Pro-gun, pro-NRA guy, willing to comprimise!

[M14 Shooter]

I will give you universal background checks, with exclusions for family members.
In return, I want federally mandated nationwide CCW reciprocity.
Deal?

OK... your turn.
What do you want, ad what are you willing to give me in return?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why exclusions for family members?

Just because someone might be able to pass a sanity check doesn't mean that their rabid brother can.

Universal means universal. No exclusions or exceptions. Also since people get older and their eyesight and reactions fade there needs to be retesting on a periodic basis.

I will give you CCW nationwide provided the permit holders pass FBI firearms training courses similar to those that the police must undergo on a regular basis.

And since you asked I want a national database of all guns and who is the registered owner.

I also want taggants mandatory in all ammunition and reloading powder supplies with a database of all sales showing images of the purchasers.

Which of those are you prepared to give me?

 

[M14 Shooter]

]Why exclusions for family members?

Because I know if they are legally able to own a gun; I don't need a background check for that.

I will give you CCW nationwide provided the permit holders pass FBI firearms training courses similar to those that the police must undergo on a regular basis.

Nope. The requirements for my home state CCW are enough, just like for a driver's license.
Deal?

And since you asked I want a national database of all guns and who is the registered owner.
I also want taggants mandatory in all ammunition and reloading powder supplies with a database of all sales showing images of the purchasers.

That's pretty steep.
What are you willing to give me in return?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm.
I thought this topic would get all kinds of response -- the anti-gun loons keep telling the pro-gun side it needs to compromise; I'm giving them what they apparently want...?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because I know if they are legally able to own a gun; I don't need a background check for that.

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. Everyone has to undergo background checks. Sandy Hook should be more than enough reason to include family members.

Nope. The requirements for my home state CCW are enough, just like for a driver's license.
Deal?

Nope, public safety is first and foremost. If you want CCW then you have to meet the same standard that applies to LEO's.

That's pretty steep.
What are you willing to give me in return?

The national gun/owner registry is negotiable. The ammunition taggants and sales registry is not.

In essence if we can ensure that all those who have guns passed background checks and those who want CCW's can prove that they will only use them the same way LEO's would then the primary public safety goal is achieved as far as that can be accomplished.

The taggants are to catch the criminals. We know that they are out there and obtaining their guns and ammo from unscrupulous dealers so let's eliminate them from the system since all they are doing are giving law abiding gun owners a bad name.

Once criminals figure out that if they use a gun the taggants will trace back to them even if they dispose of the weapon they will be less likely to want to leave that evidence behind. Yes, criminals are stupid but not that stupid. Once they start ending up behind bars because of taggants the news will spread.

Does that work for you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because I know if they are legally able to own a gun; I don't need a background check for that.

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. Everyone has to undergo background checks. Sandy Hook should be more than enough reason to include family members.

If I know my bother is a felon, it is illegal to sell him the gun; I'll either obey the law and not sell him the gun or break the law and sell him the gun without the background check. Either way, the background check is unnecessary, does nothing and therefore there's no need for it.

Nope, public safety is first and foremost. If you want CCW then you have to meet the same standard that applies to LEO's.

Then you aren't talking about reciprocity, you;re talking about a federal CCW permit, which is not the same thing
If you want the UBC, you give nationwide reciprocity of existing state permits.

That's pretty steep.
What are you willing to give me in return?

The national gun/owner registry is negotiable. The ammunition taggants and sales registry is not.

Ok... and so, what do I get in return? What will you give me in return for giving these to you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because I know if they are legally able to own a gun; I don't need a background check for that.

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. Everyone has to undergo background checks. Sandy Hook should be more than enough reason to include family members.

If I know my bother is a felon, it is illegal to sell him the gun; I'll either obey the law and not sell him the gun or break the law and sell him the gun without the background check. Either way, the background check is unnecessary, does nothing and therefore there's no need for it.

Nope, public safety is first and foremost. If you want CCW then you have to meet the same standard that applies to LEO's.

Then you aren't talking about reciprocity, you;re talking about a federal CCW permit, which is not the same thing
If you want the UBC, you give nationwide reciprocity of existing state permits.

That's pretty steep.
What are you willing to give me in return?

The national gun/owner registry is negotiable. The ammunition taggants and sales registry is not.

Ok... and so, what do I get in return? What will you give me in return for giving these to you?

Ok, here is what I will give up.

No background checks for family and no gun/owner registry.

In return I want the taggant/sales images database and all gun owners to carry 3rd party liability insurance for any harm caused by their weapons irrespective of who uses them.

Carrying a gun is not the same thing as having a drivers license so as far as the federal CCW is concerned if you want state to state reciprocity you will have to abide by the FBI LEO training.

If you only want your local state CCW then you don't need the federal LEO training but for reciprocity you have to meet the federal guidelines.

Do we have a deal?

 

[jon_berzerk]

universal background checks for all is un workable

unless you have registration

which i am against

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok, here is what I will give up.
No background checks for family
and no gun/owner registry.

In return I want the taggant/sales images database and all gun owners to carry 3rd party liability insurance for any harm caused by their weapons irrespective of who uses them.

Carrying a gun is not the same thing as having a drivers license so as far as the federal CCW is concerned if you want state to state reciprocity you will have to abide by the FBI LEO training.

If you only want your local state CCW then you don't need the federal LEO training but for reciprocity you have to meet the federal guidelines.

Do we have a deal?

Lets not conflate items that aren't related.

Initially....
I offered giving UBC with family exemption. In return, I want 50 state reciprocity of existing state CCW permits.
You agree to the limited UBC, but you do not agree to 50-state reciprocity of existing state CCW permits.
Correct?
If so then we clearly have no deal as there's no reason for me to give something up w/o receiving something in return.

Separately....
You want taggant/sales images database and all gun owners to carry 3rd party liability insurance for any harm caused by their weapons irrespective of who uses them.
I ask again: What do you offer in return?

 

[M14 Shooter]

universal background checks for all is un workable
unless you have registration
which i am against

Yes, but that's a separate exercise.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ok, here is what I will give up.
No background checks for family
and no gun/owner registry.

In return I want the taggant/sales images database and all gun owners to carry 3rd party liability insurance for any harm caused by their weapons irrespective of who uses them.

Carrying a gun is not the same thing as having a drivers license so as far as the federal CCW is concerned if you want state to state reciprocity you will have to abide by the FBI LEO training.

If you only want your local state CCW then you don't need the federal LEO training but for reciprocity you have to meet the federal guidelines.

Do we have a deal?

Lets not conflate items that aren't related.

Initially....
I offered giving UBC with family exemption. In return, I want 50 state reciprocity of existing state CCW permits.
You agree to the limited UBC, but you do not agree to 50-state reciprocity of existing state CCW permits.
Correct?
If so then we clearly have no deal as there's no reason for me to give something up w/o receiving something in return.

Separately....
You want taggant/sales images database and all gun owners to carry 3rd party liability insurance for any harm caused by their weapons irrespective of who uses them.
I ask again: What do you offer in return?

I have told you I don't want UBC for families anyway so you don't get your 50 state CCW permits without giving up something else in return.

I have also given up the national gun/owner registration database so that is off the table.

The taggants/sales database should be a no brainer since it works to the advantage of both sides.

So that just leaves the liability insurance. If you can show the insurance company that you have passed the FBI LEO training you would get a discount and your 50 state reciprocity.

How is that not a compromise?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have told you I don't want UBC for families anyway so you don't get your 50 state CCW permits without giving up something else in return.

OK, so you decline the offer I made. Fair enough.
What, if anything, are you willing to give me in return for agreeing to full UBCs?

The taggants/sales database should be a no brainer since it works to the advantage of both sides.
So that just leaves the liability insurance

You want powder taggants w/ database ID and a liability insurance mandate.
What, if anything, are you willing to give me in return for agreeing to these?

 

[Derideo_Te]

What, if anything, are you willing to give me in return for agreeing to full UBCs?

Nothing, since there is no value without the national gun/owner database.

The taggants/sales database is a win-win for both sides so nothing needs to be exchanged. Basically it takes more gun toting criminals off the streets which means that gun owners no longer have to deal with the negative association to their guns. So that should be something you are willing to agree to since you get an automatic benefit.

All we have left that we want is liability insurance. If you want 50 state CCW then you get that for agreeing to the liability insurance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing, since there is no value without the national gun/owner database.

OK then - no agreement on UBC
Good to see you understand that UBC is worthless without a national registration.
This is, of course, why sane people oppose UBC.

The taggants/sales database is a win-win for both sides so nothing needs to be exchanged.

So, you offer nothing in return - you do not seek compromise, you simply want me to give something for nothing in return..
Naturally, as I seek compromise, I do not agree.

All we have left that we want is liability insurance. If you want 50 state CCW then you get that for agreeing to the liability insurance.

i was willing to trace UBC for 50-state CCW.
For a liability insurance mandate, which is far more onerous than UBC on several different levels, I want the repeal of the 18 USC 922(o) post-1986 transfer ban on machine guns as well as the CLEO 'shall issue' provision of the 1934 National Frearms Act with regard to the firearms mentioned therein.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, you offer nothing in return - you do not seek compromise, you simply want me to give something for nothing in return..

That is completely false. I explained why it was beneficial to both sides. Do you seriously believe that reducing gun crimes won't be a benefit to law abiding gun owners?

Let's try and keep some degree of realism here, m'kay?

For a liability insurance mandate, which is far more onerous than UBC on several different levels, I want the repeal of the 18 USC 922(o) post-1986 transfer ban on machine guns as well as the CLEO 'shall issue' provision of the 1934 National Frearms Act with regard to the firearms mentioned therein.

Seriously?

You want unfettered access to machine guns in exchange for liability insurance?

You would have to give up on UBC, national gun/owner registration database, taggants/sales database, mandatory FBI LEO training for 100% of all gun owners (including family members) on an annual basis and liability insurance before that would be considered to be on the table.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is completely false. I explained why it was beneficial to both sides. Do you seriously believe that reducing gun crimes won't be a benefit to law abiding gun owners?

Beneficial to both sides in your opinion; the issue here is not 'benefit' but 'what do I get in return for what you want'.
As you offer nothing in return for what you want, there can be no compromise.

Seriously?
You want unfettered access to machine guns in exchange for liability insurance?

Nothing I asked for gives anyone unfettered access to machine guns.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is completely false. I explained why it was beneficial to both sides. Do you seriously believe that reducing gun crimes won't be a benefit to law abiding gun owners?

Beneficial to both sides in your opinion; the issue here is not 'benefit' but 'what do I get in return for what you want'.
As you offer nothing in return for what you want, there can be no compromise.

Seriously?
You want unfettered access to machine guns in exchange for liability insurance?

Nothing I asked for gives anyone unfettered access to machine guns.

Explain why there is no benefit to your side from taggants/sales database.

Explain why you want that repeal if it doesn't make it easier to obtain machine guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explain why there is no benefit to your side from taggants/sales database.

The issue here is not a supposed 'benefit' but 'what do I get in return for what you want'.
As you offer nothing in return for taggants and an picture ID database for people that buy ammo and gunpowder, there can be no compromise.

Explain why you want that repeal if it doesn't make it easier to obtain machine guns.

Of course it makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to get machine guns - that's the point.
However, your claim of "unfettered access" is demonstrably unsound, especially in terms of how what I want will change that access.
Liability insurance is particularly onerous; if you want that, you have to give something big.
So....?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Explain why there is no benefit to your side from taggants/sales database.

The issue here is not a supposed 'benefit' but 'what do I get in return for what you want'.
As you offer nothing in return for taggants and an picture ID database for people that buy ammo and gunpowder, there can be no compromise.

Explain why you want that repeal if it doesn't make it easier to obtain machine guns.

Of course it makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to get machine guns - that's the point.
However, your claim of "unfettered access" is demonstrably unsound, especially in terms of how what I want will change that access.
Liability insurance is particularly onerous; if you want that, you have to give something big.
So....?

So far you haven't compromised at all.

In fact you don't seem to understand how compromise works.

So let's begin with what you believe the term compromise means and how you think that it is supposed to work and we can take it from there, m'kay?

 

[2aguy]

Because I know if they are legally able to own a gun; I don't need a background check for that.

This isn't about what you know. This is about public safety. Everyone has to undergo background checks. Sandy Hook should be more than enough reason to include family members.

Nope. The requirements for my home state CCW are enough, just like for a driver's license.
Deal?

Nope, public safety is first and foremost. If you want CCW then you have to meet the same standard that applies to LEO's.

That's pretty steep.
What are you willing to give me in return?

The national gun/owner registry is negotiable. The ammunition taggants and sales registry is not.

In essence if we can ensure that all those who have guns passed background checks and those who want CCW's can prove that they will only use them the same way LEO's would then the primary public safety goal is achieved as far as that can be accomplished.

The taggants are to catch the criminals. We know that they are out there and obtaining their guns and ammo from unscrupulous dealers so let's eliminate them from the system since all they are doing are giving law abiding gun owners a bad name.

Once criminals figure out that if they use a gun the taggants will trace back to them even if they dispose of the weapon they will be less likely to want to leave that evidence behind. Yes, criminals are stupid but not that stupid. Once they start ending up behind bars because of taggants the news will spread.

Does that work for you?

Nope...not giving them one more stupid law........you see what they want.....

licensing, registration are not necessary to arrest criminals who use guns to commit crimes,or to arrest felons who possess a gun.....so therefore we,don't need them.

Background checks for private sales...nope.....we know that the guy buying the gun illegally knows he can't have that gun.....when he commits,the crime, or is caught with the gun..arrest him.....

See, the anti gun extremists don't care about catching that criminal....the focus on them is being able to arrest the normal person in the gun sale...that individual will really suffer if they get arrested for selling a gun even if they didn't know they had to get a background check done on uncle,earl,to sell him that .22 rifle...even though uncle earl is a legal gun buyer.....so punish the normal person...cover it in the media...and you scare normal people about guns......

That is the goal.......why take the risk of losing money and going to jail because you might accidentally break a bizarre gun law...when you can simply just not do it?


that is their goal..Since you can already arrest the criminal who buys a gun illegally....since he knows he can't own or carry a gun.

right now we have 12.8 million people carrying guns and only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.... The people are already responsible enough with their guns....

any stupid training policy that requires the same training as police is simply like Europe...where they use the training requirement to limit gun ownership to the wealthy, and politically connected...and the poor go without their Constitutionally protected right to own guns......

Screw that.

Again...if you catch a criminal with a gun, arrest them and lock them up...and you can already do that without any license or registration of lawful,gun owners....

If a criminal buys a gun illegally, and you catch them with the gun...Lyon can already ******* arrest them....licensing and registration does nothing to help that process....


and since gun ownership is a right...no taxes on guns or ammo...since taxes can be used to infringe on that right..