What would we be willing to do?

[Boom Boom]

Haha, yes that would be absurd.

But what about individuals being able to run background checks on themselves? Your thoughts?

I oppose incrementalism in the usual direction.

 

[sports89man7]

as far as the mag ban and the bumpstock ban, i simply laughed at it. NOONE is going to comply and if the anti's think that people will, then they are all kinds of stupid. i understand its an election year but do these people know that no one will comply with these laws??? lmao

 

[WIMN]

I oppose incrementalism in the usual direction.

I guess that's valid.

My problem with that is that meanwhile, our opponents can tar us with the brush of being against background checks. I'm not against background checks, so that annoys me.

 

[Art3]

Antis are like the terminator (the bad one)

 

[MG in MD]

Well, maybe I’m coming from a different perspective than others.

I do think that getting a HQL was just jumping through some hoops, and probably doesn’t really prove that much. However, given the reality that I have to have an HQL to but a pistol, it seems odd that I don’t need one to buy a rifle or shotgun, especially a semi-auto one.

I’m an avid shooter, collector, and not a troll.

1st amendment is not 100% unencumbered. There are limits and some controls. I have no problem with the same in regards to the 2nd ammendment.

The big problem, as I see it, is that limits or controls will do next to nothing to reduce the violence that I’m sure we all want to see stopped.

 

[Art3]

I guess that's valid.

My problem with that is that meanwhile, our opponents can tar us with the brush of being against background checks. I'm not against background checks, so that annoys me.

The tar will always be on us, until we have nothing left to be against.

 

[doggyjacket]

Haha, yes that would be absurd.

But what about individuals being able to run background checks on themselves? Your thoughts?

Well there's two problems with your idea:

1. How many tragedies would have been prevented by this particular remedy? It's an solution to a non-existent problem.

2. Next tragedy happens. Then someone says, well, it wasn't enough. Maybe we should do more.

 

[Boom Boom]

The big problem, as I see it, is that limits or controls will do next to nothing to reduce the violence that I’m sure we all want to see stopped.

For the most part, it only impedes good people. Criminals and mental cases will laugh it off as more of the same silliness and continue to get weapons by any means necessary.

 

[WIMN]

Well there's two problems with your idea:

1. How many tragedies would have been prevented by this particular remedy? It's an solution to a non-existent problem.

2. Next tragedy happens. Then someone says, well, it wasn't enough. Maybe we should do more.

1. I'm not sure there is a way of knowing that, actually. Unless you only mean mass shootings, in which case you're right, but that's a very narrow definition of the "problem."

2. Yeah, that may be. But does that mean we shouldn't have background checks more often? Assuming there is no registration required?

 

[Art3]

Well, maybe I’m coming from a different perspective than others.

I do think that getting a HQL was just jumping through some hoops, and probably doesn’t really prove that much. However, given the reality that I have to have an HQL to but a pistol, it seems odd that I don’t need one to buy a rifle or shotgun, especially a semi-auto one.

I’m an avid shooter, collector, and not a troll.

1st amendment is not 100% unencumbered. There are limits and some controls. I have no problem with the same in regards to the 2nd ammendment.

The big problem, as I see it, is that limits or controls will do next to nothing to reduce the violence that I’m sure we all want to see stopped.

Don't we have enough already?!?! Ever try to buy an M1A, or walk to your buddy's house down the street with a pistol on your belt? Try the first one, not the second.

 

[WIMN]

Don't we have enough already?!?! Ever try to buy an M1A, or walk to your buddy's house down the street with a pistol on your belt? Try the first one, not the second.

Yeah, well I think we can all agree that bans of certain weapons are silly, and we should be able to have CCW.

 

[Boom Boom]

Well there's two problems with your idea:

1. How many tragedies would have been prevented by this particular remedy? It's an solution to a non-existent problem.

2. Next tragedy happens. Then someone says, well, it wasn't enough. Maybe we should do more.

Yep. By design. Frogs being slow-boiled one more degree each time. The temperature never decreases. The long-term goal is obvious.

 

[jrumann59]

Can't they just do all of that anyway though?

The things you just listed are the entirety of the current discussion, because we're not adding to it.

We may eventually find ourselves wishing for the compromise that wouldn't have hurt.

But maybe you're right. Could be a slippery slope.

Because going for the whole cake at once make their agenda true and the public will denounce it, whereas if they take a piece at a time it will be too late by then because the public will be used to a lower bar.

 

[MG in MD]

For the most part, it only impedes good people. Criminals and mental cases will laugh it off as more of the same silliness and continue to get weapons by any means necessary.

Yes, that’s what I mean.

So what will help?

 

[jrumann59]

Well, maybe I’m coming from a different perspective than others.

I do think that getting a HQL was just jumping through some hoops, and probably doesn’t really prove that much. However, given the reality that I have to have an HQL to but a pistol, it seems odd that I don’t need one to buy a rifle or shotgun, especially a semi-auto one.

I’m an avid shooter, collector, and not a troll.

1st amendment is not 100% unencumbered. There are limits and some controls. I have no problem with the same in regards to the 2nd ammendment.

The big problem, as I see it, is that limits or controls will do next to nothing to reduce the violence that I’m sure we all want to see stopped.

How is the 1st encumbered?

 

[WIMN]

Yep. By design. Frogs being slow-boiled one more degree each time. The temperature never decreases. The long-term goal is obvious.

All of your posts imply this. But I'd like to ask you directly, just so I know where you stand:

If you knew, by some means, with 100% certainty, that an implementation like the one I suggested was not intended to be, nor would it specifically lead to, more forms of gun control, would you say that the idea of more frequent background checks has merit?

It's a hypothetical, but just go with it. Because I still have no idea whether you guys actually are okay with background checks in general.

 

[WIMN]

Because going for the whole cake at once make their agenda true and the public will denounce it, whereas if they take a piece at a time it will be too late by then because the public will be used to a lower bar.

Yeah, that may be. But it doesn't mean that a background check is unreasonable, right? Absent the agenda?

 

[MG in MD]

Don't we have enough already?!?! Ever try to buy an M1A, or walk to your buddy's house down the street with a pistol on your belt? Try the first one, not the second.

It’s an argument I have with folks all the time, on many topics. People can usually agree that there needs to be some sort of line, limit, control or whatever. It’s all a matter of where to draw the line, how much to limit or control.

Do we have enough already? In some ways yes, in other ways I’m not sure. Guess that’s what the discussion is all about.

 

[Brychan]

Since background checks don't seem to have much effect on reducing crime, I say let's go pre- Brady and do away with it.

 

[Boom Boom]

Yeah, well I think we can all agree that bans of certain weapons are silly, and we should be able to have CCW.

Yet we have neither and you're eager to discuss how to give up more? Understand that once you give up ground, you never get it back. There's only one direction in the march towards servitude.