Everybody says "not one more inch" but we all know that is just a negotiation tactic. Whats the lowest you'll go...

Everybody says "not one more inch" but we all know that is just a negotiation tactic. Whats the lowest you'll go, where is your red line?

Other urls found in this thread:

kmemes.wikia.com/wiki/Fudd
dallaspolice.net/joindpd/Shared Documents/TEXAS_COMMISSION_ON_LAW_ENFORCEMENT_OFFICER_STANDARDS_AND_EDUCATION.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The red line is when the right of the choice of arming the populous is taken away from the people. With a better licensure process for NFA items and the government's lack of pushing papers like they always do, it'd be fine the way it is (minus the Hugh's amendment).

Trading an impractical range toy for nationwide CCW reciprocity would literally be the best deal ever. I’d also take dropping SBRs or suppressors off the NFA list.

ditto

ALB17865 S.L.C.
(1) in section 922, by inserting after subsection
1 (u) the following:
2 ‘‘(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and
3 after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment
4 of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to
5 import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or af-
6 fecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank,
7 a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts,
8 component, device, attachment, or accessory that is de-
9 signed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-
10 automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle
11 into a machinegun.
12 ‘‘(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to
13 the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to,
14 or possession by or under the authority of, the United
15 States or any department or agency thereof or a State,
16 or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.’’;
17 and
18 (2) in section 924(a)(2), by striking ‘‘, or (o)’’
19 and inserting ‘‘(o), or (v)’’

It's already been crossed

My red line was crossed a long time before I was even born. It's called "the second amendment".

It also would be a good trade if we all got free unicorns with back-mounted miniguns to ride, while we're talking about shit that will never happen.

They won't give an inch on anything, ever. There's no reason why we should.

this

Then we won't. We'll find a new champion.

Anything confiscatory I will not comply with. I will manufacture things in violation of bans on semi-automatics or high capacity magazines. I will stockpile ammunition in violation of laws that place limits on the amount that I am allowed to own.

I will accept honest compromise.

You anticipate to regulate bump fire stocks, binary triggers, or hand cranks? I want something in return, declare these things to be machine guns and reopen the registry. Alternately, pass the SHARE act without ammendment and extend the protections of Article 4, Section 1 to carry permits.

It's not a negotiating tactic. We've already been pushed far past our line.

when they start banning bolt actions i guess.
my einfeld is all i got left

>I'm 12 and this is patriotic

>Being a fudd

Don't pretend you have a line. You'll comply with everything, every time.

As a Euro gun enthusiast, I tell you, the moment that hurts the most is when they implement the "purpose" requirement.

Nothing is more a pain in the ass than justifying a reason to own your semi-auto, bolt action, caliber type, even your fucking furniture choice!

>mmh a tactical chassis on your hunting rifle? Are you sure you NEED this to hunt?
>its the same rifle as that wooden one over there, just cosmetic..
>Yeah I don't know if I will approve that license.


Fuck that shit!

Thye can ban features and brand names all they want, but be advised, when they start banning specific cartridges of ammunition all hope is lost
t. Country where "military cartridges" are expressly banned

This.
You burgers still have it easy. A grown, law abiding man should be able to spend money how they fuckin see fit and not justify a fuckin purchase to the local law.

>where is your red line?
I keep running outside yelling and screaming with my rifle but no one else is ever out there...sad

My end game is NICs check only. You pass that no other red tape, the worlds your oyster.
Realistically the only compromise i would make is keep the MG registry but reopen it. Thats it, i will not be satisfied until everything else is hassle free available. This is only for small arms, explosives i would need to look more into.

Why is it so ridiculous for pro gunners to say not 1 inch when anti gunners are saying the same thing?

It’s not a compromise if only one side is giving into something. There’s no fucking way democrats will be okay with removing items from the NFA. Have you idiots already forgot the decades of misinformation about suppressors? They won’t give you an “assassination tool” in a trade for bumpfire stocks. They won’t trade you anything. They want 100% of it gone.
You’re a straight up retard if you think you’ll get something pro gun out of giving up bumpfire stocks.

>Why is it so ridiculous for pro gunners to say not 1 inch when anti gunners are saying the same thing?
This.
>part, combination of parts,
>8 component, device, attachment, or accessory that is de-
>9 signed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-
>10 automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle
>11 into a machinegun.
This section bans match triggers and is unacceptable.

I would consider supporting an ammendment to the SHARE act that defines these products more precisely and adds them to the definition of a machine gun in 26 §5845, I'm not going to support acting that isn't a compromise.

Perhaps "manual action crammed device that actuated the trigger more than once per revolution of the input crank", "trigger that fires the gun at more than one point in its full range of motion", and "Stock that allows the gun to reciprocate under recoil independent of the grip and stock, with a shelf or protrusion that extends forward to remove the user's finger from the trigger" would be functional definitions to use, but fuck a bunch of "any".

I haven’t forgotten a thing. If we offer a compromise and the left rejects it, then we can say that we tried being reasonable and other side rejected it, which will play way better with normies than straight rejectionism.

Give up all semi-autos.

Anyone saying they don't have a line is lying to themselves or stupid. Any reasonable person should agree that private citizens shouldn't be able to own nukes, so there is a line.

>lol, no I think I should be able to buy a nuke!

No you don't. Be serious for a moment. The line shouldn't be even that drastic. What is the limit of what a person should be able to own? There has to be one.

cuck

Too bad goy! This is Feinstein's bipartisan supported and NRA endorsed bill.

Wats a fudd?

go look in a mirror and you will see one

kmemes.wikia.com/wiki/Fudd

Good thing 5.56 and .223 aren't the same cartridge, right?

Lmao this is delusional. In their eyes it’s all evil. The second you start making compromises, you concede that some features may be evil. You’re giving in and saying, “you’re right, this is bad, now give me something else you say is bad and already got banned”
You give them the ammunition to continue eroding your rights using your concession as a basis.

Here’s a shitty analogy:
>Person A says X, Y and Z are evil and should cease existing
>Person B says there’s nothing wrong with X, Y and Z
>Person A, through nefarious means, is able to get Z outlawed
>Person A continues to say X and Y are evil
>something happens to Y and it’s legitimacy is questioned by a 3rd party
>Person A calls for an immediate ban on Y
>Person B says, okay, I will let you ban Y in exchange for unbanning Z
>Person B says, it is already established Z is banned, and you’re willing to consider banning Y, that in of itself is grounds to band both Y and Z. Furthermore, since X, Y and Z are part of a set and Y and Z are established as something bannable, X should be banned by being part of the set.

>Whats the lowest you'll go, where is your red line?
You can have my recreational nukes when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

SEELE can be nasty when they want to be

I am willing to trade bump/slide/reciprocating stocks, maybe suppressors. Nothing else. I want the rest of the SHARE Act passed in return for this compromise. There is nothing further to negotiate, that is the red line.

>Why is it so ridiculous for pro gunners to say not 1 inch when anti gunners are saying the same thing?
Because it's easier to emotionally argue about dead concert-goers, children, and murdered housewives than it is to whine about some intangible "right" thought up two hundred and fifty years ago. You really, really need to get a fucking grip if you think the public is on your side on this one or even most gun owners who A: barely shoot and B: likely own "a gun" because it makes them feel safe.
Bump fire? Don't give a shit.
Suppressors? Don't give a shit.
SBR? Don't give a shit.
"Sporting purpose"? Don't give a shit.
Most people simply do not give a flying FUCK about half the shit you retards yammer on about and those same people are who you have to convince because your "but its muh right goldernit!" is not going to be a big enough voting bloc. We, as a culture, are not going to come out of this 100% unscathed and if you fuck around too much and choose to die on this retarded hill we will get a solid Democrat House and Senate that can override a presidential veto. You like not having an AWB? You better cut the shit.
>hurr ur just a KEK
No, I'm not a retard, there's a difference between bending over and taking it and realizing that in real, big-boy life time there are consequences. I can choose to dig in my heels right now and possibly lose big time in a couple years, or I can give a little now and get something in return.

Gun owners are some of the biggest fucking retards on the planet and it keeps me up at night to think that my peers are the "last line of defense" against absolute tyranny. I'm not even kidding, some of you people are fucking waterheaded mongoloids.

that's not a fudd

>I think most people don’t support something.
>I better cave in and not support it.
Kys my dude.

We already past my red line. Can the average infantry platoon get access to it? We should have that.

It's literally too far.
I learned how to ride a bike by falling off my bike as a kid. We need to give people the power to fuck up and the responsibility not to if we ever expect the general population to think (at all)...

PS this thread belongs on Sup Forums

Because, we are not actually giving them a compromise. We are tying a anchor around their necks and making them decide if they want to jump into the ocean or a fresh water lake. That's the compromise in which we are giving since if they don't achieve to get something like bump stocks it makes them look incompetent. If they did get it for exchange of SBRs or silencers off the NFA then they can never bitch about the next shit show since nothing looks bad than being a hypocrite

Where is this anchor you speak of? The new Feinstein bill that bans everything or the NRA denouncing the stocks and suggesting the ATF ban them (which won’t get your anything removed from the NFA)?

I want you to be right. But this thought process is delusional.

>>I think
Wake the fuck up you dumb dickhead and look around.

Most of the country isn't mall ninjas shitposting on a Tibetan snake-charming web ring, most of the country are fudds and people who have mere fucking hours of total trigger time. You are a complete fucking retard if you think otherwise.

I don't give a fuck about bump fire and I never have, last year I said they were stupid and worthless and I stand by my statement. Fuck them. They're not useful and they're barely any fun, they lose novelty when you get serious about shooting and definitely when you reload. As far as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is concerned (PROTIP: it's to shoot at jackbooted thugs, no more, no less) they are not valuable, if you want fully-funomatic then learn to machine and not rely on a stupid gimmick.

So yeah, I'm A-OK with not supporting it. As said it's an anchor and we're letting them choose the body of water to sink in.

Cry some more you dumb motherfucker, I'm more than happy with letting them chase their tails. If only we had more useless, bullshit """toys""" to trade. If I could convince the Brady Bunch to agree to more "compromise" in exchange for making the Hughes Amendment go away I would, I'm willing to concede on them adding land mines by name to the NFA. Hell, let's thrown in pipe bombs, a $200 dollar tax stamp on exploding belt-fed clips. I'll even let them ban the oh so very fucking deadly slide-rule grenade sights too.

My red line is Nukes and bioweapons, but given that the majority of the population is made up of morons, and we have to co-exist with bleeding heart leftists, we'll never even see suppressors off the NFA
>there was a thread a few days ago where user was talking about some sort of firearms privilege license
>take a class, get certified, obtain 2nd amendment permit
made me think
>"...a well regulated militia"
So here is my thought, if there was an actual compromise it would be something like allowing a general AWB, but with a FOID that exempts an individual from the AWB
Regular citizens can buy whatever bolt, lever, pump actions, and pistols, like then can now, but no semi-auto long guns with 'salt rifle features or short barrels
However, if you take a certification class and can pass an annual background check focused specifically on violent offenses, you get this FOID card that allows free range purchase of whatever the fuck you want, and serves as a nation-wide carry permit

Let's say, the Civilian Marksmanship Program partners with Appleseed, and local law enforcement to organize the certification process, with limited oversight from the FBI
safety
>obviously
LE & public interaction
>how to not get shot by police & do not be overzealous vigilante
basic EMS training
>cpr, IFAK usage
and some high stress environment training
>so you dont freeze or shoot yourself or bystanders when shit pops off

So what should we gain by allowing this infringement?
Re-open MG registry
>except for belt fed
Eliminate NFA (hell, eliminate the ATF)
>replace with Destructive Device Tax, on explosive ordanince and any magazine fed rifled longarms of larger caliber than 18.5
Eliminate 922r bullshit
Rewrite/replace ITAR so American sellers can sell things to verified allies
>currently Magpul FURNITURE is illegal to export for whatever reason
All US military surplus goes to the CMP, no more pic related ever. again.
Police and FBI turn over eligible confiscated firearms to a division of the CMP that either auctions off, or disassembles these firearms and sells the parts

If there wasn't a genuine effort to ban firearm ownership entirely I would be fine with citizens organizing into militias and having access to all sorts of fun stuff once reasonable proof of competency was established.

However.

FOID is just a trojan horse waiting to happen. I know I just got done telling a guy to wake up and smell the roses about most people, but AWB-compliant firearms are just too important to put under a paradigm like that.

Culturally we are not Switzerland and we will never be them, the regressive leftists are hell-bent on making sure we lost our rights entirely. They need to leave the equation before a drastic compromise like that can even be considered, much less agreed upon by even a portion of the firearms community.

You’re a short sighted cunt if you think they’ll stop at bumpfire stocks. They clearly state that this isn’t enough and they won’t stop here. You’re not getting silencers, you’re not getting SBRs. Quit kidding yourself.
This is the evolution of you/your brain dead “sensible” gun owner counterparts over the next 30 years:
>who cares, only mall ninjas used bfs
>who cares, only mall ninjas use magazines that hold 100 rounds
>who cares, only mall ninjas need military grade weapons
>who cares, only mall ninjas need 30 round mag- ... 10 round mag-... magazines at all
>who cares, only mall ninjas need pistol grips
>who cares, only mall ninjas need adjustable weight triggers
>who cares, only mall ninjas need guns

There is no anchor. The NRA wants to avoid the lawmakers and have the ATF ban it. You won’t get anything out of that. It’s the better alternative because they know the majority of people are retards like you that are quick to sell out something in hopes that your thing won’t get touched.
The act of selling out BFS is agreeing that some “tacticool” things are bad. You just opened the floor to questioning everything. You beat yourself at 4d chess. Congrats.

>AWB-compliant
Stupid. I meant AWB non-compliant.

>You’re a short sighted cunt
Said the Australian, why are you even here?

>This is the evolution of you/your brain dead “sensible” gun owner counterparts over the next 30 years:
>>who cares, only mall ninjas used bfs
>>who cares, only mall ninjas use magazines that hold 100 rounds
>>who cares, only mall ninjas need military grade weapons
>>who cares, only mall ninjas need 30 round mag- ... 10 round mag-... magazines at all
>>who cares, only mall ninjas need pistol grips
>>who cares, only mall ninjas need adjustable weight triggers
>>who cares, only mall ninjas need guns

You are literally proving my point you dumb fuck, the reason why most of the country is pro-2A is because the myths have routinely been proven to be bullshit. Every single one has a neat /k/-approved (and often manufactured) infographic to debunk it, often passing the buck on some other or just eroding the hysteria or misinformation of it all. This attack was the silver bullet to all of that, he was a rich white guy who legally got all of his stuff and couldn't have been stopped by any conventional gun control. You're too fucking stubborn and enthusiastic about cutting off your own nose to spite your face to see it, but the simple fact is this guy proves that gun control doesn't work.

"Yeah GOOD" I can hear you grunting, but that's the opposite of good, that's really bad. Instead of "we need gun control" it's now evolved to "we need even stronger gun control than before!" We're not going to fucking win this fight because we can't use the normal tactics of blaming black violence, crazy retards, or attacking the source credibility. Their argument is 110% emotion that resonates with normal people, and so far your only response is NUH UH and digging in your heels.

That's not going to work, retard. You're pulling a Clinton and alienating people you need to support you. How the fuck are you going to go into 2018 hmm? Tell me.

Are you and everybody else pushing this compromise bullshit intentionally being stupid? Serious question.

>If the dems can't get anything banned it is the republican's fault
>If the republicans offer them a deal with the devil and they chose not to sign it, it is the republicans fault

As soon as this deal is proposed it is going to be all over the media as bogus. I'll sell you my shitbox car for your new house and the 250 acres it is on. That doesn't make us look like we are taking the high road, that makes us look like dickheads.

I'm not entirely sure what the IL FOID even entails, it just seemed like a quicker analogue to AWB exempt license
>in hindsight, "AWB exempt license" is self explanatory

>I know I just got done telling a guy to wake up and smell the roses about most people, but AWB-compliant firearms are just too important to put under a paradigm like that.
I can't really make out what you're trying to say here

>Culturally we are not Switzerland
no, but if we had the internal option to be a well-regulated-militia instead of

>They sent a death squad who literally said "it's nothing personnel kid"

The Constitution guarantees that the people can own and carry guns. So my line is (((them))) not letting us own or carry guns. Some places like California have already crossed that line and as far as I'm concerned I'm at war with them.

I also like variety, so when they try to limit the guns I can own it really pisses me off. There's a line in there somewhere, and it probably starts at "assault rifles." If they go, I'm going James Yeager.

My stance is to continue to disprove the bullshit with info graphs. Your stance is to agree that it’s bad, but somehow use your no existent leverage that you just threw away compromise for something else.
It doesn’t work that way. How the fuck do you expect to negotiate when you and the other side both agree your currency is worthless?

Remember sandy hook? It was the same emotional train wreck as this. Did we go
>gee golly, I always thought ARs were stupid too. Let’s ban those, but first give me silencers.

No, we dug in our heels and pointed out the bullshit. Your haste to agree that BFS are bad just threw away any chance you had of staying at status quo.

>needing guns in california
>can give someone aids now with no legal issues
>lol just aids bomb people

>I'm not entirely sure what the IL FOID even entails
It's complete bullshit, I'm glad I don't live in IL because of it. I wasn't talking about the actual, real-world FOID I was actually discussing your proposal in it's entirety. Such a permit system just wouldn't work outside of a vacuum.
>I can't really make out what you're trying to say here
See above where I'm sparring with a retard who quite literally does not understand the world around him, they're the really huge posts.
>even super left dems wouldnt be able to argue. They get their assault weapons ban, and we get the license to be uninfringed
Again, that is actively giving them something that they can use against everyone. Their goal isn't reasonable gun ownership like they say, it's banning firearms. Giving them a de facto AWB and permits is nothing like pretending we're losing an arm and a leg over meme stocks, we lose nothing of value with the loss of bump fires.

>Your stance is to agree that it’s bad, but somehow use your no existent leverage that you just threw away compromise for something else
Once again proving you're a clueless shit for brains, color my fucking surprised.
>both agree your currency is worthless
HA no, they want bump fires banned bad and it's the hot-button issue right now. Nobody knows what the fuck they are or even that they existed before the LV shooting, just saying "yeah we banned bumpfires" makes the grabbers feel like they won because it is quite literally the shiny shit the media's dangling in front of the retarded masses. Nobody in the know gives a flying fuck about these except RKBA folks, and even then you have a lot of people asking why we need these anyway if they're just going to cause problems.
>Remember sandy hook? It was the same emotional train wreck
>ARs
Yeah it was just like that except for different in every single way!

"ARs are used for hunting" was a viable line, you look like a deranged retard if you try to claim the same for bump-fire.

>So here is my thought, if there was an actual compromise it would be something like allowing a general AWB, but with a FOID that exempts an individual from the AWB
>Regular citizens can buy whatever bolt, lever, pump actions, and pistols, like then can now, but no semi-auto long guns with 'salt rifle features or short barrels
>However, if you take a certification class and can pass an annual background check focused specifically on violent offenses, you get this FOID card that allows free range purchase of whatever the fuck you want, and serves as a nation-wide carry permit

More hubris, you assume you will be able to qualify for this FOID card. You know how this blows up in your face? Dems say sure, if you want the FOID card you have to pass peace officer POST. Key point, THIS SOUNDS REASONABLE TO NORMAL PEOPLE. If they are going to be armed like the police they ought to have to pass the same background checks.

>Discolose every single thing you have ever done wrong in your entire life
>Review the form with an investigator while you are hooked up to a polygraph

Normal people WILL NOT PASS. But that is okay because they still have bolt guns and revolvers so their 2A rights are not being infringed upon.

This compromise line being shilled is on the same level of a constitutional convention. It is a monumentally bad idea in today's climate.

>"ARs are used for hunting" was a viable line, you look like a deranged retard if you try to claim the same for bump-fire.
You haven't seen the deer we have in my state, user. They charge you when you shoot them.

lmao I don't think they're going to buy that one.

You’re fudd incarnate. Arguing need and use is what got you into this mess in the first place. The 2nd amendment is specifically is about killing people, like you said before. Agreeing that certain things that are designed to kill are too dangerous contradicts this. The second you give in on one thing is the second you set the precedent that you’re willing to give in on anything.
You don’t need an AR to hunt. You don’t need an AR for home defense. AKs and ARs are laughably easy to convert to select fire.
You’re opening up pandora’s box. Don’t cry when your toys get taken away because you were too quick to sell out a niche item. They’re playing the long con, death by a thousand paper cuts, and you’re willing to give up ground without a fight without anything in return.

>giving them this win will make them happy
Yes, it will boost morale. It’s progress for them. It’s positive reinforcement.

seeagain, specifically
>This attack was the silver bullet to all of that, he was a rich white guy who legally got all of his stuff and couldn't have been stopped by any conventional gun control
and
> but that's the opposite of good, that's really bad. Instead of "we need gun control" it's now evolved to "we need even stronger gun control than before!" We're not going to fucking win this fight because we can't use the normal tactics of blaming black violence, crazy retards, or attacking the source credibility
With Sandy hook we could blame it on the insane kid and shitty parent, with this we're grasping at straws with the [valid] conspiracy theories about Paddock's meds. We are on the edge now man. Lefties are breathing down our necks while we hang ten on the guard rail. Mandalay was too manufactured, too perfect for the lefties to use, we can't argue anything for BFS and we need a fucking hail mary
>Again, that is actively giving them something that they can use against everyone. Their goal isn't reasonable gun ownership like they say, it's banning firearms.
my proposal effectively bakes a new gun rights cake, there is no way to interpret the 2nd to the point of total ban. They do not get to take the whole cake and throw it in the trash. fuck them, ain't happening
But if they can have their feel good AWB, and we have to go through a bud lite version of LEO training to get 99% of what we want? I call that a damn good compromise
>as a side effect, training class would be a double screening process for weeding out nig-CRIMinals

>giving them a de facto AWB and permits is nothing like pretending we're losing an arm and a leg over meme stocks, we lose nothing of value with the loss of bump fires.
I agree, BFS are dumb, largely useless toys, and I see the strategy with hyping it up, but I wasn't ever really talking about them. I see zero function to them with anything besides their current shoulder-thing-that-goes-up political role

>You’re fudd incarnate
I knew this was coming, I'm almost convinced you don't even own guns you faggot mall ninja.
>Arguing need and use is what got you into this mess in the first place.
>you
>not us
Yeah, you really don't own guns. I'm not arguing need and use, I know what I need and I know what's useless. I don't need bumpfire, I don't want it, I don't use it, it's a gimmick, it's a meme, and it was fucking inevitable that it would cause a big problem like this.
>The 2nd amendment is specifically is about killing people
What language do they teach in your country? "Jackbooted thug" is not synonymous with "people" here.
>The second you give in on one thing is the second you set the precedent that you’re willing to give in on anything
Ah the old precedence argument strikes again and as usual it makes no sense. No if I give them bumpfire I at most concede normal people shouldn't own full-auto which is true, most people can't. Every nigger on the street would be spraying up the place if NFA stuff didn't have the quality filter of a tax stamp and ATF wait and you can go suck a big dick if you don't like to read that.
>You don’t need an AR to hunt
Yes I do.
>You don’t need an AR for home defense
There's proof that I do.
>AKs and ARs are laughably easy to convert
So why are you crying about bumpfire? Oh I know "give em 1 inch.............................."
>You’re opening up pandora’s box.
That was opened in 1934 for a peek and swung wide fucking open in 1968 so shut the fuck up.
>you were too quick to sell out
See you keep saying this but all I've said so far is that it's worthless to hold onto them, I've actually said in a post YOU REPLIED TO that making it seem like we're jumping through hoops to lose bumpfire is the way to go about this. You said "thats not true!" and continued to LARP about how I'm a fudd because I'm not on your spectrum.
>long con
>thousand paper cuts
>you're willing to give up ground
lol yeah, for the SHARE Act. That's it.

I'm sorry, but they're still going to use all of that against you. I stand by my original point, the regressives will use any permit process to AWB-banned firearms as a springboard, it's a BIG chunk of the cake that you really can't rebake unless you make a whole new society to go with it.

If you drop semi-auto from the list and focus just on the NFA, sure, that might be a concession we could work with. Anything even approaching an AWB is actually going to work like says (as autistic as he is) and give them a big boost toward their ultimate goal.

It's not a bad idea, it's just not an idea that will work as far as modern American politics are concerned.

>But if they can have their feel good AWB, and we have to go through a bud lite version of LEO training to get 99% of what we want? I call that a damn good compromise

Nobody normal will make it through the training. You want to give up everything you stupid cuck.

The fact that at a federal level people do not need to pass anything but a criminal background check largely prevents our rights from gradually being eroded.

You are proposing a mechanism to arbitarily deny people rights based on some subjective evaluation on whether they passed training or not. Are you seriously unable to see how completely off the rails your idea can go?

>fuck i need to sleep
>Such a permit system just wouldn't work outside of a vacuum.
something like this user
is saying?

also,
>Dems say sure, if you want the FOID card you have to pass peace officer POST
its excessive
hence, my "Let's say.." hypothetical and minimal outlinenothing I've said needs to be strictly adhered to ,but I think it does serve as a solid frame to build on.
AND I REALLY WISH ANONS WOULD contribute or offer helpful suggestions instead of this
>nope wont work
>nope doesnt work with system A
but I'm proposing eliminating system A, and placing system 3B?
>wont work


this is a pretty goodthread, but ineed to sleep. hopefully its not too far gone in 5 hours

I need to sleep too, but as far as suggestions go I've made mine. Bump fire and maybe suppressors in exchange for SHARE Act passing. They want the massacres to stop, we want to be protected and safe, so it's a nice "middleground" to arrive at. Political capital is gained by both sides, making this so-called compromise effectively ensures the political status quo while also giving practical benefits to the firearms community nationwide.

>Dems say sure, if you want the FOID card you have to pass peace officer POST
>its excessive

Please.

>I senator blowhard propose that if citizens want to purchase and carry in public the same potent weapons as peace officers that they be held to the same background check and training standards.
This will sound like irrefutable common sense to every city dweller in the nation. If you don't know about guns why the fuck not would you be for that.

You are proposing the entire nation become a may issue state for anything above a bolt gun. You are fucking mad. Go look at how well 'may issue' functions in CA.

Do you know how piss-poor police training is? Fucking anybody could pass it as long as they don't have a rap sheet.

I should say here that what we really need is shall issue. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that if that was ever proposed it would be laughable.

dallaspolice.net/joindpd/Shared Documents/TEXAS_COMMISSION_ON_LAW_ENFORCEMENT_OFFICER_STANDARDS_AND_EDUCATION.pdf

Learn something.

Ah, that's fair. I'd always heard that Dallas had one of the best Police Departments in the country. I guess if someone was going to try to make guns hard to get, they'd do it by copying the most intense hiring criteria.

That's actually a fairly standard personal history statement for metro departments. What they'll allow to slide is up to the department. Your honesty is enforced (tested) by polygraph.

I was not ready for that pic. What the fuck is wrong with people?

First they banned belt-fed semi-auto guns, now they're going for high cap magazines, then all semi-auto, then all handguns, then all centerfire guns and we'll be left with licenced registered air rifles for target shooting to please ISSF.

isn't that the line on the moon where Kaworu was hanging out before he came to fuck Shinjis sweet sweet boipucci

My absolute limit is banning guns by name, like Canada does. You can't pick and choose what firearms are covered by the second amendment. Firearms are ALL covered by the second amendment.

Negotiation implies we are gaining something. In gun control, we gain nothing.

Fuck off autist

Don't be a faggot one inch means that. I'll fight for all laws.

>comes to Chinese fish sedition ritual forum
>upset when seeing Chinese fish seduction ritual
???????????

I will accept a ban on the personal ownership of Death Stars capable of destroying planets.

>They won't give an inch on anything, ever.
Aren't they already?

>Majority Republican House
>Majority Republican Senate
>Republican White House
>Majority Republican State Legislatures and Governors
>More gun owners than ever
>a scared populous will outlaw bumpfire stocks but happily trade for the SHARE act.

Fuck off shill.

>t. Country where "military cartridges" are expressly banned

>and such, this is now life in yuropooria

Nope, sorry. The 2nd Amendment has already been infringed enough. I never wanted a bumpfire stock before, but if they get banned, I will run out, buy a 3D printer, and start giving them away.

HOLD THE LINE AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>Better to shave off muh rights a little at a time than lose them all at once!

You do realize once they are gone, their gone? Dems play for keeps, and their goal of a noguns nannystate is slowly getting realized year by year.

That was crossed long before I was born, however, I need an army with good funding, training, organization, equipment, and probably foreign backing to join to get what I want. No one is willing to sponsor a second American Revolution except communists and globalists, and what they want and what I want (a hard reset of the country, back to the Constitution with a few changes like the bill of rights not being ammendments) is mutually exclusive.

SIYALL
NAHT
BAY
ANFRANGADE

Closest we have in regards to that is with imports. If they say it doesn't have a "sporting purpose" then they won't let it be imported. That's something the SHARE act is also supposed to address.

>Whats the lowest you'll go, where is your red line?
We're basically already there.

The only thing I could possibly be persuaded to accept (in exchange for some concession like national CCW reciprocity or maybe removing SBR/SBS from the NFA) would be a ban on explosive weapons like grenades and rocket launchers. They really have no purpose either for sport or self-defense, and massive potential for terrorist use.

>"Sporting purpose"? Don't give a shit.
Damn Yankee.

I'm old enough to have made it through the AWB and come out on the other side where 7/10 rifles on my local range are ARs. Stay focused, and we can do it. Not to say it will be a smooth ride.

They're already heavily regulated under the NFA as Destructive Devices.

My red line was the NFA.

As a small and thin homosexual male living in a suburban/urban/mix-medium population area I've had to defend my life with a firearm multiple times. I've had to protect my neighbors dairy farm from aggressive wild animals.
Just because in your safespace there isn't a use for firearms doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. How selfish of you.
>inb4 'use a 5 shot shotgun'
Hard to conceal carry that for personal protection or engage a pack of wolfs/coyotes/coydogs at 140m with such limited equipment.
Each of those cows is worth around 3,500$.
And my life is worth more to me.

>>hurr ur just a KEK
What the fuck does that even mean.

stop being gay

I tried a couple times, it's just not my thing user. I'm not a flag waving festival going gay though. I'm just a normal human being.

The cake is not a lie, but the AWB was eventually repealed.

Stop playing trench war.

And how many hills do we choose not do die on before we run out of hills altogether?

It wasn't repealed, the compromise to get conservatives on board was a sunset provision, and since Bush was president it wasn't renewed.

My red line was the NFA/GCA.
It's crossed about 100 years ago.

It wasn’t “repealed,” the NRA simply has a 10-year sunset clause written into it. Do you want that to happen again? Ten years without semi-autos? People will not stand for it this time. Back then, the Internet wasn’t widespread in every home, so politicians could pretty much just do whatever they wanted. Now dissidents have a much easier time organizing and voicing their grievances.