General Discussion

rl6214

(8,142 posts)

75. Just look at the shear number of laws being put forth

Wed May 8, 2013, 05:31 PM

May 2013

UBC, magazine limits, AWB, limitations on ammo purchases, online ammo purchase bans, regulations or bans on gunpowder, bans on certain rifle stocks, child abandonment charges for leaving a child alone at a gun show...even for them to go to restroom, prohibit transfer of magazines over ten rds, creation of a 250ft no gun zone around congressmen, make it a ten year felony to carry a gun within 1000ft of a building where a congressman is, make it a crime if a gun show promoter does not inform every patron of a gun show of his responsibility under the Brady bill, banning all private transfers by requiring them to go thru an FFL.

This list was put together by a qwik google search.

What would be acceptable in exchange for:

Registration? Nothing.

UBCs? I have already been fully vetted by the FBI and ATF. I think 50 state reciprocity for my CCL would be a good swap.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What Really Sank Gun Control: Distrust of Government [View all] xchrom May 2013 OP

Yet once its an electronic record it will always exist. dkf May 2013 #1

Frankly ... GeorgeGist May 2013 #2

I do. nt Mojorabbit May 2013 #82

The ACLU gives a damn. LAGC May 2013 #89

+100. n/t Skip Intro May 2013 #86

If the intent is to determine who should not have a gun... badtoworse May 2013 #3

I'm a fan of that idea Recursion May 2013 #5

This is what my concealed carry permit allows. rl6214 May 2013 #49

yup this, it would go a long way to strengthen support for background checks loli phabay May 2013 #57

because DonCoquixote May 2013 #98

I ask again: what are you willing to offer? Recursion May 2013 #4

How about this for an offer - Fewer of our kids will be killed by gun violence el_bryanto May 2013 #18

but they won't. thats the point. nt galileoreloaded May 2013 #21

Nonsense -sensible gun registration laws, with a real background check el_bryanto May 2013 #23

Yes, which is why *we would like to pass them* Recursion May 2013 #30

This is such an idiotic question - the truth is the people you represent will accept no compromise el_bryanto May 2013 #36

WTF? I'm not a representative of anybody Recursion May 2013 #37

When you come into this discussion and say "Look you have to give them something" el_bryanto May 2013 #38

In my experience, a deal where both sides come away with something... badtoworse May 2013 #93

A compromise means something needs to be given up in return. rl6214 May 2013 #50

Most gun rights advocates can accept the current restrictions... Pelican May 2013 #100

That dog won't hunt Major Nikon May 2013 #76

sure thing bro. galileoreloaded May 2013 #84

Not sure who you mean by "we" Major Nikon May 2013 #87

i meant you. nt galileoreloaded May 2013 #91

It's interesting you would think so Major Nikon May 2013 #96

ok galileoreloaded May 2013 #97

Not if nothing passes. Recursion May 2013 #24

True, but it's a distrust by a small fraction of Americans that leveraged their power to 54 senators reformist2 May 2013 #6

So you actually trust the government? badtoworse May 2013 #7

My point is that the majority of Americans are fine with background checks. reformist2 May 2013 #8

Actually it's almost half... dkf May 2013 #12

48% said background checks may lead to confiscation - and then most said that's fine with them! reformist2 May 2013 #15

It's not about the background checks; it's about trusting the government with information badtoworse May 2013 #17

Look at the polls, 90% support background checks. You might be happy, but you're not in the majority reformist2 May 2013 #19

Do you trust the government to keep track of your Social Security? DanTex May 2013 #29

If I had my druthers, I would have opted out of Social Security and invested the money myself badtoworse May 2013 #32

So do you actually think people should be able to opt out of Social Security? DanTex May 2013 #34

I like the Australian model where you have to invest a portion of your wages in a qualified fund. badtoworse May 2013 #44

So let's see. You want to privatize social security. You oppose gun control. DanTex May 2013 #48

Social Security TnDem May 2013 #52

Social security is not destined for eventual failure. DanTex May 2013 #59

Your point about the Fed raises a glaring conflict of interest issue badtoworse May 2013 #66

"the inevitable consequences of the Fed's non-stop printing presses (i.e inflation)" DanTex May 2013 #70

Everyone has their own view about investment prudence and expectations for the future badtoworse May 2013 #72

That's why it's good that SS funds are invested conservatively, not based on speculation or opinion. DanTex May 2013 #73

The discussion is about trust in the government badtoworse May 2013 #54

Just pointing out that you seem to agree with Rand Paul about everything. DanTex May 2013 #56

Remember the famous quote from Alan Greenspan TnDem May 2013 #60

The government has not managed social security for the sole benefit of its beneficiaries badtoworse May 2013 #64

What exactly has it done that you object to? DanTex May 2013 #65

See Post 66 badtoworse May 2013 #67

Post 66 doesn't answer the question at all. DanTex May 2013 #68

A private company has to prudently invest retirment contributions badtoworse May 2013 #69

The SS funds are invested prudently. Treasuries are the safest investment vehicle out there. DanTex May 2013 #71

That whole statement is boneheaded-wrong bhikkhu May 2013 #42

See No. 44 badtoworse May 2013 #45

Bad example, social security is broke and my three sons will never see a penny from it. rl6214 May 2013 #51

Gee, what a surprise, "pro-gun progressives" repeating right-wing talking points... DanTex May 2013 #53

Do you deny that the social security fund has been raided for years rl6214 May 2013 #55

Social security has not defaulted on any of its obligations. DanTex May 2013 #58

I trust the government all the time bhikkhu May 2013 #40

I thonk you are very naive badtoworse May 2013 #46

You're welcome to bhikkhu May 2013 #88

How much screaming have you heard on this board when Obama offered up Social Security cuts... badtoworse May 2013 #90

Because...they want to take your guns away? bhikkhu May 2013 #92

I keep my guns safe - it's called being a responsible gun owner badtoworse May 2013 #94

Because the alternative is to trust every single gun owner bhikkhu May 2013 #95

I think you missed the point. badtoworse May 2013 #99

Well, that would be a decent compromise bhikkhu May 2013 #101

54 Senators voted for it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #39

Oops! So it's even worse! (I'll let my error stand, so your post makes sense.) reformist2 May 2013 #81

Thing is, it wasn't people who voted down M-T it was CONGRESS HereSince1628 May 2013 #9

Worse -- it was the Senate. This was never going anywhere in the House Recursion May 2013 #31

Oh come on... I call BS to that! ananda May 2013 #10

Quinnipiac polls says 48% believe background checks will lead to confiscation. dkf May 2013 #13

And then most said that background checks are fine with them anyway! reformist2 May 2013 #16

It proves the OPs point. This isn't a small extremist minority. It's half the population. dkf May 2013 #61

We have voter registration databases so why not gun registration databases, too? LonePirate May 2013 #11

Could it be, Bazinga May 2013 #25

That's all nonsense. Voter registration banks contain party affiliation which correlates highly ... LonePirate May 2013 #27

what sunk gun control is money from right wing lunatics bowens43 May 2013 #14

The bigger point is that distrust of government is the foundation of ALL opposition to gun control Demo_Chris May 2013 #20

Yes, all is lost, all is lost! Pholus May 2013 #28

The distrust is earned every day, every year, probably as long as governments have existed Demo_Chris May 2013 #74

I believe you when you say guns aren't your issue. Pholus May 2013 #79

I believe government exists for government, and it is our job to make it serve us... Demo_Chris May 2013 #80

Only insofar as you're saying you need to be active in the process. Pholus May 2013 #83

The interesting idea here is not "gun control" melm00se May 2013 #22

Well maybe if governments would obey the rules they claim to follow there would be more trust. JVS May 2013 #33

you mean like operating melm00se May 2013 #43

That's my feeling as well. We just watched the Calif. State Legislature pass truedelphi May 2013 #78

Yeah, that and ignorance gopiscrap May 2013 #26

Patch-able holes in a boat rather than sunk... LanternWaste May 2013 #35

The majority of the senate voted nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #41

The problem with every gun control compromise is that rl6214 May 2013 #47

What would you like in return for Universal Background Checks? jmg257 May 2013 #62

Just look at the shear number of laws being put forth rl6214 May 2013 #75

Why should we trust the Government? Savannahmann May 2013 #63

What really sank gun control was: Zoeisright May 2013 #77

The government has been losing trust rapidly since the 60s and 70s davidn3600 May 2013 #85