PDA

View Full Version : AP: Liberals Ask How They Lost Gun, Guantanamo Votes


hoffmang
05-24-2009, 1:44 PM
Here are some excerpts from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7664494


Liberals Ask How They Lost Gun, Guantanamo Votes
With friends running Washington, liberals ponder how they lost votes on guns, Guantanamo

...

"We'll probably end up passing more gun bills" that expand owners' rights "than we did during the Republican administration," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun control advocate. "That is what surprises me."

She placed less blame on the White House than on ordinary Americans and advocacy groups that are consistently outflanked by gun owners' groups, especially the National Rifle Association.

"Until the American people say enough is enough, and get active in it," Democratic control of Congress and the White House will not be enough to turn the tide, said McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a gunman in 1993.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/6f0b6163-364f-420c-b4ed-d8a3a028afc1_mn.jpg

"People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA, he said.

In some ways, the gun-control lobby is choking on Democratic success in congressional races. "The seats we're picking up come disproportionately from those more conservative areas," Price said, where linking the Democratic Party to gun control can be dangerous at re-election time.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California is another Democrat frustrated by the gun debate. When she asks colleagues why they don't support tougher restrictions, she said, they reply, "You just don't get it, Woolsey. You don't have our districts."

"It has to do with being afraid they'll lose their election if they stand up against guns," she said.

...

"I do believe that down the road the president will start working on some of the gun violence issues," said McCarthy, the New York Democrat. "But let's face it," she said. "We've got an awful lot of issues on our plate right now."

Heh. :31:

-Gene

Gray Peterson
05-24-2009, 1:46 PM
I LOL'ed

MrClamperSir
05-24-2009, 1:51 PM
Democratic control of Congress and the White House will not be enough to turn the tide, said McCarthy :p

Addax
05-24-2009, 1:56 PM
I just read it.

I bet before the next presidential election, this is going to be one hot button topic/debate.

The Obamanation is letting this simmer for now.... We all know they are going to try to do somethng eventually.

sorensen440
05-24-2009, 1:58 PM
LOL
Poor thing thought she won

762cavalier
05-24-2009, 2:01 PM
"Until the American people say enough is enough, and get active in it," Democratic control of Congress and the White House will not be enough to turn the tide, said McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a gunman in 1993.

She just does not get it. The American people ARE saying enough is enough.;)

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 2:04 PM
The Obamanation is letting this simmer for now.... We all know they are going to try to do somethng eventually.

Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

CoinStar
05-24-2009, 2:06 PM
From the AP story:

"I do believe that down the road the president will start working on some of the gun violence issues," said McCarthy, the New York Democrat. "But let's face it," she said. "We've got an awful lot of issues on our plate right now."

So basically, those of us here who conveyed "don't panic" sentiments with respect to Democratic party control of congress and the presidency, were right all along... just as predicted.

Similarly, like it or not, McCarthy is exactly right too; there are bigger fish to fry. The gun debate is dead as far as the national issue goes. This may not sit well with the panicky, pants-pooping types, but when our "enemies" come right out and admit it to our faces, it's hard to deny.

jumbopanda
05-24-2009, 2:10 PM
Wow, that is just elitism at its worst right there. Never once do they acknowledge that a very large number of Americans do not support gun control, and consider that maybe, just maybe, they should respect the will of the people.

KDOFisch
05-24-2009, 2:12 PM
"We'll probably end up passing more gun bills" that expand owners' rights "than we did during the Republican administration," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun control advocate. "That is what surprises me."


Thanks Carolyn! Much appreciated!:thumbsup:

sorensen440
05-24-2009, 2:14 PM
I'm amazed she called it a right

nick
05-24-2009, 2:18 PM
Of course, the thought that most "ordinary Americans" simply don't support gun bans, and demonstrate it through their voting, wouldn't even cross these people's minds.

Jpach
05-24-2009, 2:21 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.-Gene

Are such trades/negotiations even possible? If so, how? I really wouldnt mind this, especially since Im already used to having no "gun show loophole" here in CA.

M. Sage
05-24-2009, 2:23 PM
Thanks for the Sunday schadenfreude! :D

tombinghamthegreat
05-24-2009, 2:23 PM
Well at least the liberals know if they get their party starts supporting gun control the Republicans are back in control much like AW issue in 1994.

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 2:26 PM
Are such trades/negotiations even possible? If so, how? I really wouldnt mind this, especially since Im already used to having no "gun show loophole" here in CA.

The other side tacked 922(o) onto FOPA. We can probably do the same to a "gun show background check" bill. The politics of that could be hard for us as we're pretty strongly in the driver's seat as this article shows.

-Gene

Roadrunner
05-24-2009, 2:26 PM
Now if only we can make them as afraid to pass new gun control laws here as they are in the rest of the country.

Addax
05-24-2009, 2:32 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

Yup, I agree with you.

The more sensible things we can do to mute their arguments, the better for us.:thumbsup:

bwiese
05-24-2009, 2:32 PM
"It has to do with being afraid they'll lose their election if they stand up against guns"


Sez it all...

Addax
05-24-2009, 2:34 PM
Wow, that is just elitism at its worst right there. Never once do they acknowledge that a very large number of Americans do not support gun control, and consider that maybe, just maybe, they should respect the will of the people.

One reason is the Liberal Press/Media does not report on how many Americans do not support gun control, they just sensationalize the Lib's agenda on Gun Control vs. telling America the Truth.

MrClamperSir
05-24-2009, 2:42 PM
Wow, that is just elitism at its worst right there. Never once do they acknowledge that a very large number of Americans do not support gun control, and consider that maybe, just maybe, they should respect the will rights of the people.

That seems better.

ifishinxs
05-24-2009, 2:49 PM
It seems she has the same attitude as Pelosi.

Why is it that these women In politics look like they've been hit with a sack of quarters and have the common sense of a bowling ball. :puke:

The NRA and Calguns are getting the job done..Thanks Gene for your hard work.

When are we going to lose this California gun roster. I may have to renew my Post certificate just so I can buy a gun.

lioneaglegriffin
05-24-2009, 3:07 PM
Isn't this what representative government about, Leaders being afford of the constituents? if they F^^k up they gots ta go. If the represent us properly they can stay.

also groups like two groups to be reckoned with on the hill AARP & NRA are representing people they are not these autonomous self growing/evolving organisms that appeared from nowhere. People pay their dues because they care and would like something besides their representatives represent their causes.

1859sharps
05-24-2009, 3:14 PM
From the AP story:



So basically, those of us here who conveyed "don't panic" sentiments with respect to Democratic party control of congress and the presidency, were right all along... just as predicted.

Similarly, like it or not, McCarthy is exactly right too; there are bigger fish to fry. The gun debate is dead as far as the national issue goes. This may not sit well with the panicky, pants-pooping types, but when our "enemies" come right out and admit it to our faces, it's hard to deny.

While I agree with you on the "don't panic" sentiment. Calling the gun issue "dead", might be going too far.

The tide is a bit in our favor right now. And if we capitalize on the momentum, we can continue to make it hard for the anti's to pass gun control. But to call the issue/debate dead creates a reverse of the panic/FUD/tin foil hat problem. The false sense of victory/security.

We are wining battles, finally. But the war isn't won. It may never be "won", but we can at least make it difficult to pass bans and licensing laws and stop confiscation as well as return balance, logic and reason to the debate.

the problem is gun ownership represents freedom, individualism, and self sufficiency. there are people who this threatening to or does not compute with. they will always try and hack away at 2nd amendment rights. There will never be a "final end game victory" that means we never, ever have to worry about someone trying to pass gun control ever again.

BroncoBob
05-24-2009, 3:17 PM
Much bigger items for them to solve as our economy takes a major dump. I would agree with Gene on the NIC table at gun shows. Takes their game plan a part.

lioneaglegriffin
05-24-2009, 3:19 PM
Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA

geez what is the Brady Campaign chopped liver? they've been the nemisis for a while now, just because they thought they won and now apparently aren't winning they don't exist anymore. Thats gotta be like a dagger for a liberal pol to say to the Brady Campaign: You're dead to me.

timdps
05-24-2009, 3:26 PM
"People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA, he said.

Wonder how the Bradys like that slapdown? :thumbsup:

She placed less blame on the White House than on ordinary Americans and advocacy groups that are consistently outflanked by gun owners' groups, especially the National Rifle Association.

And Calguns, and all of the other "ordinary Americans" that support the NRA, Calguns, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc.

No mention of Heller either... We are just getting started and I get the feeling that they have no idea what is coming...

Tim

B Strong
05-24-2009, 3:39 PM
Now if only we can make them as afraid to pass new gun control laws here as they are in the rest of the country.


Now there's a job that needs doing.

B Strong
05-24-2009, 3:43 PM
geez what is the Brady Campaign chopped liver? they've been the nemisis for a while now, just because they thought they won and now apparently aren't winning they don't exist anymore. Thats gotta be like a dagger for a liberal pol to say to the Brady Campaign: You're dead to me.

The Brady's can't deliver votes in the numbers needed to negate the NRA voters, and they don't donate enough cash to the candidates to make a difference there either.


To a politician, if you can't deliver cash or votes, you are dead to them.

Roadrunner
05-24-2009, 3:45 PM
Isn't this what representative government about, Leaders being afford of the constituents? if they F^^k up they gots ta go. If the represent us properly they can stay.

also groups like two groups to be reckoned with on the hill AARP & NRA are representing people they are not these autonomous self growing/evolving organisms that appeared from nowhere. People pay their dues because they care and would like something besides their representatives represent their causes.

Actually, these groups exist in their current capacities because the people that pay their dues don't believe that their elected representatives are representing them. As the NRA will tell you, they were not a lobbying group until politicians started screwing with the second amendment.

lioneaglegriffin
05-24-2009, 3:48 PM
To a politician, if you can't deliver cash or votes, you are dead to them.

that made my day. :chris:

AggregatVier
05-24-2009, 3:48 PM
Isn't, "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA," really saying the Brady's, et al, are irresponsible or behaving badly in how they're promulgating the anti-gun agenda? Who could be more reponsible in twisting facts, hiding the truth, or being outright delusional? [My apologies, Carolyn, I didn't notice you up on the stage.]

foxtrotuniformlima
05-24-2009, 3:59 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

I'd like to see this in all 50 states. What is the chance on that ?

Theseus
05-24-2009, 4:03 PM
I should not be surprised at this, but I still am. They basically come out and say "Why can't we get more elected officials to ignore their constituents?"

This is insane. She should be voted out of office or even suggesting the thing.

Roadrunner
05-24-2009, 4:12 PM
I would say that this article is more definitive proof that liberals are clueless.

phamkl
05-24-2009, 5:45 PM
"It has to do with being afraid they'll lose their election if they stand up against guns," she said.


That sounds like a democratic republic to me...

bulgron
05-24-2009, 5:58 PM
I should not be surprised at this, but I still am. They basically come out and say "Why can't we get more elected officials to ignore their constituents?"

This is insane. She should be voted out of office or even suggesting the thing.

Actually, given where she's coming from, she's doing exactly what her constituency wants her to do. Her error is assuming that her constituency is representative of the rest of the nation. Clearly, it is not.

The article even talks about the Dems from the conservative districts who don't want to buck the voters back home on gun control. Those Dems are being responsive to their constituency. Bully on them.

SJgunguy24
05-24-2009, 6:02 PM
I like how they added that her husband was killed by a gunman. When will these antis understand that a gun is a tool, it's the person who is evil not the gun.

If someone looks at a sculpture do they say "man those chisles got some talent"? No they say the artist has talent, but when you buy the B.S. that is spewed everynight on the T.V. you've become..............baaaaa a sheep. Unfortunatlly these people very same people are too stupid too see it.

mblat
05-24-2009, 6:04 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

Whow..... CGF now in position to offer such trade..... Have to marvel at the progress.... Especially considering that here in CA it isn't really a trade at all - don't we have to complete all non C&R transaction thought a FFL, show or no show?

shooten
05-24-2009, 6:28 PM
I saw that too SJgunguy24. He wasnt' killed by a "gun man", he was killed by a criminal.

HondaMasterTech
05-24-2009, 6:33 PM
Humans have developed amazing technology. As amazing is our collective knowledge of the universe. Also as amazing is the great distances people stray from reality, allowed by our supportive infrastructure. Its a shame that any law abiding person needs to fight for the second amendment.

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 6:36 PM
Whow..... CGF now in position to offer such trade..... Have to marvel at the progress.... Especially considering that here in CA it isn't really a trade at all - don't we have to complete all non C&R transaction thought a FFL, show or no show?

Whoa there partner. I was not saying we as CGF. I was saying we as those who are pro-gun. Such a trade would happen in Capitol Hill by the NRA as all of our representatives.

There are things CGF is good at. One thing CGF does not do is advocate legislation of politicians. This post is Gene Hoffman as private citizen and NRA member talking.

-Gene

cdtx2001
05-24-2009, 6:40 PM
So what are "they" saying??? It almost sounds as if "they" think that law abiding citizens should not even own guns!!!

mblat
05-24-2009, 6:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
Whow..... CGF now in position to offer such trade..... Have to marvel at the progress.... Especially considering that here in CA it isn't really a trade at all - don't we have to complete all non C&R transaction thought a FFL, show or no show?
Whoa there partner. I was not saying we as CGF. I was saying we as those who are pro-gun. Such a trade would happen in Capitol Hill by the NRA as all of our representatives.

There are things CGF is good at. One thing CGF does not do is advocate legislation of politicians. This post is Gene Hoffman as private citizen and NRA member talking.

-Gene

There was a bit of sarcasm in my post.... I guess it was pretty well hidden...:thumbsup:

Anyway - to your original point - being in CA I wouldn't mind to trade "gun show checks" for something..... but I am not so certain about those in Virginia and such...

It was said many times before that FA is just a small segment of firearm community..... and considering prices on ammo it is likely to stay that way even if FA is legalized.... :-)

I much rather have national CCW reciprocity.....

MrClamperSir
05-24-2009, 6:44 PM
So what are "they" saying??? It almost sounds as if "they" think that law abiding citizens should not even own guns!!!

That's what they believe.

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 6:53 PM
I much rather have national CCW reciprocity.....

That may need no trade, just a bill Obama wants to otherwise sign.

-Gene

ilbob
05-24-2009, 6:55 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

The Hughes amendment is not going away despite any wet dreams you might have about it.

We have done a lot of this kind of horsetrading in the past and it has always been a bad thing.

We are winning. No reason to start giving stuff away.

mblat
05-24-2009, 6:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
I much rather have national CCW reciprocity.....
That may need no trade, just a bill Obama wants to otherwise sign.

-Gene

Gene - you obviously more in tune with what is going on in Washington and in general in "gun-law" scene. To deny it would be irrational and stupid.

However.... this is a bit too much. Obama WANTS to sign national reciprocity bill?

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 7:01 PM
Obama WANTS to sign national reciprocity bill?

No no. I mean that our side may be able to tack national CCW reciprocity onto another bill that Obama otherwise wants to sign. That would be exactly parallel to what happened with the credit card reform bill and National Parks carry.

-Gene

ilbob
05-24-2009, 7:03 PM
That may need no trade, just a bill Obama wants to otherwise sign.

-Gene

I am guessing such a law would encourage a lot of states to work things out.

I really do not want to be the guy that is the test case in NYC when they say the law is grossly unconstitutional (which it would be) and charge somebody carrying on an out of stae permit with a felony.

There is a pretty good chance the SCOTUS would look at the constitution and say such a reciprocity bill is indeed not within the enumerated powers of the federal government.

IMO, just me. Congress could invoke the 14th amendment and say that CC is a right and enact some kind of law requiring each state to allow it.

tankerman
05-24-2009, 7:09 PM
Why is it that these women In politics look like they've been hit with a sack of quarters and have the common sense of a bowling ball.Orgasms are the solution. More orgasms and they would be much happier people.

Too bad no one wants to volunteer for that duty.:puke:

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 7:09 PM
I really do not want to be the guy that is the test case in NYC when they say the law is grossly unconstitutional (which it would be) and charge somebody carrying on an out of stae permit with a felony.

Bob,

If the commerce clause allows the Federal Government to regulate intrastate marijuana, it certainly allows Congress to force states to honor other state's permits. That's before you get to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then there is Congress' power under the 14th Amendment to remediate state violations of the Bill of Rights. Heck, even the Privileges and Immunities clause jurisprudence supports a Federal Reciprocity bill.

It's quite constitutional.

-Gene

tankerman
05-24-2009, 7:11 PM
Since Obama can't get any anti-2nd legislation passed, he'll take the alternate liberal route and appoint judicial activists to the bench and have them do his dirty work.

MikeinnLA
05-24-2009, 7:17 PM
From another post:

"Law abiding US citizens bought on average 3,177,256 guns every 3 months in 2008."

Democrats are just whores for votes.....ANY votes.

Mike

mblat
05-24-2009, 7:18 PM
I am guessing such a law would encourage a lot of states to work things out.

I really do not want to be the guy that is the test case in NYC when they say the law is grossly unconstitutional (which it would be) and charge somebody carrying on an out of stae permit with a felony.

There is a pretty good chance the SCOTUS would look at the constitution and say such a reciprocity bill is indeed not within the enumerated powers of the federal government.

IMO, just me. Congress could invoke the 14th amendment and say that CC is a right and enact some kind of law requiring each state to allow it.

How the hell would THAT happen? You defense would be showing your California/NEvada/Utah driver license and asking if they are about to sue you for driving without NY DL.
Congress clearly has power to force a state to recognize other state license. Anybody who gets arrested in NY for such "violation" would not only get free, but also have his kids college fund set as the result

yellowfin
05-24-2009, 7:54 PM
"Unless the American people say enough is enough...".


We did, wench, and it's enough is enough of you.

Steyr_223
05-25-2009, 12:52 AM
No no. I mean that our side may be able to tack national CCW reciprocity onto another bill that Obama otherwise wants to sign. That would be exactly parallel to what happened with the credit card reform bill and National Parks carry.

-Gene

How about we get CCW reciprocity and we give Obama the end of Don't Ask/Don't Tell in the armed forces.

jdberger
05-25-2009, 1:06 AM
I'd be willing to trade NICS at gun shows for the repeal of the state residency requirement.

If I can pass a background check, isn't it just as valid in Arizona as it is in CA?

jdberger
05-25-2009, 1:07 AM
How about we get CCW reciprocity and we give Obama the end of Don't Ask/Don't Tell in the armed forces.

Obama doesn't want the end of Don't Ask/Don't Tell. That "vote" thing again...

gunhohulk
05-25-2009, 3:17 AM
I would be down to have background checks at gun shows if i could make my own FA! I might even give up a kidney... or two!

Aegis
05-25-2009, 6:18 AM
If Rep. McCarthy or the people she represents in her district don't like guns, maybe they should move to a country that does not allow people to own guns. She is a useful idiot for the anti-2A groups.

Sgt Raven
05-25-2009, 9:24 AM
No no. I mean that our side may be able to tack national CCW reciprocity onto another bill that Obama otherwise wants to sign. That would be exactly parallel to what happened with the credit card reform bill and National Parks carry.

-Gene

We need to be tacking good gun stuff on every bill they want to pass. :thumbsup:

tube_ee
05-25-2009, 9:42 AM
From another post:

"Law abiding US citizens bought on average 3,177,256 guns every 3 months in 2008."

Democrats Politicians are just whores for votes.....ANY votes.

Mike

Fixed that for ya...

--Shannon

Pvt. Cowboy
05-25-2009, 10:13 AM
"People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA, he said.

This was intended to be the left wing in sheep's clothing outfit 'American Hunters and Shooters Association' (AHSA) that ran a lot of folksy radio ads with twangy-voiced Southerners with banjo background music calling for y'all to come down and cast yer vote fer Bo-rack Obammer. They even got some no-name former NFL player named Ray Schoenke to run the phony organization.

Soon as Obama was declared the winner of the election, AHSA just flat up and disappeared.

gregorylucas
05-25-2009, 10:22 AM
This was intended to be the left wing in sheep's clothing outfit 'American Hunters and Shooters Association' (AHSA) that ran a lot of folksy radio ads with twangy-voiced Southerners with banjo background music calling for y'all to come down and cast yer vote fer Bo-rack Obammer. They even got some no-name former NFL player named Ray Schoenke to run the phony organization.

Soon as Obama was declared the winner of the election, AHSA just flat up and disappeared.


Maybe it was "a shoulder thing that goes up." :)

Greg-Dawg
05-25-2009, 10:31 AM
Why is Rep. McCarthy still working? We need to run these anti-gun politicians out of the office...THEN America would be a better place.

Some Guy
05-25-2009, 10:47 AM
The only trade thats fair is my vote for repealing unconstitutional gun control measures.

nicki
05-25-2009, 3:38 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...



Gene you compromiser, do you really think that we want new FA's in this country:TFH:

We have a ammunition shortage and you want us to have full auto guns, are you nuts;)

And who on this board wants to pay 200 dollars per gun so that we can flip a switch and go thru 100 dollars of ammo per minute everytime we use the full auto feature as intended.:43:

Actually great idea Gene.

I would humbly suggest we attach a "Amnesty provision" where people could either surrender or register with a fee and penalty all full auto arms.

There are probably alot of widows in this country who have illegal possession of full autos due to war trophies brought home by veterans.

If nothing else, opening up the FA registry would take alot of guns off the black market. In fact, it probably would kill the black market.

Nicki

nicki
05-25-2009, 3:53 PM
No no. I mean that our side may be able to tack national CCW reciprocity onto another bill that Obama otherwise wants to sign. That would be exactly parallel to what happened with the credit card reform bill and National Parks carry.


Well, I would attach national carry to the Federal hate crimes bill that is currently steamrolling through Congress.

That way, if Obams vetoed the bill, he would anger the LBGT community big time.

Yeah, the leadership of the LBGT community is anti gun, but it would put them in the position of explaining that the LBGT community should depend on the police agencies whom their human rights groups claim are engaged in rampant human rights abuses against the LBGT community for protection.

Is there something wrong with this picture?:rolleyes:

Kinda like the Jews giving up their guns and than calling on the SS for protection.

That is the view of many in the LBGT community regarding the police, it isn't mine.

Anyone have direct contact with Michael Steele? Would be a great rider for the republicans to add in conference.



Nicki

popeye4
05-25-2009, 4:10 PM
as far as I am concerned on this issue of 2A, and the rest of the Bill of Rights "We the People" should not only be in the drivers seat, but own the car, the road and the insurance company. "We the People" really need to put these politicians in their place. Let civil rights violations lawsuits abound, all the way into suing individual Legislators as far as I am concerned.

The model is already set, I believe. Wasn't the KKK put out of business, not by laws being enforced, but through civil "conspiracy to deny civil rights" lawsuits that seized their assets and bankrupted them? Perhaps we should do the same to the Bradys of the world.....

deleted by PC police
05-25-2009, 4:37 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

I like how you think but I think 922 could be taken down in this economic climent just by discussing the fact that you can't put one American part on a imported gun without puting 10 parts and what 10 parts is confusing so in the end this is costing American companies money.

nick
05-25-2009, 5:02 PM
Well, I would attach national carry to the Federal hate crimes bill that is currently steamrolling through Congress.

That way, if Obams vetoed the bill, he would anger the LBGT community big time.

Yeah, the leadership of the LBGT community is anti gun, but it would put them in the position of explaining that the LBGT community should depend on the police agencies whom their human rights groups claim are engaged in rampant human rights abuses against the LBGT community for protection.

Is there something wrong with this picture?:rolleyes:

Kinda like the Jews giving up their guns and than calling on the SS for protection.

That is the view of many in the LBGT community regarding the police, it isn't mine.

Anyone have direct contact with Michael Steele? Would be a great rider for the republicans to add in conference.



Nicki

This, of course, assumes that Republican leadership actually wants this. I'm not so sure about that.

mk19
05-25-2009, 6:01 PM
First thing that came to mind after reading the article. Hell yeah they better be affraid about loosing thier seats in next election.

BigBrassMonkey
05-25-2009, 6:26 PM
Well said Bob.

BigDogatPlay
05-25-2009, 6:48 PM
Count me as one of those chuckleheads who said the sky wasn't falling. We clearly have a long way to go in our fight, but we have the American people -- according to current polling -- on our side.

I have long believed that throwing the other side a bone by proposing NICS checks at gun shows is likely a win / win. Their major point of bluster these days is the non-existant "gun show loophole" and pulling a NICS on gun show purchases, of which there is no permanent record kept, at a gun show would put the lid on their entire argument. While it would likely tick off more than a few people in the free states, it would take their biggest arrow out of the quiver.

It is true that a lot of Democrats in the House who swept into previously Republican controlled seats over the past two elections hail from districts that are decidedly pro firearms ownership. To be seen as anti-gun with even one floor vote in a lot of those districts would be, right now, a political death sentence for them.

The Obamunists and their fellow travellers will continue to try and pink the country with progressive move after progressive move. If the economy doesn't really turn south over the next two years --which I believe it will-- and they can continue to turn and splinter disaffected Republicans, they can try and bide their time and hope they build a bigger majority which will make some things.... easier.

6172crew
05-25-2009, 6:50 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

I dont see the NRA going for this, at least not if hey are going to register them when you get the check. The Gent who I spoke with back in 2005 said the NRA wouldnt back any law that would have people register firearms.

I know you didnt say it but Im sure that would be what they want in NFA stuff. Dont get me wrong I have a few $$ into title 2 toys but I cant see folks going for that in other states who take advantage of PP sales without the .gov getting involved.:)

Timberline
05-25-2009, 6:57 PM
The Obamanation is letting this simmer for now.... We all know they are going to try to do somethng eventually.

Not only are a Democratic Congress and Whitehouse not taking away gunz 'n ammoe, they're expanding the places where firearms can be carried. :thumbsup: If this proves good for votes, why should they go counter to it? I don't expect to see any new "gun control" legislation pass this Congress.

The GOP is a lonesome withering party, embroiled in turmoil over religion and ideology, and voters are abandoning it in droves. The Party can be counted on to rally around a handful of core talking points, but they're increasing irrelevant on the Political stage.

As the Democratic party picks up former GOP voters, it has the effect of muting many "traditional" efforts. This is what the congressman from NY was complaining about. Well, she needs to embrace the new, or risk being left behind.

BigDogatPlay
05-25-2009, 6:59 PM
NICS has no permanent record, and is not registration in any manner or form.

Requiring transfers at a gun show, the grabbers cause du jour, to be run through NICS is not a big deal in my mind. And it doesn't do anything to PPT away from a gun show... at least in the manner which I believe Gene meant and proposed it.

6172crew
05-25-2009, 7:03 PM
NICS has no permanent record, and is not registration in any manner or form.

Requiring transfers at a gun show, the grabbers cause du jour, to be run through NICS is not a big deal in my mind. And it doesn't do anything to PPT away from a gun show... at least in the manner which I believe Gene meant and proposed it.

As I said, he didnt I did. Giving up something that has already been taken from you is easy. What about the guys in free states who can go to a garage sale and buy a rifle? Are you willing to take that right away from a gun owner?

hoffmang
05-25-2009, 7:04 PM
I realize the challenge of my proposed "trade." However, I certainly didn't say that a 4473 needed to be created. A NICS could be run without a 4473. I'm also saying it would be limited to only gun shows - not private party transfers generally.

-Gene

dfletcher
05-25-2009, 7:25 PM
I realize the challenge of my proposed "trade." However, I certainly didn't say that a 4473 needed to be created. A NICS could be run without a 4473. I'm also saying it would be limited to only gun shows - not private party transfers generally.

-Gene

If private (paperless) sales at gun shows were ended, on what would we base our objections when Brady, McCarthy, Schumer and others later want to expand the requirements to all private sales?

6172crew
05-25-2009, 7:28 PM
I realize the challenge of my proposed "trade." However, I certainly didn't say that a 4473 needed to be created. A NICS could be run without a 4473. I'm also saying it would be limited to only gun shows - not private party transfers generally.

-Gene

Im good with the checks, I was just throwing a couple of thoughts out there and Im not sure if they are in line with the elected NRA guys but I dont see them giving anything up..the NRA that is.

I do think the majority of members(NRA) approve of keeping firearms from dirtbags and those who are 5150, I happen to be one of those members.

I just cant see the antis going for that if the 4473 and a "list" wasn't created.

Im already on 2 lists, NFA and the handguns I bought while living in CA. Everyone knows that LE have access to these list and it can be abused by those who think we shouldnt be allowed to have them.

hoffmang
05-25-2009, 7:47 PM
If private (paperless) sales at gun shows were ended, on what would we base our objections when Brady, McCarthy, Schumer and others later want to expand the requirements to all private sales?

The positioning is better once the gun show is removed from the equation. The Private Sales loophole just doesn't sound as nasty. Also, we get to counter with, "you mean you want to interfere with a transfer between father and son or mom and daughter?"

Background checks at gun shows are about the only anti-gun federal laws that have a chance to pass before the mid-term elections. We might as well tack something fun on it.

-Gene

cousinkix1953
05-25-2009, 10:56 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene
This might work if you can get those sheriff's deputies to set up a laptop computer with internet access at the fairgrounds.

And speaking of gun shows, did you hear about the drug bust at the Cow Palace on Friday night? It was big enough for the DEA to join in the fun. Marijuana, LSD, cocaine, meth and ecstasy were being sold at a rave, where fools like to get high, listen to canned music and freak out on light shows. It must be a cheap substitute for those Grateful Dead concerts without any live bands.

Nobody wants to ban drug orgies on public property. They'd rather ban those gun shows which don't attract criminals or create a crime scene! I heard about this drug raid on KTVU the other night; but not a word about it from any other media outlets...

DDT
05-25-2009, 11:58 PM
922(o) for NICS at gun shows?

I'd make that trade.

I'm not usually much for "trade offs" but that one would be so lopsided that it's hard to argue with. Especially if the cost isn't borne by the gun owners.

madmike
05-26-2009, 10:23 AM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene


I see no significant downside to this.

-madmike.

dfletcher
05-26-2009, 11:31 AM
The positioning is better once the gun show is removed from the equation. The Private Sales loophole just doesn't sound as nasty. Also, we get to counter with, "you mean you want to interfere with a transfer between father and son or mom and daughter?"

Background checks at gun shows are about the only anti-gun federal laws that have a chance to pass before the mid-term elections. We might as well tack something fun on it.

-Gene

I don't mean to mix the theoretical with the practical, but how long does that "positioning" last? Until some fellow from Idaho or Oregon or Nevada does something terrible with a gun he bought at a yard sale or flea market? I'm all for being practical, but isn't it inevitable that once private sales at gun shows are prohibited next up will be all private sales, having agreed it's OK to prohibit private sales at shows we lose the ability to object to prohibiting them elsewhere.

Regarding the "father & son" sale is concerned, I'm sure a bill banning private sales could be written with a few exceptions, using that as an objection doesn't really get us anywhere.

Would most people favor prohibiting private sales? I suppose if the answer is yes, we lose no matter how the question is framed.

7x57
05-26-2009, 12:25 PM
I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows.

Thanks, Gene, for making my life hard. I generally think in terms of principle, and you've just put basic principles in opposition. ;)

The BG check issue to me is a problem for two reasons. The principle is simply that it involves more government permission in private life, and that's unacceptable on it's face. The second is practical. The true reason the more thoughtful antis want BG checks is that it implements one part of a real registration and permit system. They have known for a long time that they only way they could build that system is piecemeal, and they've done a good job of doing it. And in this case we'd be helping them do it.

OTOH, the issue with 922(o) is that it is the real obstacle to attacking the original some-guns-are-evil law. Inflation has made the gun-banning aspect of the NFA fairly toothless. Directly attacking the whole thought pattern of trying to figure out which inanimate objects are the ones inhabited by evil spirits is important. Making real Second Amendment militia rifles accessible to the ordinary citizen is also important.

I am surprised to hear myself say it, but it might be worth the trade for the following reason: the NFA weapons are essentially the final frontier for us. They are probably the hardest nut to crack, but at the same time they are right at the very core of what the 2A is all about. And they would take the heat off of other weapons types just as black rifles do for sporting rifles. As long as there are true assault rifles out there to demonize and hyperventilate over, the media isn't even going to remember that there are semiautos with pistol grips or little old handguns.

Let's think about how useful this would be. We do not have many avenues to attack, thanks to the self-validiating quality the Heller reasoning gives to bans: uncommon weapons are more likely to pass muster, and weapons are uncommon when banned or just priced right out of the market. Our best argument for FA would be that Americans commonly choose them for home defense, but we can't make that argument unless we can show they do. And we can't show it so long as transferable FA weapons cost into five figures.

Now, would people spend the extra $200 and do the paperwork for legal FA? I am sure they would, and to some extent we can thank the antis for that. Their demonization campaign and the ban on new manufacture gives FA a glamor that no advertising campaign could. I can tell you I have no real requirement for a FA weapon, but yes I'd buy one if I could do so legally at a price I can afford precisely because of them and what they've done to distort the market and the common wisdom about rifles. *And* to some degree the public knowledge that law-abiding citizens are out there with FA has an exaggerated deterrent effect (so I claim without proof) again precisely because of the anti hype. You can't get deader than dead, but somehow the media images of a hail of FA bullets will (again I am simply claiming this) impress the criminal all out of proportion to the effectiveness.

Hmm. It might also help convince LE agencies that no-knock warrants really aren't a good idea in most cases.

It hurts me to say it, but Gene may have a good idea here. But painful or not, I always say I want to win more than I want to posture and feel good.

Gene, do you have any idea of the political feasibility of going after this gun-show BC at some later date? I'd feel better if I thought we'd have a chance of repealing it in my lifetime.

7x57

DDT
05-26-2009, 12:34 PM
My feelings is that insta-check is not going to be found to be an unconstitutional infringement.

The antis are going to start losing REAL BIG in the courts. They will be rabid to win anything and FA will probably not be restricted forever though it will take a long time to run through the courts and get the environment right for a challenge.

If we can speed up that time AND the only thing we are giving up is something that is likely to be constitutional and we are likely to wind up with in the long run anyway.....

I say why not, let's find a way to get this introduced.

N6ATF
05-26-2009, 12:43 PM
And speaking of gun shows, did you hear about the drug bust at the Cow Palace on Friday night? It was big enough for the DEA to join in the fun. Marijuana, LSD, cocaine, meth and ecstasy were being sold at a rave, where fools like to get high, listen to canned music and freak out on light shows. It must be a cheap substitute for those Grateful Dead concerts without any live bands.

Nobody wants to ban drug orgies on public property. They'd rather ban those gun shows which don't attract criminals or create a crime scene! I heard about this drug raid on KTVU the other night; but not a word about it from any other media outlets...

Why, it's only natural that the government favors fellow criminals above law-abiding citizens!

AaronHorrocks
05-26-2009, 12:53 PM
Yes, but this sort of situation means they can't get much. I suggest we should trade 922(o) for background checks on private party transfers only at gun shows. It would have a huge amount of positive benefits. We'd be saved from ourselves as new FA's could be built and sold and in most states simply tax stamped (think about no loose cannon machine gun lawsuits.) If we have background checks for all sales at gun shows, then the other side doesn't have a talking point to leverage to try to force background checks on all transfers.

Having a NICS station at all gun shows is a small price to pay to end the attempts to ban all private party transfers and end the ban on manufacture of FA...

-Gene

922(r) really sucks too. As long as you're going for F/A, you better get those parts we need also. However I am not willing to give up PPTs at gunshows. That's one of the last free, and paper-trail free things we have going. Don't give up that Ace that's up your sleve for a pair of jacks.

Wizard99
05-26-2009, 8:45 PM
Even if NICS with no 4473 were required strictly at gun shows sellers and buyers could negotiate at the show and conduct the transaction in the parking lot or across the street and bypass NICS.

shonc99
05-27-2009, 6:29 AM
Even if NICS with no 4473 were required strictly at gun shows sellers and buyers could negotiate at the show and conduct the transaction in the parking lot or across the street and bypass NICS.


Which is exactly why the NCIS and 4473 requirement at gun shows is a waste of time and energy. Crimminals and other 'purchasers' don't follow the law, so why exactly should the responsible gun owners follow suit.

I agree that if it could be used as a barganing chip for lesser restrictions elsewhere could be beneficial, but I would suggest that with the eventual BOR incorporation, we won't need to needlessly waste that possible ace.

DDT
05-27-2009, 7:09 AM
Which is exactly why the NCIS and 4473 requirement at gun shows is a waste of time and energy.

I'm all for the anti-gunners wasting their time and energy.

7x57
05-27-2009, 7:37 AM
I'm all for the anti-gunners wasting their time and energy.

If only it worked that way. Anti-gunners don't waste their time and money. They pass laws that use our money to pay other people to waste their time and our money.

7x57

hoffmang
05-27-2009, 8:53 AM
Thanks, Gene, for making my life hard. I generally think in terms of principle, and you've just put basic principles in opposition. ;)


I sometimes think it is my place in the world to challenge status quos.

-Gene

Jpach
05-30-2009, 10:04 AM
The other side tacked 922(o) onto FOPA. We can probably do the same to a "gun show background check" bill. The politics of that could be hard for us as we're pretty strongly in the driver's seat as this article shows.

-Gene

So what are the chances that we actually WILL do this? Who will get the ball rolling? I would love new machineguns for all, and for us when we are free!