Dayton Shooter

[Biggfoot44]

Pretty much the only Actual two way Compromise on guns = FOPA, 1986

We recieved : End of Federal ammunition logs , mail order ammo , wide lattitude for Rifle & Shotgun sales for residents of most states, from FFLs in most states , and fairly good protection for transporting thru anti gun jurisdictions .

We gave : Full Autos thrown under the bus .

In hindsight we can debate the merits of the compromise , but it was an actual two way Compromise .


********************

Meanwhile ; None of the above debated compromise strategies, aka active participation stratagies is intended for, or able to produce * Victories * . The best and highest possible outcomes are to slow the rate of our defeats , in exchange for conceeding defeate from the start .


Kind of similar to the joke that starts with a woman agreeing she would sleep with ( a then in his prime ) Robert Redford for a million dollars , and the punchline involved negotiating prices .


Is negotiating the terms of your surrender a wise & worthwhile thing to do ? Sometimes , possibly usually . But still inherently surrendering , and not a * Victory " .

 

[press1280]

Since our glorious MSM keeps talking about background check for internet sales, let's give them that in exchange for National Reciprocity

 

[tallen702]

Since our glorious MSM keeps talking about background check for internet sales, let's give them that in exchange for National Reciprocity

I'd much rather have civilian access to the NICS, and and a modern collectors FFL that costs $50 for 5 years and allows holders to transfer any and all firearms, regardless of the age of the firearm or state laws, between themselves and other FFL holders of any type. In short, you could buy anything you want online and across state lines as an individual collector FFL and be able to dispose of any of those arms to other individual collector FFLs or other FFLs as appropriate (obviously couldn't sell a modern gun to a C&R per C&R regulations).

Any FTF personal transfers would then go the NICS route sans paper 4473. You should be able to call NICS up, give them the SSN, Name, DOB, and get a proceed, deny, or delay status as a civie. Only then will UBCs truly be universal. Civilians must have the tools to run the BGC themselves instead of going through a dealer.

Give me that. The ability to buy what I want, when I want, without having to go through a LGS, and open access to NICS without being required to file away a 4473, and then I'll agree to UBCs.

 

[rob]

I'd much rather have civilian access to the NICS, and and a modern collectors FFL that costs $50 for 5 years and allows holders to transfer any and all firearms, regardless of the age of the firearm or state laws, between themselves and other FFL holders of any type. In short, you could buy anything you want online and across state lines as an individual collector FFL and be able to dispose of any of those arms to other individual collector FFLs or other FFLs as appropriate (obviously couldn't sell a modern gun to a C&R per C&R regulations).



Any FTF personal transfers would then go the NICS route sans paper 4473. You should be able to call NICS up, give them the SSN, Name, DOB, and get a proceed, deny, or delay status as a civie. Only then will UBCs truly be universal. Civilians must have the tools to run the BGC themselves instead of going through a dealer.



Give me that. The ability to buy what I want, when I want, without having to go through a LGS, and open access to NICS without being required to file away a 4473, and then I'll agree to UBCs.

Are you really willing to give a random stranger who has a gun you want to buy, your ssn, dob, name and address?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Bagpiperer]

You wouldn't have to - give someone the ability to input their name, birth date, address, SSN, or driver's license number, and have NICS generate a transaction number which is associated with approval/dissapproval. You could then given the transaction number to the seller, who could use it to verify your name and birth date, and whether you passed the background check.

 

[MigraineMan]

Are you really willing to give a random stranger who has a gun you want to buy, your ssn, dob, name and address?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You wouldn't have to - give someone the ability to input their name, birth date, address, SSN, or driver's license number, and have NICS generate a transaction number which is associated with approval/dissapproval. You could then given the transaction number to the seller, who could use it to verify your name and birth date, and whether you passed the background check.

There are plenty of public-key cipher methods that would allow you access NICS and generate a "proceed" cert that's accessible by the other party without exposing your personal info. Both seller and buyer do this, then provide the crypto-signed cert to the other. Using your private key, you'll be able to validate the cert and confirm the transaction with NICS. If both are "proceed," exchange items and consideration and be on your way. NICS doesn't need to know "what," or even that a transaction was completed. (You are more than welcome to record additional information for your personal files, should you choose to.)

 

[tallen702]

Are you really willing to give a random stranger who has a gun you want to buy, your ssn, dob, name and address?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Depends, but it isn't really necessary. See below:

You wouldn't have to - give someone the ability to input their name, birth date, address, SSN, or driver's license number, and have NICS generate a transaction number which is associated with approval/dissapproval. You could then given the transaction number to the seller, who could use it to verify your name and birth date, and whether you passed the background check.

There are plenty of public-key cipher methods that would allow you access NICS and generate a "proceed" cert that's accessible by the other party without exposing your personal info. Both seller and buyer do this, then provide the crypto-signed cert to the other. Using your private key, you'll be able to validate the cert and confirm the transaction with NICS. If both are "proceed," exchange items and consideration and be on your way. NICS doesn't need to know "what," or even that a transaction was completed. (You are more than welcome to record additional information for your personal files, should you choose to.)

Plenty of options already available. The fact that this ISN'T an option right at this very moment tells me all I need to know about the UBCs that the Dems keep proposing.

 

[Mike OTDP]

A personal FFL has pluses and minuses. The big drawback is that it would kill the small dealers...most of us would get a P-FFL. Although I could easily see the anti-gun people considering that a plus. On the other hand, people like me who have a passion for high-end target firearms and exotica would come out way ahead.

 

[OLM-Medic]

You wouldn't have to - give someone the ability to input their name, birth date, address, SSN, or driver's license number, and have NICS generate a transaction number which is associated with approval/dissapproval. You could then given the transaction number to the seller, who could use it to verify your name and birth date, and whether you passed the background check.

no thanks

 

[Occam]

no thanks

And if it comes down to a choice between something like that and no more legal face to face sales at all? A no-records-retained, no-serial-numbers-recorded BC on the fly without having to travel to and pay an FFL is pretty attractive.

 

[swamplynx]

I'd much rather have civilian access to the NICS, and and a modern collectors FFL that costs $50 for 5 years and allows holders to transfer any and all firearms, regardless of the age of the firearm or state laws, between themselves and other FFL holders of any type. In short, you could buy anything you want online and across state lines as an individual collector FFL and be able to dispose of any of those arms to other individual collector FFLs or other FFLs as appropriate (obviously couldn't sell a modern gun to a C&R per C&R regulations).

Any FTF personal transfers would then go the NICS route sans paper 4473. You should be able to call NICS up, give them the SSN, Name, DOB, and get a proceed, deny, or delay status as a civie. Only then will UBCs truly be universal. Civilians must have the tools to run the BGC themselves instead of going through a dealer.

Give me that. The ability to buy what I want, when I want, without having to go through a LGS, and open access to NICS without being required to file away a 4473, and then I'll agree to UBCs.

Give that modern collectors FFL preemption on all state / local registration, possession, transportation, and carry and I’m in.

Use a PKI based UBC NICS that doesn’t require a face to face sell go through a LGS / FFL. Do any of us accidentally or otherwise want to sell to a prohibited person?

If we don’t start putting forward our solutions that are actual compromises, the ban ban ban narrative of the left will continue to be the only voice in the room.

 

[swamplynx]

And if it comes down to a choice between something like that and no more legal face to face sales at all? A no-records-retained, no-serial-numbers-recorded BC on the fly without having to travel to and pay an FFL is pretty attractive.

Exactly. We are starting to come off as the kid who plugs their ears and stops their feet while screaming no no no in the corner of the room. Meanwhile the left is screaming ban ban ban, but at least they are offering “something” as far as the general public is concerned.

We’re smart enough to come up with something that...

1) Lessens infringements on vetted law abiding gun owners (national carry, individual FFL)

2) Reduces the risk of transferring a firearm to a prohibited person (public NICS)

3) Passes the smell test with the general public as a true common sense reform, and something the left can sign on to, and if they don’t they appear as the obstructionists instead of us.

 

[ComeGet]

Exactly. We are starting to come off as the kid who plugs their ears and stops their feet while screaming no no no in the corner of the room. Meanwhile the left is screaming ban ban ban, but at least they are offering “something” as far as the general public is concerned.

We’re smart enough to come up with something that...

1) Lessens infringements on vetted law abiding gun owners (national carry, individual FFL)

2) Reduces the risk of transferring a firearm to a prohibited person (public NICS)

3) Passes the smell test with the general public as a true common sense reform, and something the left can sign on to, and if they don’t they appear as the obstructionists instead of us.

That's all assuming that the antis' goal is to lessen crime committed with guns and allow law-abiding citizens to keep theirs. From what I've seen, that is not the case. The goal is to completely eliminate gun ownership or to come as close to that as possible, say, something similar to the UK. Each of their "compromises" is a step in that direction.

 

[swamplynx]

That's all assuming that the antis' goal is to lessen crime committed with guns and allow law-abiding citizens to keep theirs. From what I've seen, that is not the case. The goal is to completely eliminate gun ownership or to come as close to that as possible, say, something similar to the UK. Each of their "compromises" is a step in that direction.

Without a doubt their goal is totalitarian control and eliminating firearms from the general public. And 100% agree they could give two shits about crime or victims of mass shootings. That much is clear.

Having our own proposals isn’t about really getting the antis to sign on. It is about getting the general public to sign on and to provide an alternative narrative to the ban and confiscate song that the antis sing. Right now we have no alternative narrative aside from not one inch and the status quo. I don’t want my right to be further infringed than they already are. But unless we offer our own solutions, we are going to continue to appear as obstructionist, out of touch, gun nuts, kicking and screaming our way into more infringements with zero benefits for us.

 

[ComeGet]

Without a doubt their goal is totalitarian control and eliminating firearms from the general public. And 100% agree they could give two shits about crime or victims of mass shootings. That much is clear.

Having our own proposals isn’t about really getting the antis to sign on. It is about getting the general public to sign on and to provide an alternative narrative to the ban and confiscate song that the antis sing. Right now we have no alternative narrative aside from not one inch and the status quo. I don’t want my right to be further infringed than they already are. But unless we offer our own solutions, we are going to continue to appear as obstructionist, out of touch, gun nuts, kicking and screaming our way into more infringements with zero benefits for us.

Yeah, you're right. The big problem is that the antis control almost all of the media and entertainment that influences the general public's opinions. We are framed by them. Another problem is that Republicans in Congress are soft on gun rights. There was a time not long ago when it was within possibility to get national reciprocity and suppressor legislation through but it was just not important enough for the Rs. We have met the enemy and they are us.

I have no problem with UBCs if they are done right. Making access to the system by individuals as others here have detailed would be workable. Also, ERPOs could have a place as long as due process is guaranteed and they include penalties for false reporting.

These two things are going to happen, with or without the features I prefer. The push from the left is too strong and those "on our side" are way too squishy to stand up for our rights.

Maybe that will keep the bread and circus crowd satisfied that we aren't all murderous monsters.

 

[rbird7282]

Without a doubt their goal is totalitarian control and eliminating firearms from the general public. And 100% agree they could give two shits about crime or victims of mass shootings. That much is clear.



Having our own proposals isn’t about really getting the antis to sign on. It is about getting the general public to sign on and to provide an alternative narrative to the ban and confiscate song that the antis sing. Right now we have no alternative narrative aside from not one inch and the status quo. I don’t want my right to be further infringed than they already are. But unless we offer our own solutions, we are going to continue to appear as obstructionist, out of touch, gun nuts, kicking and screaming our way into more infringements with zero benefits for us.

Our side HAS offered these things. They get shot down immediately. If you want the Republicans in the House and Senate to propose these things and come to a middle of the road compromise without making gun owners look like Ned Beatty in Deliverance, you’re dreaming. Republicans have very little to no backbone, they’ve proven it time and time again. We would get hosed.
Now, if you want them to propose it just to get the Left in Congress on record to show the country, that might be different although I still don’t trust them not to screw us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rascal]

Another problem is that Republicans in Congress are soft on gun rights. There was a time not long ago when it was within possibility to get national reciprocity and suppressor legislation through but it was just not important enough for the Rs. We have met the enemy and they are us.

This is not true. The senate minority leader is not a Democrat from Nevada with a mixed record on 2A from shall issue Nevada, but a Democrat from may issue (no issue) NY and opposed to you owning a revolver at home. Senate Minority leader Schumer is going to allow a law that negated a central gun control law of NY state????

In what world was it possible for Dick Schumer to release sufficient Democrats in the Senate to get to 60 when he opposes reciprocity tooth and nail??

Same with suppressors. please give me a citation form any serious source saying these were "withing possibility."

The practical purpose of those efforts was always as poison pills to block other legislation. Ie: want manchin toomey? then we threaten with amendment to add reciprocity to UBC.

and saying the GOP is the enemy is not supported by the facts nor the 40,000 data points of various votes in state legislatures. There has never been a time in history when gun control has had more of a partisan alignment.

 

[rascal]

Without a doubt their goal is totalitarian control and eliminating firearms from the general public. And 100% agree they could give two shits about crime or victims of mass shootings. That much is clear.

Having our own proposals isn’t about really getting the antis to sign on. It is about getting the general public to sign on and to provide an alternative narrative to the ban and confiscate song that the antis sing. Right now we have no alternative narrative aside from not one inch and the status quo. I don’t want my right to be further infringed than they already are. But unless we offer our own solutions, we are going to continue to appear as obstructionist, out of touch, gun nuts, kicking and screaming our way into more infringements with zero benefits for us.

Exactly.

Right now UBC, Red flag have ungodly public support. the type of support that no even well organized resistance can block. Even assault rifle ban has crazy high numbers.

There are lots of ways to delay and divert to lower impact legislation.

 

[swamplynx]

We need to move beyond the grab ass of simply adding national reciprocity poison pills and the like to UBC bills the dems put forward.

The Rs in Congress are baby ass soft on 2A rights, but even they have to know that the public’s perception on R’s being obstructionist when it comes to “common sense” gun law reform is going to drag them down across the board. Sure, they could placate to the antis, but then risk pissing off their base. The other option is R’s putting forward a come to Jesus comprehensive reform on OUR terms, that the general public can get behind, we can get behind, and when the antis don’t get behind it makes them look like the obstructionists.

We need to play the long game. Minimizing infringement of our rights (and expanding them) is key. Second, and equally important is preserving our “gun culture.” Kicking and screaming to preserve face to face sales without any background check, is not playing the long game. All that does is make us seem more out of the mainstream, and eventually when the antis take over it will be easy to wipe out our out of mainstream rights away. Playing the long game is making compromises that give the general public comfort and preserve and expand the gun culture of our nation. Giving up no background check face to face sales in exchange for national reciprocity would be one such compromise. Having thousands safely and without incident carrying across the country, normalizing what we see as a pivotal right.

That is what it all comes down to. Normalization. With that comes more people on our side. And that protects the right for generations to come.

 

[HaveBlue]

Without a doubt their goal is totalitarian control and eliminating firearms from the general public. And 100% agree they could give two shits about crime or victims of mass shootings. That much is clear.

I don’t want my right to be further infringed than they already are. But unless we offer our own solutions, we are going to continue to appear as obstructionist, out of touch, gun nuts, kicking and screaming our way into more infringements with zero benefits for us.

Civil rights never were a popularity contest. George Lucas never had to sue a state/city to have his movies shown. Larry Flynt did.

Our ideas should involve expanding rights and improving actual public safety, not coming up with new way to make valueless infringements easier to swallow. Especially because....

The people pushing UBCs as a solution are bad at math or lying. Given the wealth of charts and easy to ready graphs, I'm going with the later. Their true goal is bigger than confiscation. But that helps them out lateran gets us so spun up about it that we can't focus on anything else. Either way, if we or they propose a solution that has a measurably positive impact on their stated problem, that will lessen the panicked urgency to act without thinking and most importantly, increase the time it will take to achieve their goal.