Recent Events and attacks on the 2nd Amendment

Gypsy EDC

Regular Member
Do you seriously believe that there are no ways to reform the current system in a way that alleviates concerns from those in the middle while also improving our own position?

Here's an example: I've been advocating for the reform of the NICS system for years - it is, frankly, outdated, and in this day and age there's no reason for it not to be open to individual sellers. "Universal background checks" are unacceptable, but nobody wants to be the guy who sells a gun to a prohibited possessor, and there's no easy way to voluntarily run a background check on a private sale, even if both parties consent to it. Making NICS open to private sellers via a secure web portal or similar that allows an individual to enter their information and get a binary "YES/NO" improves peace of mind for private sellers, assuages the concerns of those outside of our community about private sales, and, since it isn't attached to a 4473 whatsoever (i.e., one could run the check and then just not complete the sale), it prevents any sort of registry from being created from it. It would also have an added benefit of allowing people unsure of their legal status to check their eligibility without entering the legal gray area of providing incorrect information on a 4473.

This is not a solution to the current issue, but it is something I've been trying to encourage people to think about and discuss, even when guns aren't in the spotlight. Being open to and proposing reforms like this that protect ourselves while addressing the concerns of the general populace helps build our community's ethos - it gives our arguments credibility by demonstrating that we are self-motivated about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, and that we have an interest in policing ourselves instead of only ever pushing back against others trying to police us. Offering suggestions for reform to the current system gives us more political clout in times of controversy, and in turn makes it more likely for us to win in the long term.

This is critical thinking. It is strategic thinking about how to advance our position for the long term by keeping ourselves relevant through the appearances of acting in good faith towards keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, even if we never have any intent whatsoever of giving up semiauto rifles, pistol braces, suppressors, etc., etc. We live in a culture where logic is often thrown out the window; simply making logical appeals to the middle is unfortunately not a winning strategy. We have to shore up our credibility as people with solutions to issues being currently presented, and the more we take initiative to solve issues that are not front and center, the more clout we'll have in big fights like the current one, and the more authority our response of "no, that's not a reasonable solution" will have.



Spare me the snark. Last I checked this was P&S, not the comments section of an Uncle Sam's Misguided Children Facebook post.
Lolz seems like you need hugz
 

Valk

Newbie
Lolz seems like you need hugz

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this forum was a place where serious end users and professional congregate to have respectful, open dialogue about firearms and defense topics, not a place where people whose defining personality trait is "has a beard" come to regurgitate sayings they read on the back of a Grunt Style t-shirt once come to sling shit whenever someone talks about potentially breaking away from orthodoxy.
 

oda175

Member
Flavor of the week. Pedo hanged himself in jail, and the public’s gnat like attention span has already moved on. It’s election season, and politicians will diarrhea from the mouth any half cocked idea to motivate the emotional driven voter.

Good ideas? Yeah- leave law abiding citizens alone. Not a single thing proposed would have done anything. Mass shootings are an issue conflated by the media to push an agenda. If they gave a shit based upon any logic handguns would be the rightful target. ( See any major cities gang related violent/homicide plague)

Not to seem callous, but fat bodies shoveling fast food into their redundant masses, texting while driving, and drug abuse are systemically much larger killers. We don’t seem to be tackling those problems.... must not be on anyones agenda....
 

Valk

Newbie
I cannot say I concur here.

The goal is disarmament.

That SHOULD be obvious by now.

If it’s not then just support the president and all governors to have a Constitutional Convention and invite the UNO here officially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The hard left's goal is disarmament. That is obvious, there's no question about that.

My line of thinking - what I'm trying to get people to consider - is that there are potentially ways in which we can win over the "squishies" in the middle who aren't yet committed to that agenda and make the hard left's job that much more difficult. We do that by offering our own solutions to problems that drift the public away from that path and strengthen our position instead of following the script.

We have to break away from the siege mentality, and the best way to do that is to go on the offensive with verbal maneuver warfare.
 

Gypsy EDC

Regular Member
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this forum was a place where serious end users and professional congregate to have respectful, open dialogue about firearms and defense topics, not a place where people whose defining personality trait is "has a beard" come to regurgitate sayings they read on the back of a Grunt Style t-shirt once come to sling shit whenever someone talks about potentially breaking away from orthodoxy.
C'mon man don't get mad I just offered you hugz, I'll even let you cry it out in my beard
 

Barry B

Member
I am generally not a paranoid guy.... but in this instance, I have to say I 100% believe some politicians fully expect a full or partial ban on firearms to be the end game. Took me a while to come around to realizing that this is a game of “Death by 1000 cuts”. Every change that doesn’t work (and they won’t - as proposed) leads to just one more, cuz the last one didn’t have the desired outcome... wash, rinse, repeat.

Barry
 

Gypsy EDC

Regular Member
Here's an example: I've been advocating for the reform of the NICS system for years - it is, frankly, outdated, and in this day and age there's no reason for it not to be open to individual sellers. "Universal background checks" are unacceptable, but nobody wants to be the guy who sells a gun to a prohibited possessor, and there's no easy way to voluntarily run a background check on a private sale, even if both parties consent to it. Making NICS open to private sellers via a secure web portal or similar that allows an individual to enter their information and get a binary "YES/NO" improves peace of mind for private sellers, assuages the concerns of those outside of our community about private sales, and, since it isn't attached to a 4473 whatsoever (i.e., one could run the check and then just not complete the sale), it prevents any sort of registry from being created from it. It would also have an added benefit of allowing people unsure of their legal status to check their eligibility without entering the legal gray area of providing incorrect information on a 4473
On a serious note if you think voluntary NICS runs are even part of the compromise/ solution that the gun control faction are interested in you're living in a fantasy. They don't actually even care about common sense gun control as they've proven over and over and over again since the most "common sense gun control" measure in terms of "saving lives" would be the prohibition of pistols. They have one goal, and they'll take any route to get there. The middle is the middle and the problem with an appeal to emotion is that it's a damn fickle thing and can sway bend and reverse quickly and violently. When you allow people to engage you with an emotional argument it's really hard to move the debate/ argument back into the territory of reason. I had a family member basically assert that I could either
A. Agree with an AWB
Or
B. I had no compassion for victims of gun violence

Either/ or NOT both/ and

That's the middle.
 

Valk

Newbie
On a serious note if you think voluntary NICS runs are even part of the compromise/ solution that the gun control faction are interested in you're living in a fantasy. They don't actually even care about common sense gun control as they've proven over and over and over again since the most "common sense gun control" measure in terms of "saving lives" would be the prohibition of pistols. They have one goal, and they'll take any route to get there. The middle is the middle and the problem with an appeal to emotion is that it's a damn fickle thing and can sway bend and reverse quickly and violently. When you allow people to engage you with an emotional argument it's really hard to move the debate/ argument back into the territory of reason. I had a family member basically assert that I could either
A. Agree with an AWB
Or
B. I had no compassion for victims of gun violence

Either/ or NOT both/ and

That's the middle.

Thanks for clarifying that there’s third graders with better reading comprehension than you have. I didn’t say voluntary NICS checks were going to sate the gun control groups, but that it would demonstrate to the undecideds in the middle that we act in good faith to police ourselves without needing to be forced to. What you dealt with was not the undecided middle, that was a gun grabber. You’re an imbecile for thinking that’s the sort of person I’m trying to win over.

I’m going to take a page out of your book at this point and stop arguing with idiots like yourself.
 

Gypsy EDC

Regular Member
Thanks for clarifying that there’s third graders with better reading comprehension than you have. I didn’t say voluntary NICS checks were going to sate the gun control groups, but that it would demonstrate to the undecideds in the middle that we act in good faith to police ourselves without needing to be forced to. What you dealt with was not the undecided middle, that was a gun grabber. You’re an imbecile for thinking that’s the sort of person I’m trying to win over.

I’m going to take a page out of your book at this point and stop arguing with idiots like yourself.
Wow... with friends like you
 

YetiSam

Newbie
Do you seriously believe that there are no ways to reform the current system in a way that alleviates concerns from those in the middle while also improving our own position?

Here's an example: I've been advocating for the reform of the NICS system for years - it is, frankly, outdated, and in this day and age there's no reason for it not to be open to individual sellers. "Universal background checks" are unacceptable, but nobody wants to be the guy who sells a gun to a prohibited possessor, and there's no easy way to voluntarily run a background check on a private sale, even if both parties consent to it. Making NICS open to private sellers via a secure web portal or similar that allows an individual to enter their information and get a binary "YES/NO" improves peace of mind for private sellers, assuages the concerns of those outside of our community about private sales, and, since it isn't attached to a 4473 whatsoever (i.e., one could run the check and then just not complete the sale), it prevents any sort of registry from being created from it. It would also have an added benefit of allowing people unsure of their legal status to check their eligibility without entering the legal gray area of providing incorrect information on a 4473.

This is not a solution to the current issue, but it is something I've been trying to encourage people to think about and discuss, even when guns aren't in the spotlight. Being open to and proposing reforms like this that protect ourselves while addressing the concerns of the general populace helps build our community's ethos - it gives our arguments credibility by demonstrating that we are self-motivated about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, and that we have an interest in policing ourselves instead of only ever pushing back against others trying to police us. Offering suggestions for reform to the current system gives us more political clout in times of controversy, and in turn makes it more likely for us to win in the long term.

This is critical thinking. It is strategic thinking about how to advance our position for the long term by keeping ourselves relevant through the appearances of acting in good faith towards keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, even if we never have any intent whatsoever of giving up semiauto rifles, pistol braces, suppressors, etc., etc. We live in a culture where logic is often thrown out the window; simply making logical appeals to the middle is unfortunately not a winning strategy. We have to shore up our credibility as people with solutions to issues being currently presented, and the more we take initiative to solve issues that are not front and center, the more clout we'll have in big fights like the current one, and the more authority our response of "no, that's not a reasonable solution" will have.



Spare me the snark. Last I checked this was P&S, not the comments section of an Uncle Sam's Misguided Children Facebook post.

What makes you think the "middle" (whatever that term means?) understands firearms laws enough to know this is a concession of good will? I've seen no indications a demographic exists that would find this of any value or even understand what it actually means outside of people doing private sales that want to go the extra mile at ensuring they aren't selling to a prohibited person. Can you expound on this?

A major issue with any undertaking is that what starts as a decent idea (making NICS less terrible is a good idea if we have to live with that system), will probably end up with making NICS more terrible once govt (legislators or un-elected bureaucrats) have had a chance to touch it as laws are modified. Now perhaps that's a slippery slope fallacy of sorts, but I think my anecdotal experience with firearms laws in my lifetime bear that worry out.
 

Valk

Newbie
What makes you think the "middle" (whatever that term means?) understands firearms laws enough to know this is a concession of good will? I've seen no indications a demographic exists that would find this of any value or even understand what it actually means outside of people doing private sales that want to go the extra mile at ensuring they aren't selling to a prohibited person. Can you expound on this?

I'm probably going a little too far out on trying to explain and defend my own example of legislative strategy - it's only intended as an example - but since I've expanded upon the idea pretty heavily so far, I'll stick to using that example.

Let's look at the most common refrain from the "reasonable" gun control crowd - the demand for background checks. Based on the sorts of people I've interacted with on the subject, a lot of people have absolutely zero idea that NICS even exists, much less how heavy a percentage of firearms sales go through NICS (i.e., most of them). We have no evidence that my proposal would be seeing as a concession of value/goodwill because the way pollsters tend to frame it is either "do you support background checks on gun sales" (which is where we get the "90% of Americans want UBCs" stat from, despite the question not mentioning UBCs), or "do you support universal background checks?" The distinction I draw from this is that people are really only ever asked whether they support the idea of background checks existing at all, or having them on everything, with the latter being a more polarizing proposal amongst the American public.

So, let's pull this back to my proposal. Say we, without any major political stimulus like a mass shooting, inform our elected officials "here's a background check bill that streamlines the NICS system and will result in more background checks getting done on private sales without any risk of a registry being created from it." If the bill gains steam without any major gutting or rewrites, the Rs will likely sign off on it because it appeals to undecided suburban voters without risking the votes of the more hardline 2A demographic since it can clearly be shown to address their concerns, and the more purple-state Ds may sign off on it because hey, more background checks is always a good thing in their book. Even if they're not universal, it's still sellable as an improvement. We'll assume the bill passes, becomes law, etc. Yay.

Now, what does this do in the grander scheme of things? Well, let's say we hit another crisis and the Manchin-Toomey bill rears its ugly head again. The media is demanding "background checks," amongst other things. Sometimes they're phrased as "universal," other times they aren't. The passing of our hypothetical law now provides us with two strategic benefits:

1. It makes some lower-information voters - the sort who think we have none at all right now - ask "why is this necessary? We just passed a background checks law!" Yes, some low-info voters will still sign up for an Everytown newsletter and say "we got most gun sales now, let's get all of them," but the important thing here is that we're bleeding off their momentum because we already cut it off on our own volition.
2. The Voluntary NICS Law, in this scenario, passed with bipartisan support and was proposed by pro-2A lawmakers. This can help push undecideds into thinking "hey, the gun people are interested in improving things and that last thing they did helped; we should consider their input too and see what their ideas are before we throw our weight behind a major proposal like an AWB." Again, not going to get everyone, but more of the anti-gun momentum gets bled off, there's less Everytown Orange shirts at protests, and public appetite for draconian gun laws made in defiance of what a huge chunk of the country drops a bit.

My point is this: we don't really have to do a whole ton with whatever theoretical proactive legislative measures we propose to get out ahead of the gun grabbers and seize the initiative from them. The whole point is to make it look like we're really self-motivated about improving things and making careful, calculated moves that make people safer, even if it only improves things a little bit and mostly just makes our lives easier. That's how the opposition is working anyway - nothing they propose makes anyone safer, it just advances their agenda and makes people think they're safer. We can use that same strategy for our own ends as long as we're willing to commit to it and play the game intelligently. Doing so makes it a lot harder for the Everytowns and Moms Demands of the world to claim additional moral high ground in the argument, not to mention it takes a sledgehammer to the current social monopoly they have on being the "gun safety" experts. That title should belong to people who know how guns work, and it's high time we take it back.
 

22F

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
[mod hat ON]

Gentlemen (and I use that term rather loosely),
I would suggest we be a little bit more civilized towards each other.

I don’t want to see childish interactions with each other, we’re better than that.
If you can’t interact as adults, then I shall start further action.

Thank you for your time.
Carry on.

[mod hat OFF]
 
Top