothing to hide and wish to cooperate, I wished to speak with my attorney before answering any questions.
Now to be more blunt about it, it is not ANYONES business what I own, where I own it or who I purchased it from (all legal of course) and it will be a cold day in hell before I register my weapons with anyone. If ATF wants to know, they can go back and check form 4473.
If ATF wants to trace a gun, they do the following:
1. Using the serial number, find out from manufacturer which distributor the weapon was sent to (and the date shipped)
2. Using serial number, find out from distributor which retail store the weapon was sent to (and the date shipped)
3. Have retail store pull the sales information (ATF form 4473)
4. Contact the original purchaser to find out where the weapon went. More than 90% of the time, the original retail purchaser has no records as to who he sold the weapon to, at which point the ATF is at a dead end. And NO, if you do not have an FFL, you are NOT REQUIRED under Federal Law to keep any sales records or information as to who you sell your guns to in a ¨Private¨ sale.
5. The FBI swears they do not keep a record of pre sale background checks, but personally, I think the FBI keeps everything in a computer archive. (They keep records on everything else)
From GOA: http://www.gunowners.org/news02042013c.htm
Writing more infringements for the leftards will work. It just won't work for people who want to own guns and lack high political office or millions of dollars.
California already has a requirements to go through an FFL and fill out another 4473 and state form.
It is not enough!
CA also has a 10 day wait before being able to take possession of your own property.
It is not enough!
Requirement for stupid bullet buttons on ARs and other detachable magazine EBRs.
It is not enough!
Handgun Safety Certificate to buy a handgun.
It is not enough!
Can only buy one handgun a month.
It is not enough!
The scum sucking bastards want more!
Bill I am thinking that this point will be lost on you. I believe that you will continue to believe that surrendering one teensy little point will cause the antigun zealots to reflect and say Gee since they surrendered so easily we should let them alone now.
For anybody reading this who is cognizant of the fact that libtards want to stamp out that nasty 2nd amendment the article I linked is clear evidence.
NOTHING IS EVER ENOUGH TO SATISFY LIBERAL SCUM UNTIL ONLY THEY AND THEIRS CAN HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION!
They don't care if you are robbed, raped, murdered or stuck in the middle of Florence and Normandy during the next big riot! You are not to have guns!
Universally speaki n, "IT SUCKS" , I 'm not that intimate with my wife !
Yet some here at GT seem to want to wish a good outcome via surrender.
This is not a CA only problem. Anyone thinking these scum bags will stop short of your state after turning CA, NY, NJ, MA. HI etc into workers paradise is seriously deluded or just plain stupid.
About seven years ago, I was thrilled to learn that ATF was running a trace on an AR15 that I purchased through a dealer. The dealer told me about it when they contacted him.
I am still waiting for them to ask me what I did with the gun.
Most tracing by the BATFE is a sham.
On what? Do you agree or disagree with me on?
That we should try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people?
That we should be proactive and not just play defence?
That perception matters? -- From the votes who don't really care one way or the other about guns?
That pro gun people are in a better position to develop solutions to help prevent things like school shootings?
That background checks reduce access to guns from criminals and crazy people? Small reduction maybe but still a reduction.
Are you willing to give and inch to gain a foot?
Or is it you don't like UBGC (I don't "like" them either) so no matter what else we lose trying to protect this small thing it is worth it? Or no matter what we could gain by agreeing to UBGC it would not be worth it.