well, some nut or nuts just shot up the mothers day parade in new orleans...maybe its time to offer a compromise on the background check issue?

but first, here are some facts:

a. none of the firearms used in the mass murders of the last few years were obtained illegally. meaning that all owners of these firearms passed federally mandated back ground checks.

b. all of the firearms used in these mass murders were of the center fire, semi automatic, high capacity magazine type.

c. most records of treatment of individuals for mental health issues are not included in the federal background check data base.

here is a compromise:

1. repeal the Johnson era firearms act of 1968 and the Clinton era firearms act of 1993, aka the brady bill.

2. replace them with a universal back ground check law for only those firearms described in b. above.

3. encourage mental health professionals to report treatment data, on a selective basis, for those individuals whom they consider to be a potential danger to society. that data would be added to the national back ground check data base and would be the trigger for a 90 delay for approval of firearms acquisition.

what do you think?

If some of our laws might be repealed, I'd stop right there. Once someone starts talking about new laws, all I know is you're a advocate for more ideological divide. Look who would write, sign, enforce and interpret the 'new law'.

Craig, you nailed the problem with compromise. Those who write, sign, interpret and enforce "compromise" legislation are only those who would ban guns outright.

When one side gives up something and the other side gains something, that's not a compromise, that's an incremental win for one side.

Compromise is a Trojan Horse unless both sides, in writing, agree not to pursue anything more.

Canvasback,
Even if they agree in writting not to ask for anything else, the next congress will claim they are not bound by the agreement and will hit us again anyway.
Mike

does anyone agree that repeal of the firearms acts of 1968 and 1993 are steps in the right direction? if so, then you gotta come up with a replacement background check law. otherwise, you will never get the votes for repeal.

Are you sure that's the only option. How about print a hundred billion a month instead of 85 billion a month and 'invest' the extra 15 bil in more welfare. That might swing a few votes, maybe change hearts and minds for a week or two.

Very true Mike. Hence my position for no compromise.

It puts us in a bind, because truly, I believe some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Primarily those with evidenced mental health issues and convicted criminals.

But at the same time, having been victimized by the legal system and lawyers for being a gun owner when I found out my wife had been cheating on me with a close friend, I don't put much faith in the even handed application of potential rules by the socialist/feminist cartel of lawyers and activists that run our governments and the legal system.

Until we find a way to change the public perception of gun owners, away from the now 50 years of vilification by activists, elected officials and the media, every rule enacted will be twisted to screw us over.

I'd like to be able to support what Ed is talking about but real world experience tells me not to. It will be used against me.

My default position on any issue regarding governments is that they will waste money and their bureaucracy and policing will constantly infringe on my true rights. So my default response is to be against any and all government tax and fee increases, no matter the justification, because the money will be wasted. And to oppose every single new law, because there are enough now to do all that is necessary.

A key problem is we send politicians to work with the idea they are "lawnmakers". So what do they do? They make laws? Doesn't matter if the laws are needed, they are there to make them, so they do. We should start referring to politicians not as lawmakers but perhaps as "stewards" of our government and legal systems. There to oversee and ensure good management.

But stop with the lawmaking crap. You've had 250 years of it and we are close to 150 years. Enough is enough.

I have a bett4er compromise.

We buy the lefties a one way ticket to some other socialist Utopia....and they agree to never return here. Any that remain get marched at gunpoint to the Mexican Border...and see how well they are recieved headed that direction.

Then the rest of us get to live happily ever after.

You have good (no pun intended here) ideas, BUT the problem is, we would be entrusting the new legislation in DisneyLand on the Potomac to re-draft those two idiotic (Johnson 1968- a Democrat) and Slick Willie 1993, also a Democrat- both very Liberal as well- and what do we have at 1600 nowadays and in Congress- BINGO-- will the current squawk about the Gestapo/IRS moves against the Tea Party gruops bring about impeachment of Barracks-Bag-Boy and his crew? I doubt it--so we are, as LBJ once said about his FUBARs that got us embroiled in the Vietnam War-- "Like a hitch-hiker caught on the open highway in a Texas hailstorm-- no where to run, no place to hie, no way out"__

Ed,...

First, the Yo-Yo demented teenager in Newtown, CT "borrowed his mothers gun without permission"...I think that qualifies as "stealing"..?

Let's see now, here are some MORE facts, .....New Orleans you say,

The shooter has been identified as Ak-ieeeen Scott, 19 year old Negro. A Police news report says that Scott has BEEN PREVIOUSLY ARRESTED FOR: ILLEGAL CARRYING OF A WEAPON, ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A STOLEN FIREARM, RESISTING AN OFFICER, POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND IN JAIL, ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WHILE IN POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST....POSSESSION OF HEROIN.....

SO.......

With a stolen firearm, on drugs, with a long wrap sheet and without a job, IS IT LIKELY THAT MR. AK-IEEEEN SCOTT DID NOT DO THE NICS CHECK THINGY.... WHATTA YA THINK....?.....

Somewhere, Sometime, Somehow, Someone MUST CALL A SPADE A SPADE AND STOP THE P.C. DANCING AROUND THE "FACTS"...... Anyone with an I.Q. over 40 and anyone who has the perception to connect the dots....knows that this crime, like thousands before it IS NOTHING NEW......Same old shit, different day......Years and years of hard statistics bear these facts to be true....

SO WILL THE LIBTARDS PLEASE STAND UP AND EXPLAIN THE BEST WAY TO "LEGISLATE" AGAINST STOLEN GUNS, ERIC HOLDER AND THE MAGIC NEGRO WANT TO KNOW....

Nothing new about the guns, the victims, the shooters or the way that the gun was "stolen"....end of story.....It is just another scene from a Tarzan movie.......and it repeats over and over every night in our major ghetto crime ridden cities,..... BUT ALAS, IN CHICAGO THEY WANT MORE GUN CONTROL TO STOP THE NEEDLESS SHOOTINGS WITH STOLEN GUNS, WHAT A REVELATION, LOL......

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14/new-orleans-police-id-suspect-in-mother-day-parade-shooting/

Here's a compromise:

We put ed good in a $2500 suit with a $10,000 Rolex on his wrist, then drop him off in downtown Detroit.

Next, we simply wait until them law-abiding brothers show him the way home...

A Timex and Nike shoes will be enough in that town....

maybe some one else who reads this thread is grounded in reality. you guys certainly do not seem to be grounded in any thing except racial prejudice, rigid ideology and hot air...we have a system of government that is built on the concept of compromise, with checks and balances. and, it works when we the voters want it too.

why not trade universal background checks for certain classes of semi auto firearms in exchange for roll back of the draconian, knee jerk, anti gun legislation of the late sixties and early nineties?...too bad they were not temporary acts, such as the infamous and now defunct assault rifle ban.

You can buy several houses for the price of a cheap Timex in Detroit.



I'm not kidding. Meaning people won't even move there for free....THats why the Muslims are happy there.....they enjoy hell holes even the Black thugs run from.

Ed, I'm not a racist. I don't care that Obama is black or that he may be Muslim or that he was probably not born in the US. I care that he lies, is constantly deceptive and has a rigid leftist ideology. He is not a supporter of the democratic traditions of the US.

You do have a system of government that involves checks and balances and I believe the current POTUS is actively subverting those checks and balances. One of the key checks is the 2cd amendment. And Obama, together with like minded individuals, are in a long term game to remove that right from the average citizen. The evidence that is their plan is overwhelming.

They didn't start it, but they have bought into it and are doing their best to execute it. It is social engineering, whether you like it or not.

The fundamental issue isn't even guns. It's freedom of choice. The gun is, as it always is, simply a tool.

Compromise? You may as well make a pact with the devil.

Every day the news get worse:

First there's the Benghazi cover up

Then the revelation that the IRS targeted Tea Party members and other conservatives

Now we are finding out that the Justice Dept. is tapping reporters phone lines

When will it end? When will there be enough outrage in this Country to take some action?

Jim

And I have absolutely no reason to believe this has not been going on since the day he took office....its just coming out now.

Hillary pulled this same stunt with Filegate.....and got away with it.

She had enough on him to get appointed Secretary of State....and he had enough on her to keep her more or less in line....

Two thieves in a pod.

And what if nothing ever happens?

Except that they come for you, your wife and kids. Because they know where the guns are.

Thanks to ed's "compromise" background check...

'Grounded in reality'?, maybe you didn't notice Doug's comment about your truths and the legality of criminal gun use. Maybe you intended to intentionally mislead. Instead of ownership word gymnastics, why not contend that nearly all guns are legally manufactured and if we ban the making, then it's easier to give up any class of firearms and we get the bonus of taking background checks off the discussion table.

Over the last few months, there seems(!) to be a slight turn around in the momentum for new gun control legislation. You have specifically ignored the case against universal background checks, but....you want to intentionally put it back on the table for no reason other than 'compromise'.

Prejudice, rigid ideology and hot air...you sound like a lib bashing the 'gun lobby'. You might send the NRA a thank you note, make it a c-note, for helping you out beyond the capability of your single vote.

guys: you still don't get it...

what I am suggesting is universal back ground checks on certain semi auto firearms in exchange for repeal of the gun control acts of 1968 and 1993. if the pro gun politicians could accomplish that via compromise with the anti gun politicians, then that would be a good thing?

Who gets to pick what the "Certain" semi-autos are? And why do they get to single certain ones out over others....what standards apply...because they look scary?

WHat is to stop the gun grabbers from taking away all the others since they already got half their body in the door....and not just their foot.

THere is no Compromise with the gun grabbing freaks...they won't be happy until they take away ALL our guns...even the plastic toy guns.

We aren't compromising when we are the only ones giving everything up...we are bending over and spreading our butt cheeks inviting them to have fun at our expense....no need for lube OR condoms. Because thats exactly what happens anytime anyone gives anything to those freaks.

We loose....and they gain....thats not a compomise by any definition. What that is We lose, they win. THey walk away from the table with far more than they came with...and we leave with a lot less than we came with.


THe Definition....weapon of War....is a mind numbing idiodic demarcation point.

Italy uses that one.....Springfield Carbines...Mausers, and Garands are illegal in Italy....not just the scary looking guns popular with the Hollywood types that love to use them in films, by the same people don't want US to own them.

Thanks doc, I still wonder why Ed thinks he's got it.

Ed, would you define what 'certain' means, and why won't you explain what 'compromise' means. I offered a carrot earlier for libs, 15 bil more per month in social program wasting. You said you were going to compromise with ANTI-gunners. What would you give them in exchange.

Ain't gonna happen!
Repeal of the 68 GCA would wipe out the whole ban on private interstate sales and shipping of firearms. Even the Libtards aren't dumb enough to agree to this.
Who cares about the Assault Weapons Ban it expired in 2004 due to the sunset clause.
Jim

Ed, where have you been since 1968? The anti-gunners would never give up the ineffective things they already got for some compromise that left them with less than they had. This has been about incrementalism and the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment. Your whole argument is based on fantasy. Do you really think they'll go back to a time when you could order a revolver mail-order from Herters without any backround check? With all of the recidivist criminals and gangbangers out on the streets, do any of us want that?

Finally, why do you want to put blame on an inanimate semi-automatic gun or large capacity magazine when the problem is the criminal who pulls the trigger and then gets a plea bargain, or paroled so he can go out and do it again? And again. And again...

This thread is just crazy. FREE MEN don't give up some rights in order to hopefully temporarily keep a few.

guys:

all of the firearms used in the recent mass murders were of the center fire, semi automatic, high capacity magazine type.

so why not have universal background checks on just those firearms that meet all three of the tests listed above? this would be the trade off for repeal of the firearms acts of 1968 and 1993. that would mean the lifting of the ban on none dealer interstate firearms transfers, the elimination of dealer record keeping on all other firearms and no background check by any federal agency on all other firearms...state laws would remain in force.

ideally, the universal background check act would have the same provision as the assault rifle ban. meaning that it would expire in ten years and would require congressional approval for its renewal.

So what...All modern firearms are centerfire ...except for 22 rimfires. I haven't seen or heard of any caseless rounds in civilian weapons yet...

All rifles with a magazine can have a high capacity magazine fitted.

Do you believe a bolt action rifle couldn't kill a classroom of unarmed kids.....or a captive group of unarmed adults for that matter?


And incidently no political hack has any right..or business deciding what I have the constitutional right to own.

And coincidently.....all of those shooters shared something in common...Including the idiot that shot Gabby Giffords....they were all democrat loons with a hoistory of mental issues...and yet THEY were allowed to roam free.

Unhindered.


And what Politcal moron has any right to decide (like in NY) I can only have 7 rounds in my gun to defend myself and my family in my our house against several armed home invaders who are no hindered by any existing law.

And for that matter...exactly what right or business do the Police have with Actual automatic weapons....high capacity magazines, etc? Last I checked thats what we have the National Guard for....

bonehead: a firearm would have to be center fire, semi auto and be fitted with a hi cap mag to require the new owner to undergo a background check. if it did not meet all three of those tests, then a background check would not be applicable.

as for the rest of your comments, there has to be compromise for this to work.

Ed, you asked for an answer, and I gave you one. Yet you still want to trade something to the anti-gunners who have been nothing but disingenuous liars for over fifty years.

Free MEN do not give up rights in the hope of temporarily keeping other rights. Emphasis on the word "MEN".

keith: hey, MAN, I wanna trade universal background checks on a certain class of firearms for repeal of the two major federal acts that restrict out second amendment rights...perhaps you should google the federal firearms acts of 1968 and 1993 to fully understand the impact of what I am advocating.

Leaving aside the fact that the '68 GCA will never be repealed, ever - what you suggest is defining a certain group of firearms as deserving of tighter restrictions than other firearms. In effect, government saying "this gun is bad but that gun is OK". Which is something I cannot agree with as no gun is worse than any other, they're inanimate objects incapable of morality, either good or bad. Whether any firearm is used for good or evil is entirely dependent on the person whose hand is holding said gun. Yes, I realize government has already started this by making it extremely difficult (not to mention prohibitively expensive) to own a full-auto, but taking another step down that same road is not a direction I want to go.

Will anti-gun politicians not seek to blame double shotguns if one is used in the next mass killing? Would the victims be somehow less dead if they're not killed with a semi-auto rifle but with a double shotgun firing 00 buck? To the hoplophobes all guns are evil, and to believe that they will give us a permanent pass on hunting rifles and shotguns in return for compromising on black rifles is naïve at best.

JonR, Excellent post! Thank you.

Ed, my
semi-namesaked NH town friend (Live Free or Die?) what the other lads here, and myself as well, are trying to suggest to you is the wisdom of the old axiom- "Give 'em an inch and they'll steal a mile from you" In a perfect world, where gun regs were established by the NRA and not the Liberal retards who think ALL guns are evil things, your case makes sense. Unfortunately, we don't, nor never will, live in such a utopia--

Where in the heck did my post go? Or did I back out without saving it?

In any case....if two guys show up for a game of cards....and one leaves with far more than he came with (the gun grabbers)...and the other leaves with empty pockets (The Gun owners)...then its NOT a comprimise.

WHat exactly are the gun grabbers giving up that they actually have now thats at least equal in value to what they want us to give up?

And in the end if our right to own whatever guns we want is lessened...then we lost..and they won.

Ed,

With the state of our society and the never before levels of:

1.) massive radical liberal mentality running rampant.

2.) massive drug dependence & usage running rampant unchecked and rising.

3.) massive illegal immigration running rampant and rising.

4.) massive violent gang inner city crimes on the rise.

5.) massive unemployment on the rise.

6.) massive inflation & government spending rising uncontrolled.

7.) massive rising food stamp and government dependent mooches out of control.

8.) massive out of control Hollywood production of videos inflating the "thrill of mass shooting and death" brainwashing young people.


So, with just these few that I have noted here, you are in favor of repealing the GCA of 1968 and ALLOWING THE UNCONTROLLED INTERSTATE mailing of ALL guns to inner city, unemployed, criminal and mentally unstable people, wherever they may be, WITHOUT ANY TRACKING OF ANY SORT..?.. That would be really lighting the fuse I'm afraid, however wonderful you may think it sounds.

Is this what you mean..?..

As noted above by others, hang out in Detroit for a spell and see if that would be wise, or Chicago, L.A., Boston, New York, Miami, Atlanta etc.

This will never happen number one, and as paraphrased above, under our current social state, UNDER "CURRENT" SOCIETAL CONDITIONS IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN....DANGEROUS TO SAY THE LEAST.

Because of Libtards and their "continual progressive" destruction of the cohesion and honor in society in this country, we are no longer a responsible society like we were pre 1968 unfortunately....

We should stand firm and give up nothing, change nothing and add nothing to the 2nd amendment.

Hey Ed, I already told you that what you propose is fantasy. First of all, the Clinton (so-called) Assault Weapon bans have already sun-setted as originally mandated by law. So you would have us trade Universal Backround checks on semi-autos and giving up large cap magazines for what... something that is already gone??? I knew that without Googling anything... how did you miss that news? If the anti-gunners had their way, those bans would be reinstated with many more firearms added to the list. They have every intention of persuing that goal. It's fantasy and insanity to think they will just give up on that in the spirit of compromise.

Second, I, and others have already explained that they will never go back to the pre-1968 days when you could buy rifles, shotguns, and revolvers without any backround check or waiting periods, and you could even buy them from mail order dealers and have them shipped direct to your home. You gotta be on crack to be thinking otherwise. So why propose giving up our rights for something that will never ever happen. You only look weak when you propose crap like this.

Third, anyone with even half a brain understands by now, after half a century of attacks and the loss of firearms rights here and abroad, that the anti-gunners hate us and they hate the Second Amendment. They are all about incrementally taking away our rights. They look for any tragedy or any opportunity to advance their agenda. They smell weakness and you are smelling pretty weak right now. The rest of us aren't voluntarily giving up anything. Our Civil 2nd Amendment Rights aren't for sale or trade. Not even a little bit.

sounds like the compromise of giving in to universal background checks on a certain class of firearms in exchange for elimination of virtually all other firearms possession regulations at the federal level aint the kind of deal you guys would ever wish to consider...

Sounds like you've been huffing the acetylene since you quit torch coloring shotguns.

pa: as for your point about interstate sales, yes, all firearms not meeting all three tests of being semi auto, center fire and hi cap mag could be legally transferred without benefit of dealer involvement. it means anyone could legally acquire firearms such as revolvers, bolt action rifles and most shotguns without anyones knowledge or approval at the federal level. state laws would still apply...you know, sorta like what the 2nd and 10th amendments are all about.

keith: what makes you think I quit? just did one the other night...ah the sweet smell of burning urine and steel...

Ed,

It is not realistic, unfortunately. You know all the reasons.

We need to do background checks on certain classes of people....Like Registered Democrats.

We always knew it was you Ed. But you always blamed the ficticious gunsmith, old Ed Lander for your desecrations.

As far as your concessionary gun control proposals... read what Doug just said. "It's not realistic, unfortunately. You know all the reasons." So I'm done wasting time on silly nonsense.

Aaaahhhh yeeessss- the old blacksmith's trick-a piece of steel or iron near the forge- before you pick it up with your hands, piss on it (or spit, if there are women present) and if it steams and sizzles, best be reaching for the old tongs-

foxie: interesting quench method you suggest...too bad our old friend tony is no longer with us...he would get quite a chuckle out of your post...

just shipped a parker shotgun made in 1922, for a gentleman who was born in 1922...and yes, federal law requires that this fine gun and any others made after 1898 must be shipped to an ffl if going out of state...this is ridiculous!


we need to amend the firearms acts of 1968 and 1993 to exclude firearms and their purchasers made prior to ww2.

Whoa, hold up that package. Did you get a background check on that ninety-two year old. Just kidding, I know you got an exemption for the guns and customers that you like.

Just curious Ed, what is your reasoning here. What logic? Is there a particular date that, before which, guns are not too deadly??

Or is it more that these old guns are more your personal bailiwick and so who gives a crap about others as long as your little corner of the gun world is exempt from the onerous conditions imposed by the gun grabbers?

Canvasback,
Not to take over the question, the law excludes guns made before Jan 1, 1899 from the requirements, as antiques.I understand, Canadian law doesn't make this distinction.
Mike

I know, Mike. It just seems to me that Ed's ambition to have that exemption extended is based on a self serving desire to make HIS activities easier, not some kind of sensible logic about firearms regulations. And in the process throw the second amendment and millions of gun owners under the bus.

just to clarify, the 91 year old firearm mentioned above that was made in 1922, was shipped to an ffl dealer, as per the firearms act of 1968. that dealer will do a background check on the 91 year old purchaser of that firearms in compliance with the gun control act of 1993... my point is that after an individual reaches a certain age, they should be exempt from some of these draconian knee jerk firearms laws...if we find that 70 year old plus guys and gals are going out and committing crimes with their 70 year old plus firearms, then we can always regulate them again...somehow, I don't think that is necessary now, then or in the future.

Gosh Ed, from your earlier post, I was pretty sure you were talking about changing the age of the guns that are considered antiques from pre1898 to pre 1940.

Now your suggesting you meant you think people should be exempt from these laws if they're over a certain age. Is it 65? 75?

In fact, if you look to your earlier post you were quite specific. Change the age at which guns become exempt. You said nothing about a persons age until I called you on the other issue.


But regardless, neither can be defended in any kind of logical way. Either guns are murderous evil things that need to be restricted or banned or they are tools in the hands of both good people and bad. The age of the weapon is meaningless in that debate, your antique rules notwithstanding.


It is the tactic of the anti gun liberals to confuse the masses with meaningless detail that avoids addressing the real issues. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are not a problem. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding. Guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable are a problem. Gun laws, as enacted and envisioned, never address the second group, only the first, the law abiding.

statistically, old folks do not commit violent crimes...therefore, they do no use firearms to commit violent crimes...therefore, why regulate them or the firearms they acquire?


and while we are at it, anyone over the age of 70 should be exempt from all federal taxes.