Realistically what firearms policies would you be willing to accept?

These tards ruin even international gun regulation threads.

As a spurdo I would say:
Background check
Course to laws and safety
Safe storage space
Registry

Only retards don't know difference between regulation and ban and that seems to be 95% of murifats in internet.

SHALL

>"yes, guns"
Okay, now:
>gunbrabbers: "no, no guns"
Now what? Ideological absolutism just leaves you at an insurmountable impasse without any hope of resolution and more risk of the other side imposing thier absolute ideology if they ever come to power. Read The Prince.

shall

FUCK OFF

I'd be happy if self defense/non-competitive hobby shooting were legal reasons to get a license and a gun in the first place over here

>the prince

You realize Machiavelli wrote the Prince as a desperate cope at keeping his sinecure after getting blown out by based mercenaries?

Which, in itself, represents the necessity of realism in political situations, proving the points in the book.

>Background check
>Course to laws and safety
>Safe storage space
>Registry
>"the government needs lists to know who has the guns at all times and check on them to keep us safe"
No. A registry wont stop the guy who intends on dying shooting up a building, it wont stop the guy who got angry at his cheating wife in bed with another man from shooting her on the spot, and it wont stop the criminals with stolen guns from killing each other.
Fuck off with your list building it does nothing but maintain tyranny on the law abiding.

history has proven appeasement is a winning strategy

tfw you will never be condottierri

also on an unrelated note, OP is a faggot

Attached: coulevrinier-a-main.jpg (454x760, 58K)

I’m okay with background checks, but that’s about it
In return I want the nfa and Hughes amendment scrapped

>Alright, we'll pass red flag laws instead since you won't work with us. Those should work :^)

>Anything under 20mm totally unregulated including full auto, "machine guns" and all other nonsense classifications.
>Calibers above not containing explosive shells are exempt from the below law.
>Anything containing explosives aside from the propellant of the round (that way you can reload without having to be classified under this)(C4, Napalm, etc) need a driver's license to buy, store selling has an obligation to keep a one year record. After that they're obligated to destroy them.
>Regulations on nuclear material as a defacto nuclear weapons ban. Darwin Award tier experiments will dissuade anyone from trying to make chemical weapons.
Anything more than that is an infringement of God given rights. Anyone who says otherwise is coping for their lack of freedom and lack of ability to gain freedom.

Attached: 1567550622991.jpg (575x470, 89K)

Kill the grabbers first

Appeasment is giving ground with nothing in return. If you're getting something tangible back it's compromise, not appeasment.

Attached: liwv0nqnh2m31.png (720x720, 409K)

gun grabbers view lever actions and pump actions as assault weapons, the list would be a no starter for them.

Okay. You start.

But it hasn't, Herr Shitler.

>if they get their lists there totally wont be any more calls from them for unconstitional red flag laws with even more enforceable gun grabbing guys. they wouldnt do that!
youre a joke, this is a never ending game.

I'm willing to allow background checks and firearms registration and licensing.

Even testing.

In exchange for no sbr bs, no sbs bs, full auto allowed, no mag limits.

If you are allowed to own firearms, then you should be allowed to own any type of firearm.

The hardliners would, just like the hardliners here also view any restrictions as a non-starter. There would still (hopefully) be enough moderates on boths sides to make it work.

okay, what do we get in return for getting more rights taken away? Them to stop crying for a week?

Yea? And just what the fuck do ya think they are gonna use to do that? Huh? If you guys think yous can just walk into MY neighbahood, and take MY guns, then you got anotha thing comin, givee me a cock suckin break motha fucka!

Attached: GettyImages-97208543.jpg (800x557, 149K)

Go. Fuck. Yourself. No more restrictions are acceptable. Take that back to your handlers and fuckoff.

>I'm willing to allow background checks and firearms registration and licensing
exchange isnt worth it for that trade because theyll know who has them. If licensing was mandatory and attached to your drivers license or ID for everyone (making a background check not required) it would be more palatable

S H A L L

An actual codified compromise. Have them write "We're reopening the MG registry back up in exchange for UBCs (or whatever). This is a bipartisan compromise. It is not a loophole." right into the bill if you want them to. You can do that, you know.

don't quote me, I want more rights not less

Okay. So you admit the game never ends. So you can either play hard defense for the rest of your life and hope the other side doesn't score, or you can be proactive and try to get something you want even if you have to make some concessions.

Attached: 1563496021136.jpg (638x480, 29K)

>shall not shall

The problem is, I've lost faith in the compromise. I know that no matter what I give up now, they'll come for more. So I simply refuse to give anything up. If I had faith in the compromise, it might be different. But I know these people don't care about safety, they want us disarmed.

Attached: compromise_v21.jpg (600x2560, 272K)

Last time we made concessions was the FOPA, and now anti gun states regularly ignore that.

I dont want tracking. Implement a system of background check that randomly pings every citizen so that the people who pass cant be sorted through the noise or something printed on your ID that makes you prequalified.
Also, loaning firearms shouldnt be regulated.

The cops literally came to Tony's house arrested him and took his gun because he had a mag loaded with hollowpoints.

this
your proactive bullshit wont get you anything.

>more risk of the other side imposing thier absolute ideology if they ever come to power
No, they want to whittle away at your right to bear arms until it's gone completely. Look at any California or New York; any state that concedes to the grabbers gets absolutely nothing in return.
>hey, we'll just ban a bunch of shit now and come for the rest later
Yeah, what a great fucking compromise. Politics is an iterative decision making process anyway, you're not going to get some grand compromise where the grabbers decide they've infringed enough and leave us alone afterwards. There will always be a new generation of scared bootlickers who think the previous iteration of unconstitutional bullshit laws didn't go far enough. Don't give them an inch.

>but would be willing to accept regulation of destructive devices.
It's like you anons don't know what the fuck a slippery slope is. It's either everything unregulated, or the opposite. Accepting registration for deregulating full autos won't mean shit cause in a few years time they'll have the names of all the ebil white gun owners, making it easier for a nationwide confiscation.

Literally the law. The highest law in the country that says shall not be infringed. If one or many want to infringe they need to repel that law. So go ahead and try. Until then go eat a dick.

Attached: images.jpeg206.jpg (224x225, 11K)

Alright, but wheres the harm in trying? If the game never ends we're destined to lose. Why not try to get machineguns back in the meantime?

this, and you will get red flagged and they wont stop until every gun on the list is gone or youre in prison.

because of
Theres a growing number of people who know exactly what the 2nd amendment is for and are preparing for it. If things get bad enough, the grabbers wont have their way at least nationwide.

By destructive devices, I mean grenades, rpgs, etc. The thought process is that they are indiscriminate/area-effect weapons that can easily hurt unintended targets, hence the willingness to accept regulation (not banning) of them. And yes, I completely understand the idea of a slippery slope from that argument, which is why I pointed to the guy who shall'ed at the beginning of the thread. This regulation would be the farthest I would be willing to go, no more.

>but would be willing to accept regulation of destructive devices.
I'm not that guy

>you're not going to get some grand compromise where the grabbers decide they've infringed enough and leave us alone afterwards

This is exactly the problem when people think that a compromise will ever just stop there and politicians won't keep taking more and more.
I'm willing to bet that most gun owners would be fine with a compromise of some sort if there was a hypothetical way to guarantee that it never went further.

Also, stopping where we are sends the message of "this is necessary". They dismiss ideas like machine guns from coming back because it was banned a long time ago. Whats currently there raises awareness of why people want to leave it that way.

Okay, so here's a new question. For everyone who's full SHALL, how do you plan on implementing these absolutist policies? Even if a Jow Forumsommando was elected president tommorow a bill saying "all gun laws are repealed" simply wouldn't pass congress regardless of how much public support or political capital they had. So what's the plan? Just cling to an ideological mantra while gun rights continuento be eroded? Start grieifng politicians in minecraft? Break the law and just try not to get caught? How are you actually going to change the law?

Attached: 1552634641262.jpg (600x511, 62K)

"The right of all free white men to own and carry about their person any manner of firearm or weapon of any sort"
That's my opinion.

It's simple, we uh kill the congressmen who disagree."

which one has the constitution on their side?

Its treason for acting against the constitution ao whatever the penalty is for treason.

Attached: 1519161450747.jpg (1024x653, 116K)

sneak deregulation into other bills if all else fails

When the USA dissolves due to its incompetence and dependence on agreeable foreign labor providers. All the Balkanized countries will choose whether to implement laws during their founding or not. The tyrannical shitholes will try to tell everyone what color socks to wear. The countries that survive will be the freedom loving ones. No empire lasts forever and the U.S.A. is no exception.
>inb4 seething patriotards

> Even if a Jow Forumsommando was elected president tommorow a bill saying "all gun laws are repealed" simply wouldn't pass congress regardless of how much public support or political capital they had
You've underestimated how much power our last two presidents have given the executive order. Anyways, Its not about the president. The winning battle is in the courts.

this would work overtime. start with small things.

Doesn’t the prince suggest not suppressing your citizens

>DDs,
Prepare the torpedoes!

Attached: IJN_Shimakaze.jpg (800x276, 53K)

By raising kids who understand and are comfortable with firearms.
Listen to any politician stumble and spout nonsense when they try to speak about the evil guns that they hate so much. They're completely ignorant. Adults who grew up with guns are always more understanding of what they are and their rightful place in society.

The "courts" and "presidency" are irrelevant. The only sovereignty is monetary and military power. The U.S. is quickly losing both and something will fill the vacuum. The people who fight to establish this new sovereignty will decide the way it's government is established.

/thread

The problem with executive orders, is that anything done by executive order can be undone by executive order from another president. Hence why Obama's entire legacy is in crumbles; everything he did was an executive order.

Not to unnecessarily supress your citizens. If you need to stamp out a rebellion do it swiftly and severly or don't do it at all. There's no point in being needlessly cruel.

I would be willing to accept all gun laws being repealed.

>insurmountable impasse

No. Civil war is always an option. you try to ban semi autos and we all show up in D.C. looking for glowniggers and liberals

>The people who fight to establish this new sovereignty will decide the way it's government is established.
Good

Unless it's DACA, in which case Trump can't repeal it because it would be mean or something.

Or just start your own nation wherever and keep the fedoid creeps out by force. D.C. experiences a worse fate than siege... irrelevance.

Snow Crash anybody?

FPBP. There has been enough compromise already. Time to go the other direction.

>Doesn’t the prince suggest not suppressing your citizens
Machiavelli says there is only one thing commoners want from a ruler and its a negative: not to be repressed.. Or something like that

Please do not put a nuclear warhead in your motorcycle.

> be willing to accept
None. There is nothing to negotiate.
> "We need to make the streets safer" < NFA
> "We Need to make the streets safer" < GCA
> "We need to make the streets safer" < Hughes Admendment
> "We need to make the streets safer" < 1994 AWB
> "We need to make the streets safer" < Ban States and 90s handgun regs, FOPA
> "We need to make the streets safer" < Bump Stock EO
> "Okay you know what, we're just taking your guns" < Democrat 2019 platform

Every single year there are countless AWB's, restrictions, regulations, and red tape that the disarmament fetishists keep trying to get though, in the hope something sticks so they can build momentum. NO LAW IS EVER ENOUGH for these folks. There is no arguing in good faith with an opponent that will say one thing to your face, while their actual position is full disarmament- slowly at first, and then all at once when they think they can get away with it.

Disarmament supporters should take note: Eventually, some gun owners might not mind being felons, and might not mind taking the law into their own hands. There are those with nothing to lose who can be pushed over the edge. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, hell they're probably not even on this Mongolian traders board; but eventually someone will will NOT CARE anymore about your laws, and then what are you going to do? Look at the DNC's rhetoric and think very carefully if you want to go down that road.

I feel mixed emotions about several
Red Flags are the only ones likely to prevent a mass shooting but will be way too open to abuse
Mag limits are the only thing to actually slow down ROF but will likely just be unpinned and I'd prefer that over "lol buy new mags each state"
VOLUNTARY buyback should be a thing just to reduce the number of illegal firearms and make Tyrone likely to short sightedly sell his gat over holding up the local 7/11.
Background checks could probably use a few more days to clear. Or make a god damn central database of SSN, felon SSN auto flagged, maybe fingerprints also just to double verify and catch fake IDs. Put it on an app, run that crap instead of the government background checks.

Assault weapons ban is just retarded though. Didn't stop Columbine

I could put up with an attainable liscense requirement for the ownership of any weapon, maybe barring nuclear bombs and smallpox cultures, but that isn't what is prescribed in the bill of rights.
If you want to ammend it, you're setting a dangerous precedent.

Neuromancer tier corporate sovereignty or The Brigade tier IRA level chimpouts is my guess. Really a weird mixture of the two. Also when the USA collapses there's gonna be a rush to steal all their military shit and sell it off. Can't wait for a Lord Of War scenario selling old Aardvarks and F4's out of the boneyard. Hilarious paintjobs on black market F22's will be great. Iranian F22 would be the ultimate meme.

Attached: 1563417741481.jpg (1599x993, 165K)

>VOLUNTARY buyback should be a thing just to reduce the number of illegal firearms
only if the state resells them for profit and the ones that dont get bought because theyre shit cam be melted

None. Unironically. None of these dumbass gun control laws work, have worked, or were implemented to keep people safe.

If you do not pwn at least ONE large Ant Farm then you are NOT ALLOWED TO OWN A FIREARM!

that is all

the best things to prevent mass shootings are:
>fine and imprison psychologists who prescribe brain altering drugs rather than perform actual therapy
>repeal no fault divorce
>mandatory firearm safety courses in schools plus biannual firearm training for faculty/staff
mass shootings would PLUMMET in no time

Its been proven that they dont get back illegal firearms. They are infact a waste of time and resources. However if
They were resold then its not really an issue.

We're at the end of a long line of "but this new law/comprehensive reform will work" gun grabbing bullshit, and you think more will work, or that they'll stop?

It hasnt worked yet and the laws have been piling up. States that deregulated have seen less crime.

of course. Leftest logic is that if x doesn't work, more of x will work. Repeat ad infinitum

Attached: 1513606869245.jpg (492x449, 48K)

The reasonable gun control I support is that you should be limited to one crew-served weapon per household and that the father should determine whether it is a mortar or a heavy machine gun.

you already have firearm policies fucker

any new ones and you will be back to square 1 asking for "compromise" like you are doing now despite having thousands of firearm policies

And when they ban guns and guns still exist they will just start shooting claiming those with a gun are criminal elements and you are safe plebs.

We can keep baclground checks as long as they repeal every other gun law, make it so non violent criminals are restored their gun rights after serving time and or paroll and that violent offenders are able to attempt to have them restored after a set amount of years and a court hearing.