Merry X-Mas!  As my family nestles all snug in their beds while visions of sugar plums dance in their heads, my thoughts turn to firearms  ;-)

In my experiences, I have had more than one discussion with anti-gunners about background checks.  Ultimately, I end up asking them "What would you be willing to give up for universal background checks?".  They look at me with confusion.  So, I explain they are burdening gun owners with background checks on private sales.  i explain that bills like Manchin-Toomey wouldn't affect them (the anti-gunner)  at all so it's easy to trade someone else's rights for their (perceived) security.   So, I ask them again.  What are you willing to give up?   They generally don't know how to answer.

So, I ask the same thing here.  Is there anything that "they" could give you that would, in turn, make you supportive of a universal background check bill like Manchin-Toomey?   Some ideas I'll throw out there:

o Conceal carry across state lines
o Removing of SBR, SBS and/or suppressors from NFA
o Elimination of waiting periods in all 50 states
o Explicit language amending the second amendment to guarantee an individual right to possess firearms (thereby making it supreme court proof)
o Explicitly prohibiting state Assault weapons bans
o Prohibition of firearms registration in all 50 states

Just curious what the wisdom of 2ahawaii has to say.  I've focused on federal things in ideas I throw out  since that's the scope of the bill. Not sure what I would throw on the table so this is really food for discussion.  Plus, if you follow this line of argument , its good to have an answer if the anti-gunner asks  "What do you want"?

Free speech limited to previleged licensed/permitted
 individual only.

The pen, is mightier than your assault weapon.

Free speech limited to previleged licensed/permitted
 individual only.

Nice one.  Although this would affect all of us.

It does exemplifiy the silliness of the law.  They could counter with "speeches never hurt anyone" or "speaking wasn't designed to kill people", you could insert any word in place for speeches.  But most violence, shooting or otherwise, trace back to an exchange of words.  My very non-specific examples:  the gay guy who killed himself after people outed and ridiculed him online; the socialist anti-gun student who tried to shoot his speech team coach because he was kicked off but just shot a fellow student for the hell of it (it was a speech team and I am sure that the teacher used words to kick the kid off the team and I am sure the reason for being kicked off was something the kid said...my assumptions); the math teacher who was killed possibly because of a disagreement with a student during after school tutoring session; Hitler convinced an entire country through speeches and orders that Jewish people were second class citizens deserving imprisonment and death...etc...  Speaking has sure caused a lot of death, we should ban it.

It does not matter what an item or action was intended to do, what matters is what it is capable of doing.  Vehicles, knives, bats, hands, speeches were not designed specifically to kill people but consistently do so with much more efficiency than guns.  The only reason that we do not attempt to ban those items is that they are convenient to the law makers, the anti-gunners, and pretty much everyone else.  Anti-gun people put convenience over safety everyday but just are too self-righteous to admit it.  These other items have good practical uses, just like a firearm in the hands of a non-criminal.  It is true that guns are designed to do one thing but that doesn't make it 100% bad, cars were not designed to run people over but that does not make it 100% good.   Guns (with good guys behind them) defend the innocent everyday and cars (with drunk people behind the wheel) mow people down in a drunken daze everyday, speeches (or books or conversations or thoughts) insight violence everyday.  All these things have a much better use of them that justifies their existence, including the firearm.

I usually lose the attention of the people I am arguing with before I get to the end so I prefer not to argue.

Merry X-Mas!  As my family nestles all snug in their beds while visions of sugar plums dance in their heads, my thoughts turn to firearms  ;-)

In my experiences, I have had more than one discussion with anti-gunners about background checks.  Ultimately, I end up asking them "What would you be willing to give up for universal background checks?".  They look at me with confusion.  So, I explain they are burdening gun owners with background checks on private sales.  i explain that bills like Manchin-Toomey wouldn't affect them (the anti-gunner)  at all so it's easy to trade someone else's rights for their (perceived) security.   So, I ask them again.  What are you willing to give up?   They generally don't know how to answer.

So, I ask the same thing here.  Is there anything that "they" could give you that would, in turn, make you supportive of a universal background check bill like Manchin-Toomey?   Some ideas I'll throw out there:

o Conceal carry across state lines
o Removing of SBR, SBS and/or suppressors from NFA
o Elimination of waiting periods in all 50 states
o Explicit language amending the second amendment to guarantee an individual right to possess firearms (thereby making it supreme court proof)
o Explicitly prohibiting state Assault weapons bans
o Prohibition of firearms registration in all 50 states

Just curious what the wisdom of 2ahawaii has to say.  I've focused on federal things in ideas I throw out  since that's the scope of the bill. Not sure what I would throw on the table so this is really food for discussion.  Plus, if you follow this line of argument , its good to have an answer if the anti-gunner asks  "What do you want"?

the left has shown that if you do not do what they say, you are blamed for "not compromising"