MNGunTalk.com

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

jdege wrote:If there is a permanent government record of every legal transfer, then simple possession of a firearm manufactured after the effective date becomes a crime, for which the existence of the proper paper trail becomes an affirmative defense.

Every gun owner will be presumed a criminal, forced to prove that he obtained a firearm through approved channels.

And that’s a good thing?

If your goal is to eliminate the gun culture, yes, it is.

They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm

Remember - they don't want a world without guns, they want a world without gun owners.

They want to turn us into silent submissive wallets or corpses. They want us to live in fear and be grateful for the few scraps they give us.

I think we all agree on here that that is their end goal.

Holland&Holland wrote:I think we all agree on here that that is their end goal.

I think we've also drifted from the intent of the OP's linked article. (my bad)

I'm curious, how many here would support a system as described in the linked article? With a few tweaks, I think I would.

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:I think we all agree on here that that is their end goal.

I think we've also drifted from the intent of the OP's linked article. (my bad)

I'm curious, how many here would support a system as described in the linked article? With a few tweaks, I think I would.

It's a reasonable, well thought out proposal, which means it would never be proposed by either side, but I would support it.

The ideas in that article do make some sense. If there were some way to implement that and lock in the laws in stone forever afterwards I think a lot of people could live with it. Obvious to all of us though is the fact that anti-gunners will NEVER stop pushing for "just one more commonsense law". Primarily because the whole concept of a universal background check would have zero affect on actual crime and mass killings. Well, that and the other fact that those really driving the anti-gun push don't care about reducing crime & killings.

What I am all for, in an attempt to actually reduce crime and mass killings is to change our culture. We must do something to bring people together and get them to value each other and to find other outlets for their disagreements. Fix the people... fix the problems.

BB

^^^^^^^^;

BigBlue wrote:The ideas in that article do make some sense. If there were some way to implement that and lock in the laws in stone forever afterwards I think a lot of people could live with it. Obvious to all of us though is the fact that anti-gunners will NEVER stop pushing for "just one more commonsense law". Primarily because the whole concept of a universal background check would have zero affect on actual crime and mass killings. Well, that and the other fact that those really driving the anti-gun push don't care about reducing crime & killings.

What I am all for, in an attempt to actually reduce crime and mass killings is to change our culture. We must do something to bring people together and get them to value each other and to find other outlets for their disagreements. Fix the people... fix the problems.

BB

I think as long as you have people on the planet you will have some people willing to hurt other people to get what they want. Those who are behind the effort to remove our guns are those people.

If all the "no one is trying to take away your guns" people were serious, they'd welcome dropping the NFA's absurdly illogical rules about barrel lengths in exchange for UBC. But they won't because the same people who demonize AR-15s would find some way to claim that short-barreled shotguns and rifles are "assault weapons" or some such.

Some people think possessing guns is a good idea and should be allowed. Other people think that the fewer guns the better, with the ideal being zero. That's the ultimate Nash Equilibrium.

Lumpy wrote:Some people think possessing guns is a good idea and should be allowed. Other people think that the fewer guns the better, with the ideal being zero. That's the ultimate Nash Equilibrium.

Gun control zealots don't want to get rid of all guns, they just want to get rid of your guns.

Their guns they plan to keep.

jdege wrote:

Lumpy wrote:Some people think possessing guns is a good idea and should be allowed. Other people think that the fewer guns the better, with the ideal being zero. That's the ultimate Nash Equilibrium.

Gun control zealots don't want to get rid of all guns, they just want to get rid of your guns.

Their guns they plan to keep.

Yup

Go to a DFL caucus here in MN - I have for the last two cycles. It's pretty clear that the DFL activists, aka. "Progressive" activists, don't want you to have ANY gun...period. These are the people driving the policy train, with prodding from Bloomberg money, here in Minnesota and nationwide.

Don't compromise with them, at all. Their endgame is "no guns".

photogpat wrote:Go to a DFL caucus here in MN - I have for the last two cycles. It's pretty clear that the DFL activists, aka. "Progressive" activists, don't want you to have ANY gun...period. These are the people driving the policy train, with prodding from Bloomberg money, here in Minnesota and nationwide.

Don't compromise with them, at all. Their endgame is "no guns".

I fully believe that, though I do not believe my digestive system could handle attending a DFL causus.

But they won't because the same people who demonize AR-15s would find some way to claim that short-barreled shotguns and rifles are "assault weapons" or some such.

Just as WalMart will no longer sell "short-barrel rifle or pistol ammunition".

westhope wrote:

But they won't because the same people who demonize AR-15s would find some way to claim that short-barreled shotguns and rifles are "assault weapons" or some such.

Just as WalMart will no longer sell "short-barrel rifle or pistol ammunition".

I think who ever crafted the WalMart statement just does not know anything about guns and assumed that any AR-15 with a 16 inch barrel is a short barrel rifle.