OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
What did partial acceptance of slavery get us?
Last edited:
Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.
- Thread starter Deanimator
- Start date
- Status
CoalTrain49
Member
No, that was ATF/FBI. Will people stop buying AR's. I doubt it.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
Just to be clear and reiterate my point I am not in favor of further regulation I just feel as though the scary regulation everyone's so worried about is already in place.
Any further legislation that might be put forth is just beating a dead drum.
Alexandra likes to paint a sour portrait of VA but he must live in the northern part. He does not understand the amount of patriotism from the Richmond area south,west and east.
If anyone thinks that VA from Richmond south, east west won't put up a fight you dont know the state.
Much like other states I suspect if the SHTF we're going to have civil war.
I dont think anyone wants that but I can't stand when someone who doesn't know any better claims to say that a certain area will give in to that line of thinking.
Any further legislation that might be put forth is just beating a dead drum.
Alexandra likes to paint a sour portrait of VA but he must live in the northern part. He does not understand the amount of patriotism from the Richmond area south,west and east.
If anyone thinks that VA from Richmond south, east west won't put up a fight you dont know the state.
Much like other states I suspect if the SHTF we're going to have civil war.
I dont think anyone wants that but I can't stand when someone who doesn't know any better claims to say that a certain area will give in to that line of thinking.
CoalTrain49
Member
That law only lasted about 11 years.
NFA was passed in 1934. It's still enforce.
GCA was passed in 1968. It's still enforce.
Brady was passed in 1993. It's still enforce.
So you must think that those laws are going away. I would say the chances of that are pretty slim.
On the other hand I would say more gun control, not less, is probably on the way.
Just a guess.
Last edited:
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
I would say full registration at the Federal level is already on its way. When you bureaucrats and judges who cannot be unelected and who make policy and laws contrary to POTUS and the Constitution, I would say the Civil war is already underway - there just hasn't been any shooting. Death by a thousand cuts; it seems they have inflicted about 800 so far.
Tommygunn
Member
The assault weapon law was time limited because the politicians had to compromise; it had failed to pass on its first attempt to pass congress and Clinton managed to force it through again, and republican turncoat allowed it to pass with the limiting provision. But then, republicans took over congress and even Bill Clinton admitted it was due to the AWB.
The bottom line is we get the govt. we deserve .... or elect. Compromising works only in making the loss in rights "a death of a thousand cuts." Or ....like adding mud to water to get muddy water. There are a boatload of metaphors, some cute, some wise, some cliched, some insipid, but basically there are two factions, a "pro" and an "anti" faction, and for 80 years, they've been doing a little dance around each other, and trying to attract dance partners for political clout.
You seem to say if you won't compromise, you get gun control. Well, the antis want gun control. Compromise only gives them a little ....but it won't stop them, they took a bite in 1933, another in 38, and then again in 1968, and in 1994. Not to mention many other state laws.
Check out a concept called "The Overton Window." It deals with how "normalcy," or the political "middle ground" is gradually shifted --- to the left as it is being used now --- and thus making the new left seem "middle" and "normal." All this to seemingly make future leftward lurches seem smaller.
When you comprehend this concept you realize just why compromise is such a horrible strategy.
There's very little we can do aside from understanding our beliefs and principles, and voting for the best candidate we can find. Or, we can run for office ourselves if we think it's a viable option. There's not likely to be a perfect candidate on our side .... and our opponents get a vote too.
And the representatives we choose will vote in accord to their principles, beliefs, and prevail in accord to their clout, no doubt compromising whatever our beliefs are anyway, but that shouldn't cause us to abandon our principles, beliefs or strategies; there will always be THE NEXT ELECTION.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
Some people don't want them to go away.
Of course some people didn't want the Fugitive Slave Act to go away either.
And McClellan wanted to "compromise" with the Confederacy.
There's always somebody frantically looking for someone to whom they can surrender, regardless of the situation.
AlexanderA
Member
The numbers are in NoVa, Richmond, and the Tidewater. Especially NoVa. That's why the state is trending blue.
Beware the "Pauline Kael" fallacy -- the New York film critic who supposedly said she couldn't understand how Nixon got elected, because she didn't know anyone who voted for him. Sometimes we think that our immediate surroundings are typical of the larger entity. You have to look at actual voting trends, and by that measure things don't look good for gun rights in Virginia.
Virginia, up to now, has been excellent for guns. Easy-to-get concealed carry, all NFA items allowed, no waiting periods, etc. However, there are powerful forces within the state that want to make it a clone of New Jersey as regards guns. They probably won't succeed in this session of the legislature, but after November, things don't look good. All the antigunners have to do is flip one seat in each chamber. And the governor is an unbelievable antigun fanatic.
Just for a point of information. We did make a deal with the Japanese. We asked for unconditional surrender which they feared would lead to the removal of the Emperor. Many Americans and the Allies wanted that and for his trial as a war criminal. It was clear that he was onboard for the war effort.
However, the fierce battles on the Pacific Islands, such as Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal and Pelau indicated that an invasion would be a terrific casualty event for our forces. They were estimated to be in the range of 1.5 million. The Japanese had figured out our landing spots and heavily fortified them. We know that pre-invasion bombardments were not that effective.
Thus, we proposed that the Emperor be allows to stay as a figurehead monarch. Japanese royalty except for him and his direct offspring was eliminated. Some historians say that in 1943, the Japanese knew they were going to lose. There were the die at all costs nuts but they had to be handled. Members of the business sector and government were chosen to dissent and be arrested. Thus, when the Allies came, the Allies would spring these folks as members of a new peace government. However, these folks would maintain continuity of the elite.
They were supposed to have no armed forces but that went away rather quickly. Today, they are putting together their new carriers.
So there wasn't an unconditional surrender.
The problem is that for many in the gun world, they cannot offer convincing reasons for gun ownership beyond tantrums. That won't work.
However, the fierce battles on the Pacific Islands, such as Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal and Pelau indicated that an invasion would be a terrific casualty event for our forces. They were estimated to be in the range of 1.5 million. The Japanese had figured out our landing spots and heavily fortified them. We know that pre-invasion bombardments were not that effective.
Thus, we proposed that the Emperor be allows to stay as a figurehead monarch. Japanese royalty except for him and his direct offspring was eliminated. Some historians say that in 1943, the Japanese knew they were going to lose. There were the die at all costs nuts but they had to be handled. Members of the business sector and government were chosen to dissent and be arrested. Thus, when the Allies came, the Allies would spring these folks as members of a new peace government. However, these folks would maintain continuity of the elite.
They were supposed to have no armed forces but that went away rather quickly. Today, they are putting together their new carriers.
So there wasn't an unconditional surrender.
The problem is that for many in the gun world, they cannot offer convincing reasons for gun ownership beyond tantrums. That won't work.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
- If you read "Embracing Defeat", for all intents and purposes, it was unconditional surrender. The existing Japanese government thought that the existing SYSTEM would continue. They got a VERY rude surprise after the occupation. At least one high ranking official committed suicide over it.
- If those advocating "compromise" on racially invidious gun controls had been in charge in 1945, the Japanese would still have Korea, Manchuria, Taiwan and coastal China. Tojo would have gone on to honorable retirement. Unit 731 would still be pumping out biological weapons.
Sovblocgunfan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,483
Re: caveat to point 2. The Russians were poised to assume control over Korea and other areas as Japan was in no way able to defend itself from the Reds. I think compromisers would have lost their leverage rather quickly and been left with egg on their faces. We had to act, and quickly, else we would not have been able to dictate terms of occupation, and someone else would have been in control of our destiny there. I firmly believe had we compromised much further than we did it would have ended in additional war-faster and much, much worse than what ended up actually happening.
That does not mean I am in favor of UBCs. I just remember mah history. Apologies for the thread drift.
Last edited by a moderator:
I look at this UBC issue a little differently. I don't think negotiating with antigunners is necessarily the goal. Seems futile from my limited perspective.
I think what most Americans want to see is some action to reduce gun violence through what they consider to be common sense gun laws. Most folks are ok with gun ownership, so long as the gun owner isn't a convicted felon or mentally unstable. So when they hear that the gun lobby wants to preserve the BC loophole that allows dangerous people to legally acquire guns, they feel resentment.
Whether or not that resentment is justified is besides the point. The optics is enough to fuel political campaigns that promise UBCs and more.
Compromise is not the applicable word. Political strategy is what is needed because the recent trend is not looking good.
I think what most Americans want to see is some action to reduce gun violence through what they consider to be common sense gun laws. Most folks are ok with gun ownership, so long as the gun owner isn't a convicted felon or mentally unstable. So when they hear that the gun lobby wants to preserve the BC loophole that allows dangerous people to legally acquire guns, they feel resentment.
Whether or not that resentment is justified is besides the point. The optics is enough to fuel political campaigns that promise UBCs and more.
Compromise is not the applicable word. Political strategy is what is needed because the recent trend is not looking good.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
Abject capitulation, KNOWING that it opens the door for far worse is a pretty lousy strategy.
Sham "universal background checks" will NEVER satisfy the other side and are the wedge needed for registration which is nothing but a stalking horse for confiscation.
Giving anything to the anti-gun cult is like giving out all of your credit and banking information to a stranger on the internet. What do you think you're going to get in return?
3. (Part of 1.) It is the building blocks for full registration. Make no mistake about it, that is their target. And of course after that, confiscation, then after that we are completely unprepared to stop further transgressions against citizens. (Or will they be calling us "serfs" by then.)
AlexanderA
Member
Bingo. You don't negotiate directly with the antigunners. The antigunners state their case, the pro-gunners state their objections, and then the negotiating and convincing takes place in the middle to win over the politicians and the public. The pro-gun side has to at least appear willing to address the legitimate concerns. Stonewalling has worked in the past, but the calculations are different now.
So give them something that doesn't hurt us at all and doesn't move them any closer to the bad goals we want to avoid them reaching. Make FTF sales that don't go through a BGC require a CCW or other proof-of-non-prohibition document to be shown. You can even explain that a BGC has to be run for such a permit, thus requiring "universal background checks" on every transfer - just not universal 4473's on a transaction basis, which is what we (logically) want to avoid.
As I posted earlier, most of the FTF gun community in my state has already adopted this as a social norm and a thing sellers like to do to minimize the chances of accidentally selling a gun to a prohibited person and then being accused of doing so knowingly.
I don’t expect to get anything from anti gunners. The goal should be to win popular support, not to strike a deal with anti gunners.
Whether or not UBC is the solution to anything is beyond me. But we should realize that it’s not the anti gunners who are electing our politicians. It’s ordinary Americans that decide most elections. So it’s not about capitulating or negotiating or compromising. It’s about winning back America.
CoalTrain49
Member
There were "terms" of Japan's surrender. The terms were agreed to at the Potsdam Conference ( US, Britain, Russia ). The Japanese were not present at the conference and had no input about the "terms" of surrender. It was unconditional as far as the big three were concerned.
If you can show me where the Japanese brokered any conditions of their surrender I would be interested in reading about it. What they got was purely from the benevolence of the US and the Japanese knew it. They asked. That's a lot different than a conditional surrender.
No but an atomic bomb was pretty effective. Not much point in defending a country that no longer exists. Germany never surrendered. Their country was a wasteland by the end of the war. Materially nothing left. I know a person who was a teenager in Germany during the war. She would tell you the same thing.
I'm not looking at this from the lessons of ww2 however. I am however looking at it from someone who lives in a state with a UBC. I didn't support it, I gave money to organizations that tried to fight it, I contacted my reps and told them how I felt about it to no avail. Once it became law thru an initiative none of them tried to reverse it as they have in the past with previous initiatives. So none of my actions mattered in the outcome.
The very best thing a person can do right now is become politically active. If someone wants a solution, give them one. They truly aren't interested in no participation in a solution to a perceived problem. For a politician, if their constituents feel it's a problem then it becomes a reality for them.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
That reminds me of the nonsense argument that the Japanese were "beaten" and "ready to surrender" before the bombs. What some third under-secretary for soil affairs in the Ministry of Agriculture thought was COMPLETELY irrelevant.
Likewise, nobody who MATTERS has the slightest interest in half measures to disarm the American public as an endpoint. To the people who RUN this movement, a total handgun BAN would be a "good first step". "Negotiations" with irrelevant peripheral characters is nothing more than kabuki theater of the most contemptible sort.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
The anti-gunners ARE the politicians. They are the CORE of one of the parties and an ever present fifth column in another.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
Giving them ANYTHING is a step down the path, at which they are NEVER going to stop.
You're opening the door to REGISTRATION. After that, all bets are off. The other side knows no limits. Ask Kenyon Ballew and the Katonas.
I regret that I replied to just an off topic comment about unconditional surrender, so let's drop a controversial history point as we are getting more misinterpretations of events to suit one's opinion of UBC.
So no more "Unconditional Surrender". Also we are getting quite repetitious in our utterances. So is there anything more to say? Typing in CAPS isn't adding information.
So no more "Unconditional Surrender". Also we are getting quite repetitious in our utterances. So is there anything more to say? Typing in CAPS isn't adding information.
No, it's down a different path that doesn't get any closer to registration. I've explained repeatedly in this thread to people why transfer-by-transfer UBC's are functionally the precursor to universal registration, and that's why I am against them. What I have suggested - a no-record-kept, flash-a-CCW private sale system - is far too "leaky" to work as a de facto registry. It's actually no closer to a registry than what we have now. No additional records will be created or kept aside from whatever small portion of private transactions presently involve people who don't have a non-prohibited-proof document (such as a CCW) and wouldn't get one. But since "I sold the [gun in question] to a guy who showed me a permit" would remain a plausible and legally-innocent story in my proposal, then, nope, you don't have anything close (or closer) to registration.
Of course the point is not to satisfy the anti-gunners, but to throw a bone (and a harmless one at that) to the large majority of voters who aren't anti-gun, nor pro-gun, but are concerned (rightly or wrongly) about levels of violence in the U.S. and want to do "something." This is a "something" that could be done that would not have any harmful effects and would not get us closer to registration or bans. Which (to come full circle) is precisely why the anti-gun folks never propose it.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
You've COMPLETELY ignored my fundamental points:
- They will reject ANYTHING which DOESN'T impose the MAXIMUM hardship on NON-criminal gun owners.
- They will CORRECTLY point out that without registration, it is utterly unenforceable.
- You presume rationality and a minimum of honesty on the part of the other side.
Ah, I see the source of our failure to communicate. You are assuming that the whole world, or the American polity, is divided into pro-gun and anti-gun people. The majority of Americans aren't really either. I'm not talking about satisfying the anti-gun people... you're right as to their implacability. I'm talking about taking the steam out of their efforts to rile up the vast numbers of people who neither love nor revile guns, who are easily seduced by alleged "common sense."
If the anti-gun folks block something like what I'm suggesting, then the cynical middle will be more inclined to see the anti-gunners goals as they are.
If the anti-gun folks block something like what I'm suggesting, then the cynical middle will be more inclined to see the anti-gunners goals as they are.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
