Civility

[Art3]

We can do better. Let’s brainstorm. We need to get it done early, and need to get support of Sheriffs, and get publicity. The public at large wants something done about gun violence, because they keep hearing about it. They are largely ignorant of the shenanigans in Annapolis. Hammer this for 6 months on social media and we have their attention.

Mabye there are some lawyers here that could come up with something. My ideas don't really fit the title of this thread. (but, I still think forfeiture of trigger finger would be a good start)

In all seriousness, you are absolutely correct. I don't see what could be more common sense than harsher penalties for repeat offenders, but we should come up with something.

 

[fabsroman]

Marriage between a pro-2A guy and a Mom Demanding Action can't be easy, being so politically out of sync with one's spouse. I know it can be done. Look at James Carville and Mary Matalin - they did it and wrote an excellent book about it. BUT, in practice, I can see it causing a lot of unnecessary disharmony.

I was actually the guy who didn't want guns in the house when I first met my wife. She came with a gun. I told her that I didn't want to know where it was, and that she had to take care of it herself. I was never anti-2A. In fact, my politics haven't changed much. I just didn't like guns because of a poorly managed first time experience with my father and brother and a certain 12 gauge (that I wish was mine today). But, my wife married me anyway. The gun issue got all got worked out in our first 2 years, and now she buys me guns!

I could see the flip side with a pro-2A guy marrying an Mom Demanding Action. Slightly different case, because my situation did not involve politics. So, how does one reconcile drastic political differences in a marriage? Perhaps civility plays a role too?

Luckily for me, I married a woman that had already been out shooting. Granted, she didn't come with her own guns, but now she has her own guns. I married an intelligent, extremely conservative, woman, and she took the proposed FSA2013 printout off my desk, read through it, figured out that she would be training exempt if she owned a handgun before October 1, 2013, and she bought herself a handgun. Now, she has two on her side of the bed.

I too wonder how people on opposite sides of the political spectrum make a marriage work. My brothers and their significant others have this issue. I know a couple members from this board wherein the spouses have a differing opinion regarding the number of guns in the house, storage, etc. and they have to work at it. Heck, my wife and I have to work at it and she is pro 2A, pro-life (we have disagreements here), etc.

Just this morning I brought up buying a Ruger .25-06 on the 16th as my "tax season is over" gift to myself. She asked me why the other two rifles I got this year aren't enough (i.e., Ruger RPR in .338LM and 6.5CM) and I explained that the .25-06 Ruger 77MKIITGT is a hunting rifle and not a target rifle, that Ruger has stopped making them in .25-06, I might never come across this rifle again NIB, and I have wanted it for 20 years now. She looked at me, rolled her eyes, and said "OK". Told her this is definitely the last one for this year, but planted a seed for the Blaser R8 after next tax season. Explained that that one would really be the last rifle for me since it has readily removable barrels in a multitude of cartridges, but then the kids might want something for themselves. lol Never said anything about it being the last gun, just rifle, because I want a couple more shotguns.

Successful marriages involve a lot of compromise. Luckily for me, my wife compromises a lot when it comes to firearms and bicycle purchases. Then again, I think she did have a proviso this morning. It went something like this, "You can get this gun IF it does not prevent us from doing the work on the house that we have talked about." Almost forgot that condition. Of course, I said it wouldn't be a problem.

I grew up around guns. Was shooting a pellet gun in the backyard in Kensington before I even started school. Shot up a lot of Schlitz cans back then while sitting in my dad's lap so he could hold the gun while I aimed and pulled the trigger. Did the same thing at age 5 with my dad's Win 101 o/u. Could not fathom why that buzzard a mile away did not drop. I had the bead right on it when I pulled the trigger.

My wife called me in the blind a couple years ago to let me know the kids wanted to shoot some cans at the farm that morning with me. She wanted me to call when we were picking up the decoys. She got them ready and drove them over in the truck. She also took the pics, unbeknownst to me.

I am a lucky man. She is super intelligent, really good looking, a great mom, a great wife, a great daughter, a great sister, and really conservative. Even my parents like her.

 

[Raineman]

I came really close earlier in the day to doing this when I went bombastic on them during the felony law update for stealing a firearm and using a firearm in a violent crime for repeat offenders.

Epic testimony! The dblas with the gloves off is fun to watch.

 

[welder516]

That is nice Fabs . you have a wonderful family and I know you are proud as you should be .

 

[fabsroman]

When you draw lines in the sand and exclude a whole population of maybe's we will never get there in Maryland , we must be civil and explain the facts it is the only way to win in the long run . Gun rights are based on facts no touchy feely stuff and words like "common sense"

I'm not sure that those in the middle or even those leaning left are "facts" oriented. I have had more sway with people on the left, especially my clients, just by letting them know I am a gun owner. I think it hits them harder that somebody they have known for years, decades for some, is a gun owner. Somebody like them owns guns.

Same thing goes for hunting. I have conservative clients that are gun owners for defense, but they are animal lovers. Hunting has come up and they have been shocked too by the fact that I hunt.

Sometimes, it just isn't about facts. We like facts. Facts change our mind. However, sometimes there is emotion. 9/11 caused a lot of emotion and led to a war that was not justified by facts and evidence.

If facts are not working on a person, you need to switch to heart strings. ON one woman that was against hunting, I explained the snow goose problem to her and how a population left unchecked was in danger of destroying itself and several other waterfowl species. She started to listen because the extinction of species drew on her emotions. She was also shocked to find out I am a gun owner. Happened all in the same conversation after Sandy Hook when she and her mom were listening to news about gun control. They asked me my opinion and I answered honestly, and it went from there.

"But you don't own an AR-15?"

I do.

"What would do you use it for?"

Mostly paper punching, but I would use it for groundhog hunting, and most definitely for prairie dogs.

"You would shoot cute little prairie dogs?"

Yes, (and a conversation about the damage done by prairie dogs and groundhogs ensued. They never knew any of this.)

Sometimes, you have to get them involved with emotion, and mix the facts in. How awful it was that my farm owner friend had to put down cows because they stepped in holes and broke their legs.

 

[PJDiesel]

People are giving passes on it because it's morphed in to a classic MDS pile on, a suspected "Fudd" bashing is probably the appropriate terminology.

It's BS. I've used examples like this before about people who like taking cheap little shots. Very very rare to see it happen in public, but, behind a keyboard.........commonplace.

 

[Blacksmith101]

At the risk of derailing this thread and/or opening a can of worms:

Can an FFL run a NICS check on a gun that is NOT logged into his books. I'm still unclear on this???

Here is the answer and a link so you can read it yourself.

The cliff notes version of the answer. There will be a permanent record in ATF accessible records.

The FFL can run a NICS for a private sale that is not logged into his books at the time of the check BUT......
The buyer and FFL must fill out a form 4473 AND if the NICS check comes back "Proceed" the FFL must enter the firearm in the bound book and complete AND Retain the 4473

"Enter the firearm into the FFL’s A&D record as an acquisition from the private party seller in accordance with 27 CFR 478.122, 478.123, and 478.125."

IF the NICS check comes back “Denied” or “Cancelled” then the firearm cannot be transferred to the prospective buyer AND

"If the private party seller has not relinquished possession, he or she may leave the business premises with the firearm. The FFL does not enter the firearm as an acquisition in the FFL’s A&D record."

IF the NICS check comes back “delayed”

If the FFL receives a “delayed” response from NICS, the private party seller has the option to:
1.Leave the FFL’s business premises with the firearm; or
2.Allow the FFL to retain the firearm at the business premises (with the FFL’s consent) pending a response from NICS, or until the passage of three business days or applicable State waiting period.

If the private party seller chooses to leave the FFL’s premises with the firearm, the FFL does not need to record the acquisition into the FFL’s A&D record. However, the private party seller must return the firearm to the FFL’s business premises prior to transfer of the firearm to the prospective buyer.

If the private party seller chooses to allow the FFL to retain the firearm at the FFL’s business premises, the FFL is required to take the firearm into inventory and record the firearm as an acquisition in the FFL’s A&D record.....

If the Firearm is left in the FFL's possession it must be entered into the bound book and for the original seller to get it back he must fill out a form 4473 and pass a NICS check so the firearm (his property) can be transferred back.


Here is the link to the ATF's Recordkeeping and Background Check Procedure for Facilitation of Private Party Firearms Transfers.
ATF Procedure 2017-1
https://www.atf.gov/file/1661/download

 

[gtodave]

Alls I know is I didn't get enough credit for my whitty hiaku. For shame, MDS, for shame!

 

[Threeband]

The internet is making the entire human race crazy.

 

[j_h_smith]

The internet is making the entire human race crazy.

This is true. I haven't heard so much crying, since my son was born and he was in the nursery with 21 other babies.

 

[PowPow]

Luckily for me, I married a woman that had already been out shooting.

...

I am a lucky man. She is super intelligent, really good looking, a great mom, a great wife, a great daughter, a great sister, and really conservative. Even my parents like her.

#MeToo (except my parents didn't live long enough to meet my wife - both died young from cancer)

I actually was re-awakened about the fun of shooting by my brother-in-law. The hilarity of my "no guns in my house" feelings went out the window when I hit that can at 80 yards off the top of the fence post in his backyard on my first shot with his .303 British. It had been ~20 years or so since my bad experience with the 12 gauge. I was now being encouraged by someone who wanted me to have a good experience. Thanks, Chris! Yep, I would not be here posting with y'all and walking the bricks dressed in WWNC attire if not for my brother in law.

 

[fabsroman]

Lmao because he intimated it about his wife multiple times. He brought it up. No one went after his wife until he suggested she was a "MOM" and put that with his pro mandatory background check posts.

He didn't deny it for days when given multiple opportunities. Yet here he is saying otherwise. Why now? What was the point of the charade?

What bothers you more: that his wife might be a "MOM" or that he ginned up a fake controversy for the content?

Oh - please spare everyone your laughable boomer threats.

Yeah, you are hilarious. It was all of one time, and I did not "intimate it". Here we go to refresh your recollection:

Originally Posted by teratos View Post
I’m sure you know what the husbands are like.

To pick just a few incidents where people on my side were rude and not acknowledging the overwhelming majority who weren’t demeans a lot of people. Face it, those on your side are much worse than people on mine.
My side is the same as yours, but you can continue to play this game. You can make it look like I am demeaning EVERYBODY on our side, but I'm not. Believe there were all of two individuals that my post referred to and I believe almost everybody knows who they were. What I wrote was the truth and there is photos and video to prove it.

My Response: Is it rude to give the middle finger salute to the committee while testifying? Lots of high fives and back slapping on here for that middle finger salute. Is it rude to scream at legislators from the galley? Plenty of petty insults flying around on here, Twitter, Facebook, etc. from our side aimed at the moms and the legislators, and some of them specifically.

Next, you are going to be screaming that I should be banned, because I am a troll and an emasculated husband of one of the "Moms".

Let It Go

Of course, some of you ran with it with glee and giggles. Assumed, speculated, and extrapolated, and now allege that I intimated it on multiple occasions. I expected nothing less from some. I expected more from a couple of others, but disappointment now and then is good for the soul.

 

[welder516]

My wife is also a Mom , been one for 39 yrs.

 

[teratos]

Yeah, you are hilarious. It was all of one time, and I did not "intimate it". Here we go to refresh your recollection:





Of course, some of you ran with it with glee and giggles. Assumed, speculated, and extrapolated, and now allege that I intimated it on multiple occasions. I expected nothing less from some. I expected more from a couple of others, but disappointment now and then is good for the soul.

I never went after your wife. I just intimated that you are probably as soft on the 2A as the husbands of the Moms. Reading is fundamental. Hopefully someday you will be as pro-2A as your wife, Peacock.

 

[Abacab]

Yeah, you are hilarious. It was all of one time, and I did not "intimate it". Here we go to refresh your recollection:





Of course, some of you ran with it with glee and giggles. Assumed, speculated, and extrapolated, and now allege that I intimated it on multiple occasions. I expected nothing less from some. I expected more from a couple of others, but disappointment now and then is good for the soul.

What a cop out. Literally "hurr durr you're the idiot for not getting it."

I explicitly asked you, "Are you saying your wife is a MOM?"

Totally a normal thing to write about yourself in an attempt to paint what someone else might say about you that has no basis in reality.

Did you answer? Nah. You let that play out because you're the most milquetoast "gun guy" spending his time advocating anti gun positions and incredibly strange to boot.

 

[j_h_smith]

I think we've had enough of this who struck John talk. Let it go.

 

[fabsroman]

I never went after your wife. I just intimated that you are probably as soft on the 2A as the husbands of the Moms. Reading is fundamental. Hopefully someday you will be as pro-2A as your wife, Peacock.

Did I ever accuse you of going after my wife. Again, pot calling the kettle black when it comes to reading being fundamental. Also, just one more small insult to try and get under my skin. It just isn't going to work, but you will keep trying instead of letting it go.

Here is what I said:

Next, you are going to be screaming that I should be banned, because I am a troll and an emasculated husband of one of the "Moms".

Further, my response that you responded to, quoted Abacab. That means it was not aimed at you. Sorry you feel as though everything I write is intended for you. However, if you can pay attention to whom I am quoting, you will realize that my response was not related to you. Then again, maybe you have lost track of all the petty insults or you just feel the need to back up the few others that feel the need to continue with this diatribe.

I mean, just in that last post of yours, you imply that I cannot read very well and that I am a Peacock. That might bother somebody that isn't secure with himself. You are never going to grasp the fact that what you say does not bother me. It might work on people with less self esteem than me, but it isn't going to work on me. Continue on though if it makes you feel good. I can take it and you know me, always willing to lend a helping hand to those that really need it.

See if you can remember referring to me at some point as a mensch. Doing that and now doing this, tells me all I need to know.

 

[Squaregrouper]

I tried to avoid chiming in, but here goes...
Background checks are fine by me provided there is no paper trail of who buys/owns what. If there was a way for private sellers/buyers to get a NICS type number confirming "Citizen XYZ" was not prohibited from buying a firearm at the time of the inquiry and MSP had no knowledge of what was bought or sold, I would be OK with that.
I'm hoping my fellow MDS members are in agreement that criminals shouldn't be allowed to buy/own firearms and a CYA discreet background check would be OK. IE- He cleared the background screening on __/__/__ so I am not liable for what happened with the firearm I sold him.
I had an ATF trace done on a SKS I sold to a fellow member ~3yrs ago. I provided my bill of sale- which included a photocopy of the buyer's DL. The ATF's response was "Thank you, that is all we need from you." I have no idea what happened afterward, but my ass was covered with a paper trail.

(I am already on Clandestine's "list", and I'm fine with that)

 

[fabsroman]

What a cop out. Literally "hurr durr you're the idiot for not getting it."

I explicitly asked you, "Are you saying your wife is a MOM?"

Totally a normal thing to write about yourself in an attempt to paint what someone else might say about you that has no basis in reality.

Did you answer? Nah. You let that play out because you're the most milquetoast "gun guy" spending his time advocating anti gun positions and incredibly strange to boot.

Don't presume that my lack of answering your question is one of acquiescence. Plenty of other reasons for me not to respond. Of course, you went with what fit your agenda. However, now you actually have a response from me. Continue on.

 

[teratos]

Did I ever accuse you of going after my wife. Again, pot calling the kettle black when it comes to reading being fundamental. Also, just one more small insult to try and get under my skin. It just isn't going to work, but you will keep trying instead of letting it go.

Here is what I said:



Further, my response that you responded to, quoted Abacab. That means it was not aimed at you. Sorry you feel as though everything I write is intended for you. However, if you can pay attention to whom I am quoting, you will realize that my response was not related to you. Then again, maybe you have lost track of all the petty insults or you just feel the need to back up the few others that feel the need to continue with this diatribe.

I mean, just in that last post of yours, you imply that I cannot read very well and that I am a Peacock. That might bother somebody that isn't secure with himself. You are never going to grasp the fact that what you say does not bother me. It might work on people with less self esteem than me, but it isn't going to work on me. Continue on though if it makes you feel good. I can take it and you know me, always willing to lend a helping hand to those that really need it.

See if you can remember referring to me at some point as a mensch. Doing that and now doing this, tells me all I need to know.

I actually have a long history of thinking you are a decent guy, until you started crapping all over the Patriot Picket and other efforts. Your posts on how to comply with all the BS they were proposing before it even got passed also gave me pause. I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong about you.