MNGunTalk.com

Its starting already. That didn't take long.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4158 ... next-house

I don't think it ever really stopped. The Democrats have introduced gun control legislation every session since the 60s (maybe before that). With the Majority, they will probably get it passed in the House. Anything significant is dead in the Senate and veto from Trump even if it wasn't.

While I understand and agree with the objections to UBC, I think that is going to be the most difficult for us to stop either in MN or nationally.

Par for the course

MJY65 wrote:While I understand and agree with the objections to UBC, I think that is going to be the most difficult for us to stop either in MN or nationally.

Have to agree with that. Universal background checks seem like a no brainier to them and they are going to push hard. If they had any knowledge of what they were trying to pass they would know there is a lot of simple things they could have already changed in their bill to appease the majority of objectors. Though it might also just be them being stubborn, yeah actually that's probably it.

grimbeaver wrote:

MJY65 wrote:While I understand and agree with the objections to UBC, I think that is going to be the most difficult for us to stop either in MN or nationally.

Have to agree with that. Universal background checks seem like a no brainier to them and they are going to push hard. If they had any knowledge of what they were trying to pass they would know there is a lot of simple things they could have already changed in their bill to appease the majority of objectors. Though it might also just be them being stubborn, yeah actually that's probably it.

But nearly all the nutjobs pass BC's and legally obtain firearms, it will do nothing but amount to another of the thousand cuts

Ghost wrote:But nearly all the nutjobs pass BC's and legally obtain firearms, it will do nothing but amount to another of the thousand cuts

It may have a small effect, but I agree it won't solve much. Of course if they start ratcheting up the number of prohibited classes, that has no logical end.

grimbeaver wrote:Have to agree with that. Universal background checks seem like a no brainier to them and they are going to push hard. If they had any knowledge of what they were trying to pass they would know there is a lot of simple things they could have already changed in their bill to appease the majority of objectors. Though it might also just be them being stubborn, yeah actually that's probably it.

Don't kid yourself, they know exactly what they're doing.

Ghost wrote:

grimbeaver wrote:

MJY65 wrote:While I understand and agree with the objections to UBC, I think that is going to be the most difficult for us to stop either in MN or nationally.

Have to agree with that. Universal background checks seem like a no brainier to them and they are going to push hard. If they had any knowledge of what they were trying to pass they would know there is a lot of simple things they could have already changed in their bill to appease the majority of objectors. Though it might also just be them being stubborn, yeah actually that's probably it.

But nearly all the nutjobs pass BC's and legally obtain firearms, it will do nothing but amount to another of the thousand cuts

Oh I totally agree with that. My comment was more on objections relating to undue burden on law abiding citizens.

I think we should let the democrats have UBC and red flag laws. Then they will be satisfied and we can get along.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

PhilaBOR wrote:I think we should let the democrats have UBC and red flag laws. Then they will be satisfied and we can get along.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Compromise on UBC and red flag may end up being negotiating points when they propose bans, but they will NOT be satisfied.

PhilaBOR wrote:I think we should let the democrats have UBC and red flag laws. Then they will be satisfied and we can get along.

That was the best laugh I had all day.

MJY65 wrote:

PhilaBOR wrote:I think we should let the democrats have UBC and red flag laws. Then they will be satisfied and we can get along.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Compromise on UBC and red flag may end up being negotiating points when they propose bans, but they will NOT be satisfied.

No first hand knowledge but I've heard time and time again that those with PTSD often refuse to get help for fear of losing their gun rights. UBC would just be another hurdle towards getting help that would keep people from getting help.

UBC would lead to more people refusing to get help when needed, it's a bad idea and shouldn't be negotiable.

Is it really negotiation when you get nothing in return but less of what you started with?

First we asked smokers to smoke in different sections

Than we asked smokers to smoke outside the door

Next we told the smokers to smoke 50ft from the building

After that, we can't allow anyone to smoke in their homes, since second hand smoke kills (no evidence according to AMA)

NOW, third hand smoke must be stopped, vaping must be stopped (again no proven hazard especially compared to smoking)

If anyone here thinks we can compromise with leftists, we have already lost the war.

One thing I've learned since Obama presidency is that, gun control is not about gun control.

I don't smoke, infact i don't like smoking at all. But, this is how leftists politics work.

The new governor and speaker of the house have already started screaming for common sense gun control.

Samginko hit it on the head!