R&R to House of Delegates: "We Will Not Comply!"

Vile Shadow · Mar 22, 2019

fabsroman said:
It isn't a matter of what you "accept", it is a matter of what the legislators hear and see. They hear from their constituents.

My guess is that the Baltimore City constituents are for most of this garbage. My other guess is that a lot of the legislators got some heat on the LGQL from their constituents and that is why it is no longer in the bill. Problem is, the vast majority of people in the US are for universal background checks, and this being Maryland, the percentage is probably a lot higher here.

I will actually be shocked if UBC does not pass. The question is whether you guys have any negotiating skills and can actually get something in return. Lord, I would love to see the HQl go by the wayside. No real need for it if we have UBC, or at least that is what I would put forth. Maybe MSRPA is better at the negotiating table than PP. All I can do is hope.

A handful a great men with a heluva lot bigger balls than you gonna find today decided they ain’t acceptin the Stamp Act. :cool:

Some Guy · Mar 22, 2019

For what it's worth, the below article disputes the supposition that 90% of Americans support background checks in private sales:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...round-checks-is-actually-rather-underwhelming

teratos · Mar 22, 2019

fabsroman said:
An a liberal would say that "The Constitution being a concrete document" is conservative speak.

The Constitution is open to interpretation by SCOTUS and it is open to Amendment. So, the moderate says "The Constitution is concrete, SCOTUS is a sledgehammer and Amendment is a jackhammer."

Maybe. However, the Constitution was also meant to be interpreted by the citizenry. The 2A is really an incredible thing, if you think about it. A bunch of guys who came up with a document defining a government...and wait for it....they allowed the People to reserve the power to overthrow that government. All three branches of government were seen as a threat. There is little wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”.

clandestine · Mar 22, 2019

I wouldn't be surprised if the ones helping the MD Legislators come up with antigun laws were members here.

44man · Mar 22, 2019

clandestine said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the ones helping the MD Legislators come up with antigun laws were members here.

Hell, they can get all kinds of advice on how to fvck us from some members on here saying what they are willing to accept as infringements every year.

I don’t get it, the way I see it a person is either for the 2a and the constitution or they are not but some here are willing to trade ALL OUR RIGHTS because they think the antis will stop

They will never stop until we are disarmed and helpless or we put them in their place. I got one will not be disarmed and helpless

babalou · Mar 22, 2019

Associate Bob

44man said:
Hell, they can get all kinds of advice on how to fvck us from some members on here saying what they are willing to accept as infringements every year.

I don’t get it, the way I see it a person is either for the 2a and the constitution or they are not but some here are willing to trade ALL OUR RIGHTS because they think the antis will stop

They will never stop until we are disarmed and helpless or we put them in their place. I got one will not be disarmed and helpless

Damn self preservation to change like the chameleon and switch sides when convenient for them.

Vile Shadow · Mar 22, 2019

teratos said:
Maybe. However, the Constitution was also meant to be interpreted by the citizenry. The 2A is really an incredible thing, if you think about it. A bunch of guys who came up with a document defining a government...and wait for it....they allowed the People to reserve the power to overthrow that government. All three branches of government were seen as a threat. There is little wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”.

”Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one”

~Thomas Paine

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

eruby · Mar 22, 2019

babalou said:
Damn self preservation to change like the chameleon and switch sides when convenient for them.

Murderdeathkill

fabsroman · Mar 22, 2019

babalou said:
Damn self preservation to change like the chameleon and switch sides when convenient for them.

I'm not diehard anything. I've thought the matter through and I side with universal background checks and not everything the NRA espouses to ask for more money from me.

Riddle me this, why do I have to go through a NICS check when I buy a new gun, but I don't have to go through a NICS check to buy a used gun? Can you answer me how that makes sense? If you cannot tell me how that makes sense, then I suggest your biggest task be pushing for the scrapping of the NICS check in its entirety or the application of NICS to private sales.

All the hell bent pro-2A people say, "We are all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people". That comes out of the right side of their mouth. Then, they are ok with FTF transactions without a NICS check wherein the seller just has to have no reason whatsoever to believe the buyer is prohibited. Seller: "You prohibited?" Buyer: "Nope." Seller: "Good enough for me."

So, dazzle me with some logical reason why the NICS check is good or bad. If it does not work, then dazzle me with something even more logical that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people. Or, you can do like teratos and just tell me that you are alright with criminals and mentally ill people having firearms.

Over the past couple of years, I have heard too many incorrect arguments and illogical arguments from our side, while the hand is out for more and more money.

So, dazzle me with actual knowledge and logical reasoning. Make me fall out of my chair as to why NICS on new guns makes sense, but not on used guns from somebody that doesn't know the buyer from Adam. I challenge you to knock me out of my chair.

Stoveman · Mar 22, 2019

Both the Demanding Moms and Emo Jen have called, they want you back.

Mark75H · Mar 22, 2019

fabsroman said:
So, dazzle me with some logical reason why the NICS check is good or bad. If it does not work, then dazzle me with something even more logical that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people.
...
So, dazzle me with actual knowledge and logical reasoning. Make me fall out of my chair as to why NICS on new guns makes sense, but not on used guns from somebody that doesn't know the buyer from Adam. I challenge you to knock me out of my chair.

Any government action has potential for abuse (future list for confiscation). Any step the antis take is advancement of their continual march to confiscate all private firearms. There is no other ends.

clandestine · Mar 22, 2019

So sad

fidelity · Mar 22, 2019

fabsroman said:
I'm not diehard anything. I've thought the matter through and I side with universal background checks and not everything the NRA espouses to ask for more money from me.

Riddle me this, why do I have to go through a NICS check when I buy a new gun, but I don't have to go through a NICS check to buy a used gun? Can you answer me how that makes sense? If you cannot tell me how that makes sense, then I suggest your biggest task be pushing for the scrapping of the NICS check in its entirety or the application of NICS to private sales.

All the hell bent pro-2A people say, "We are all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people". That comes out of the right side of their mouth. Then, they are ok with FTF transactions without a NICS check wherein the seller just has to have no reason whatsoever to believe the buyer is prohibited. Seller: "You prohibited?" Buyer: "Nope." Seller: "Good enough for me."

So, dazzle me with some logical reason why the NICS check is good or bad. If it does not work, then dazzle me with something even more logical that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people. Or, you can do like teratos and just tell me that you are alright with criminals and mentally ill people having firearms.

Over the past couple of years, I have heard too many incorrect arguments and illogical arguments from our side, while the hand is out for more and more money.

So, dazzle me with actual knowledge and logical reasoning. Make me fall out of my chair as to why NICS on new guns makes sense, but not on used guns from somebody that doesn't know the buyer from Adam. I challenge you to knock me out of my chair.

We don't have to dazzle you. We need to persuade legislators that it's an unnecessary, additional restriction. This is Maryland, so we might fail.

Perhaps you can point to data showing the increased societal risk caused by secondary sales of long guns without a NICS check if you have no problem with the incrementalism, especially as you're espousing an anti-2A position on a gun board. You would think that it is significant given the number of long guns out there available through secondary sales.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Bertfish · Mar 22, 2019

NICS makes only some sense for guns in it's current form because it is incomplete. States do not supply records to make it complete so criminals jump through its giant holes. Some states do supply records. The military doesnt always supply records thus the church shooter got through. IF it were ever made a complete database then maybe, just maybe, it could be used as a decent way to keep guns out of criminals hands. Until then it catches only some unknown percentage of would be buyers who are criminals. The data on FBI denials shows us this but what it doesnt show is how many they let through. It doesnt show us how many criminals get guns from the streets because of bad policing or piss poor prosecutors or overwhelmed police or theft from legitimate owners or whatever you want to say about where illegal guns on the streets come from.

The system is comparable to Gothem City. Its wounded but occasionally good. Occasionally a Gordon or Harvey Dent gets some bad guys. Some sides say that justifies its universal use some say it justifies its abolition. I dont know what the appropriate use of a system like NICS is. What I can say is despite its existence there sure are a lot of criminals committing a lot of crimes with guns. Doesnt seem to be doing a lot of good.

Hate me love me do whatever. I'm going to sleep.

fabsroman · Mar 22, 2019

Stoveman said:
Both the Demanding Moms and Emo Jen have called, they want you back.

And you think this style is going to win people's minds and hearts toward supporting you and the 2A? Good luck with that. You probably alienate more 2A supporters than you convert antis or even move people off the fence to 2A.

Almost as good as the pic you posted on Facebook of Jen. That worked wonders with the NRA rep.

Ever think about getting a smart, good looking woman as the face of Patriot Picket? Maybe hire are marketing/branding agency.

PowPow · Mar 22, 2019

Posts in this thread are accumulating, but the thread does not seem to be benefiting from the additional posts (my own included). I recommend to the mods to close this thread and put us all out of its misery. Please make it stop? Pretty please with sugar on top?

2SAM22 · Mar 22, 2019

Stoveman said:
Both the Demanding Moms and Emo Jen have called, they want you back.

Continue and you'll be the third to take a break here. Discussion and debate is welcomed. Name calling is not.
United we stand, divided we fall.

fabsroman · Mar 22, 2019

Bertfish said:
NICS makes only some sense for guns in it's current form because it is incomplete. States do not supply records to make it complete so criminals jump through its giant holes. Some states do supply records. The military doesnt always supply records thus the church shooter got through. IF it were ever made a complete database then maybe, just maybe, it could be used as a decent way to keep guns out of criminals hands. Until then it catches only some unknown percentage of would be buyers who are criminals. The data on FBI denials shows us this but what it doesnt show is how many they let through. It doesnt show us how many criminals get guns from the streets because of bad policing or piss poor prosecutors or overwhelmed police or theft from legitimate owners or whatever you want to say about where illegal guns on the streets come from.

The system is comparable to Gothem City. Its wounded but occasionally good. Occasionally a Gordon or Harvey Dent gets some bad guys. Some sides say that justifies its universal use some say it justifies its abolition. I dont know what the appropriate use of a system like NICS is. What I can say is despite its existence there sure are a lot of criminals committing a lot of crimes with guns. Doesnt seem to be doing a lot of good.

Hate me love me do whatever. I'm going to sleep.

Now this is something good and that is a great analogy to Gotham City.

So, I think the question really ends up being whether it should be abolished or whether it should be made whole. Anybody ever do an analysis of what it would take to make states comply with NICS and report adequately such that fewer criminals get through the system? Personally, I would like the entire "criminal" thing redefined at the federal level. Should a convicted felon really be put in prison again because he shoots somebody out of self defense? Personally, I would like it abolished, but I could settle for violent criminal. What I would really like to see is that mental health records get reported and mentally ill people are really prevented from obtaining firearms legally. What would it take to get states to start reporting on mental health issues?

Guess it would take some digging on my part. Find it somewhat hard to believe that the answers aren't already known though.

BeoBill · Mar 22, 2019

teratos said:
Maybe. However, the Constitution was also meant to be interpreted by the citizenry. The 2A is really an incredible thing, if you think about it. A bunch of guys who came up with a document defining a government...and wait for it....they allowed the People to reserve the power to overthrow that government. All three branches of government were seen as a threat. There is little wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”.

And that is why, until a short time ago, two of the branches were doing their utmost to keep guns out of the hands of the peasants, er, voters.

MODS: PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD!

Not_an_outlaw · Mar 22, 2019

2SAM22 said:
Continue and you'll be the third to take a break here.

So we have a moderator on MDS from Texas? Interesting. Congrats on the great escape.

R&R to House of Delegates: "We Will Not Comply!"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

...

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

AR-15 Savant

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

...

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

AR-15 Savant

piled higher and deeper

Throw bread on me

Ultimate Member

Where's the beef?

Moderator Emeritus

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics