Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rickford66

(5,528 posts)
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 03:07 PM Mar 2018

How I believe the gun issues should be negotiated.

NRA starting position is no gun control. In fact no laws against guns allowed and we want more guns in more places. OK. Now "we" (being people who want reasonable gun laws) should start with the position, "Yes. We want to take all your guns and abolish the 2nd amendment." By starting with the position of "We don't want to take your guns away" it's like Obama giving up Universal Health care and Public Option before negotiating health care. We ended up with Obamacare full of GOP landmines. We should demand guns be registered and treated like automobiles. All and I mean all have to be insured. Negligent gun owners should be persecuted. Semi automatic weapons outlawed. None of this open or concealed carry. Accidental weapon discharges should be treated as negligent crimes. You can't start negotiations from the middle of the road. Maybe we can meet in the middle?

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How I believe the gun issues should be negotiated. (Original Post) rickford66 Mar 2018 OP
By starting where Barack started, we insured MANY millions of uninsured people who are Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #1
So what is the middle position? hack89 Mar 2018 #2
Really? MichMary Mar 2018 #3
Straw man. flamin lib Mar 2018 #8
"Maybe we can meet in the middle?" Hayduke Bomgarte Mar 2018 #4
In the interest of accuracy ... Straw Man Mar 2018 #5
No they don't Phoenix61 Mar 2018 #6
Yes, they did/do. Straw Man Mar 2018 #7
Why did they bankroll the Printz case ? Phoenix61 Mar 2018 #10
On Constitutional grounds. Straw Man Mar 2018 #17
You stated that the NRA supports background Phoenix61 Mar 2018 #18
Yup. NRA playbook. rickford66 Mar 2018 #22
Often its a matter of the details Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #23
And the OP stated that they never do. Straw Man Mar 2018 #24
Oddly, what you think the NRA's position is Igel Mar 2018 #9
I think your position would be a losing one. Captain Stern Mar 2018 #11
So you always pay asking price ? Sad. rickford66 Mar 2018 #13
That's a poor analogy. Captain Stern Mar 2018 #15
You're saying what I said. rickford66 Mar 2018 #16
Then...here we are. Captain Stern Mar 2018 #19
You're right. We should never demand that the NRA move in our direction. rickford66 Mar 2018 #21
There should be no negotiation RainCaster Mar 2018 #12
I think we are in the middle. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #14
A better place is to start where there is common ground Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #20

Eliot Rosewater

(31,121 posts)
1. By starting where Barack started, we insured MANY millions of uninsured people who are
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 03:10 PM
Mar 2018

far better off now than before.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
2. So what is the middle position?
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 03:11 PM
Mar 2018

Once extreme positions like registration and bans on semi-automatics are put aside, what is left? UBCs, magazine size limits, training requirements, firearm owner IDs would be my guess.

MichMary

(1,714 posts)
3. Really?
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 03:14 PM
Mar 2018

This isn't a matter of "negotiation." It's a Constitutional issue, and will ultimately be decided by the courts.

Are you willing to negotiate on other Constitutional issues? Is Freedom of Speech, for instance, a negotiable matter?

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
8. Straw man.
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 04:04 PM
Mar 2018

No right is unlimited. 1st A has many limits. 2A has many limits and there is room for many more.

If I persued the 1st A as gun rights people do the 2nd I would stand in the street in front of LaPierre's house and shout obscenities through a bull horn at 3:00 AM.

Straw Man

(6,625 posts)
5. In the interest of accuracy ...
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 03:19 PM
Mar 2018
NRA starting position is no gun control. In fact no laws against guns allowed and we want more guns in more places.

... that has never been the NRA's position. The NRA supported the NICS background check system, something for which they were (and still are) criticized by true hardline gun-rights extremists.

Straw Man

(6,625 posts)
7. Yes, they did/do.
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 04:03 PM
Mar 2018

This is from the NRA-ILA website, which is their political action group:

The NRA opposed the original Brady bill because it was nothing but a waiting period with a mandate to the States to conduct background checks only on handgun buyers. The NRA originated the idea of and supported an instant background check by the FBI on all firearm buyers. That became NICS.

--https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180228/nras-support-for-the-national-instant-criminal-background-system-fact-checking-the-fact-checker

They are against additional background checks. Their position is that NICS is inadequately enforced, and that enforcement of existing legislation should take priority over new legislation. You can attack them on that if you wish.

Phoenix61

(17,019 posts)
10. Why did they bankroll the Printz case ?
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 05:54 PM
Mar 2018

The Supreme Court ruled the federal government could not force states to submit data to be entered into NCIS. Now the NRA says the NCIS isn't adequately enforced but they bankrolled the lawsuit that led to that very situation.

Straw Man

(6,625 posts)
17. On Constitutional grounds.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 02:26 AM
Mar 2018

The issue is whether the Federal government can compel state and local law enforcement to perform Federal functions. "Fix NICS" approaches the issue differently, with financial incentives rather than mandates.

Phoenix61

(17,019 posts)
18. You stated that the NRA supports background
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 06:36 AM
Mar 2018

checks. My point was while they may say they do their actions indicate otherwise. The original legislation for NICS mandated all states submit data to it. The NRA bankrolled a lawsuit to prevent that from happening. How is that supporting background checks or NICS?

rickford66

(5,528 posts)
22. Yup. NRA playbook.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 07:56 AM
Mar 2018

Get weak laws on the books. Scream that there's plenty of laws on the books. Just enforce the present laws on the books. Weaken them some more. etc.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
23. Often its a matter of the details
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 07:58 AM
Mar 2018

When you just say “background checks” that’s a wide open term that could mean anything. That’s one reason why two people can say the same thing about it and be talking across each other.

For example it could mean a law that would make it a felony for an uncle to loan his nephew a shotgun to take hunting for a weekend- that’s an actual example of specifics of background check laws actually both proposed and in some states passed. They would have to go to a gun shop at the start of the weekend, do paperwork and pay a fee just as if the nephew was buying the gun, then at the end of the weekend do it again and pay a fee again just as if the uncle was buying it back.

Or it could mean a law that says if a hunter gets a new rifle, stops on the way home to show his friend and hands him the rifle to look at- something gun owners do every day- it’s a felony because it was a “transfer” of a gun without a background check even though it was just a momentary handoff. That’s not a hypothetical example, that’s the law in Washington State now after their UBC law passed.

But “background checks” could also mean opening up NICS to allow private sellers to run checks without having to have all the parties go to a gun shop and fill out paperwork the same as if the seller sold the gun to the shop and then the buyer bought it there.

So just saying “background checks” is pretty much such a vague term on how it could be implemented that it’s useless. You need to get into the details of how that will be done to talk about who supports what version of what. Because maybe you mean making sure criminals can’t get guns any nothing else, but that gun owner hears “make it a felony to even show a friend your gun if he holds it” because he saw what happened in Washington. And that ends up with people talking across each other.

Straw Man

(6,625 posts)
24. And the OP stated that they never do.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 11:19 AM
Mar 2018

That was simply not true. Now we're arguing the degree to which they do. I will take that as a tacit admission that they do.

The NRA bankrolled a lawsuit to prevent that from happening.

Wrong -- they bankrolled a lawsuit to prevent state and local law enforcement from being tasked with enforcing federal law. It's called an "unfunded mandate." The establish of the NICS system rendered the Printz case moot, since local law enforcement no longer had to conduct the background checks themselves.

Igel

(35,359 posts)
9. Oddly, what you think the NRA's position is
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 04:16 PM
Mar 2018

is mirrored by some extremists' view of 'our' position.

I know people who hold that extremist view of 'our' position, and some of 'us' who do, in fact, hold that position. What we have is less a blatant mischaracterization and more a question of seeing group homogeneity when there isn't any and choosing a non-representative sample as representing the group.

The NRA doesn't oppose all gun control, for example. But a few extremists who we confuse with the NRA do. We do the same thing they do. It's how all stereotypes are formed. Welcome to being human and to the glorious practice of othering.


You misunderstand automobiles, which is curious since we all probably are sure we know how they work. I owned one for years in my garage. I couldn't take it off my property. No need to register it and certainly no need to insure it. All that insurance and registration is permission to use the public roads, and there are usually alternatives to car insurance (same alternatives in Texas as in California, amusingly) so car insurance really isn't required--just convenient. Moreover, if I have a 40k acre ranch, I can have a dozen pickup trucks, all uninsured and unregistered for use on my land. And if I put them on trailers and don't use them on the roads, I can transport them anywhere I want. If I want to take it on the road, I get a temporary permit, certify that it wasn't operated on the public roads, and drive it for a month until it passes the emissions test. Then I get it inspected and registered, and it can go on the public roads. If you don't ever run into some of the details because you don't have a use for them, you probably don't know they exist or how they work. That's how it works with cars. You want more onerous restrictions than cars have but use cars as the model.

That's pretty much how guns work. You want to carry a gun in your trunk, unloaded, fine. No problem. You want to carry it concealed and loaded, you need a permit. Insurance is a good idea, too, but there are alternatives. I don't need a background check, though, to buy a car from a dealer; I can easily kill with it, though. Even on private property. If I buy a car for off-road use and don't register it, in some states it's a regulatory violation, but not all--and it's certainly in the interests of the seller to see that it's re-registered (and that's the law in some states--you sell the car, you have to submit the information that it was sold, the buyer doesn't.)

I personally think that weapon discharges shouldn't be treated as lesser crimes if reasonable precautions were not taken. If somebody is trained and take reasonable precautions, it's like a car crash--sometimes things get out of control, or your car is stolen and used, etc. But if you're texting or drunk or high because you've self-medicated, it's not negligent; it's intentional, you intentionally deprived yourself of the attention necessary to keep from killing somebody because you thought a text or a buzz was more important than somebody's existence. So if you let a kid play with a gun that's loaded and it's not instruction related and closely supervised, I consider it intentional. And non-lethal accidents in those states should be classified as attempted murder. There'd be hell to pay over my views of DUI or driving while texting. But if we value life, we value life. Mostly we value life when the price is going to be paid by other people. We always know that the risks we take are justified, whether texting or drinking while driving, driving too close or too fast, or how we use guns. But none of this would affect 1/2 of gun deaths, suicides. We understand our motivations, it's always the other guy's motivations and actions that are dubious. Can't really trust them people, they're not like us.

The problem with semi-automatic weapons is fear and fear-based anger, plus non-familiarity. We've had semi-automatic weapons for 125 years or so, but that relies on a technicality: We've had what amounts to semi-automatic pistols for decades longer, pull the trigger and the next round is automatically loaded using a ratchet mechanism. We call them "revolvers" (not true semi-automatic). But for many who are newbies to the idea, they seem new and recent. They predate cars by decades. Many activities assume self-reloading guns. I've seen bolt-action pistols, but really, they're cumbersome for anything but really precision shooting, and too slow for a lot of uses. The problem is the idiots behind the trigger and the culture that puts honor above another's life or get involved in illegal deals. Or live around such idiots. It's worth pointing out that a lot of non-homicidal uses for pistols a lot of progressives frown upon as inappropriate for civilized urban living, and therefore inappropriate all around.

Obama started in the middle for the ACA for his own reasons. Some were foolish and came off as arrogant and condescending. "I've looked over what I think you want and here's the reasonable compromise I decided you should want." However, in the actual event that was probably a convenient fiction to save his party's butt: He had trouble getting the compromise bill through, and the reason it took so long and has so many "GOP" landmines was getting the necessary number of (D) votes lined up in the Senate, and a safety margin in the House. Those compromises got no (R) votes in the Senate but did get (D) votes. Even the "GOP landmines" that were put forward early weren't usually real compromises for anybody but Obama and his aides: Most of them were ideas floated years before by one (R) or another in some policy paper, but which were either abandoned or never really got any love from other (R). In fact, most (R) looked at most of them and said, "Really, some Republican came up with that sorry excuse for an idea? How embarrassing" even as (D) sources were like, "This is really a common Republican idea and widely accepted, and they only reason they don't like it know is because Obama." You know how if you look in a fish bowl things don't always appear to be as they are? It's the same for the fish looking outside the bowl.

Captain Stern

(2,201 posts)
11. I think your position would be a losing one.
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 06:24 PM
Mar 2018

It sounds like you're proposing to begin negotiating from an extreme position, while expecting your opponent to not do the same.

You say "We should demand guns be registered and treated like automobiles."......the NRA could then say "we demand that all gun sales be confidential and anonymous" You say " semi-automatic weapons outlawed"....the NRA could say "all restrictions should be lifted on FULLY automatic weapons".

But the most harmful part of your approach would be saying "Yes. We want to take all your guns and abolish the 2nd amendment." That would pretty much validate the slippery slope argument that the anti-gun control extremists use.

If a proposed amendment that abolished the 2cnd amendment were to somehow actually make it through congress, and be subjected to ratification by the states, it would be defeated as quickly as physically possible.

Captain Stern

(2,201 posts)
15. That's a poor analogy.
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 06:47 PM
Mar 2018

You're assuming that the NRA's asking price is to keep things exactly as they are now.....it's not. They actually want LESS gun control than we have now. They want concealed and open carry everywhere (and they've been steadily getting that over the last few years). They want MORE guns in society than we have now.

If you want a complete gun ban, and they want absolutely no restrictions at all.....then they could actually effectively argue that have made concessions because there are some gun control laws in place.

rickford66

(5,528 posts)
16. You're saying what I said.
Sun Mar 25, 2018, 07:05 PM
Mar 2018

There's no way I could get farther left than no guns. There are no negative guns. I did say the NRA wants more guns.

Captain Stern

(2,201 posts)
19. Then...here we are.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 07:20 AM
Mar 2018

We are currently already at a position between yours and the NRA's. Are the negotiations almost over?

rickford66

(5,528 posts)
21. You're right. We should never demand that the NRA move in our direction.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 07:47 AM
Mar 2018

We should always give in. Don't be tough. I don't know what I was thinking.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
20. A better place is to start where there is common ground
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 07:33 AM
Mar 2018

There are a lot of things you can do right now that will get guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals that you could get all sides behind.

Start with those.

For example, as I often point out, start with prosecution of all the people who illegally attempt to buy a gun every year.

Typically around 70,000 people a year get denied on the NICS background checks. NICS averages a 99.8% accuracy rate, so those were almost all denials to people prohibited by Federal (and in most cases state) law from owning firearms.

To reach the point of the NICS check a person has already filled out the for 4473 under penalty of perjury swearing they were eligible to own firearms.

So those 70,000 people are deemed too dangerous to own firearms under the law, are actively attempting to obtain firearms, and just committed a Federally Felony trying to buy one.

What happens then?

In virtually every case, nothing. Less than 1000 of those cases annually get followed up on at all. Less than 100 get actually prosecuted.

That is insane. If you want to stop criminal use of firearms, start right there. When you have all those prohibited persons ACTIVELY attempting to get a gun and you ignore it you just leave them to get a gun in the black market or steal one or to keep possessing one they may already have.

Even the NRA has called for more aggressive action on follow ups and NICS denials.

In my book a felony attempt to illegally obtain a firearms should at a minimum be followed up first by a search warrant to ensure no guns are possessed or were obtained via illegal means. A prohibited person who is actively trying to obtain a firearm who committed a felony in the attempt should be more than enough grounds for a warrant to search and ensure they have no illegally possessed firearms.

Then you prosecute. Federal perjury is punishable by up to 10 years. But in most cases just go for 5-10 years of supervised probation because that will include and allow for warrantless searches for prohibited items throughout the probation period. Send ones with more serious criminal history’s to prison.

That would do several things. It would send the message that we are serious about cracking down on criminal possession of firearms. It will head of thousands of criminals trying to get guns or who already illegally have one and try to get another before they can go commit a crime with it.

Second, go for enhanced sentences for anyone caught with a gun in the commission of a crime, even if the gun isn’t used. This approach has been proven to reduce gun crime especially gang and drug related, and that accounts for around 80% of all firearms homicides. It has a deterrent effect in that some criminals will decide not to carry a gun and it has the effect to locking up the ones who do longer so they are not back out to do it again.

Shifting prosecution of crimes like felon in possession of a firearm to Federal charges and courts also is a proven effective strategy. Programs like Project Exile did that and had good effects in the cities where it was done. Although some activists complain that the sentences were too harsh or that it was unfair that Federal time meant you probably were sent many states away.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How I believe the gun iss...