Gun law "compromises"

D

dakota.potts

New member
So I was having a discussion the other day with somebody and I came to the conclusion that I would be willing to entertain a compromise for certain gun laws.

Not one of these "Why can't you compromise and only use a 10 round magazine" gun laws. For instance, I think doing a universal background check would be fine if they also created a Federal concealed carry permit allowing carry in prior gun free zones and face to face transaction among permit holders. I'd really like to see the repeal of the 1986 automatic weapon law where the NFA system is retained (rebooted for quicker background checks) but where we can buy modern automatic weapons. I've come to accept that the 2nd amendment is murky on things like explosives (Can you use it to strike at another? Some say yes, some say no) but the NFA act regulating explosives makes a lot of sense to me if they removed the tax on explosive rounds and limited only to launchers and standalone explosives like hand grenades. This would provide an outlet for people like me who believe the average citizen should be able to buy a Howitzer, but provide a compromise to make sure that only law abiding citizens can (legally) buy them.

I won't get into the politics of how that would get manipulated but my big question is why have no lawmakers actually tried a REAL compromise where both sides gain something they want? I'm not so much trying to argue the points above but just provide examples of what I think would be real, honest compromises.
 
dakota.potts said:
why have no lawmakers actually tried a REAL compromise where both sides gain something they want?
Click to expand...

Because they don't want compromise. "Compromise" is the word that politicians use when the other side won't agree and they want to make them sound unreasonable. It's also a word they use when they're already so close to their goal that anything the other side gives up will essentially get them exactly what they want.

When your side refuses to compromise, it's always bravely "standing on principle". When the other side won't compromise, they're beholden to special interests or cowards trying to save their next election.

As far as your ideas, they might sound fine in their simplest form but the devil is in the details. As an example, federal "concealed carry" permits... you KNOW they'd come with "standards" for training and whatnot. Do we really want the Feds having their hands in THAT cookie jar?
 
Because to the gun grabbers, compromise means just getting less of what they want while gunners give up some of what gunners have. They think your refusal to give up more is obstinate. They think you should compromise by letting them back off just a little on their demands. In each of their 'compromises' you lose a little while they gain a little.

Remember that "common sense" controls and "reasonable laws" are rarely (if ever) either "common sense" or "reasonable."
 
When your side refuses to compromise, it's always bravely "standing on principle". When the other side won't compromise, they're beholden to special interests or cowards trying to save their next election.
Click to expand...

And to be fair to everyone on any side of any issue, that seems to hold true. We're often no less guilty. We just think we're right.
 
No Compromise...

When dealing with a Constitutional Right there is no Compromise and no infringement. I will not compromise on the type of firearm I have, I will not compromise on the size of my magazine or what my rifle looks like. If a killer were to enter your home and tell you he was going to kill you, your wife and two children, would you seek a compromise to kill only your wife and one child? Any concession the gun grabbers get is a win for them and a loss for freedom. Should we have compromised during the Revolutionary War and kept 6 or 7 of the colonies and let the British have the rest?
 
I think maybe you didn't read my full original post, patriotic. I'm asking why no politicians have brought up real compromise that gives us something as well as satisfying them in some way. Not this fake compromise that ends up with "We'll take less than we wanted to... this time"

EDIT: Surely, not EVERY politician can be anti-gun. I know many are for broadening rights. I don't see many of them trying to move these bills, even in states with huge 2nd amendment followings. Is this because they're afraid, or maybe something else, like simple lack of media coverage
 
I'm not interested in any compromise. I know people say that's the essence of politics, but seems like that's what people say when they want YOU to compromise and paint you as a curmudgeon if you don't do what they want.

The government needs to focus on enforcing existing laws first, prosecuting people who break firearms laws and improving the mental healthcare system to include acting on reports of mentally unstable individuals.
 
Because the Statists are interested in compromise. They have told us plainly many times their goal is the eventual elimination of all civilian guns. It has nothing to do with public safety.

Since gun laws do not contribute to public safety why would you give in on a right? If we did gain anything it could be easily taken away in the next congress.

Why is it do important to you that we compromise at all? There us nothing inherently noble in compromise. At best it can be utilitarian but it is usually the least preferred resolution.
 
I agree with what was said. Since the end game is the elimination of everything except O/U shotguns for the rich and famous (;)) and there is no fundamental acceptance of the right to have a reasonable firearm for SD and defense against tyranny - a compromise is just seen as a first step to a totally ban.

No one has said - we support your right to have a handgun and rifle if, simply, you are a law abiding citizen. Thus, we will have 10 round mag ban and gun show checks and that's it. Also, we will get rid of some the onerous restrictions on carry and buying such guns.

Not going to happen (not that I would agree with such) but there is no compromise. It's like asking for better air-conditioning in the Warsaw Ghetto - if only you go in. Sorry - the analogy just came to mind.
 
I've done my fair share of homework on the issue of gun control, and how these "compromises" have played out. They're not compromises and they're not intended to be compromises. "We'll just take less of what we want for now" is not a compromise. I particularly like the link to the Law Dog Files that Aguila Blanca has already posted.

Further, I see no reason that I should ever have to compromise on Constitutional Rights. There's a reason they're called "Rights."
 
I was married for 30 years, my dear ex-wife's idea of compromise was doing what she wanted. and that is pretty much how I look on political compromise.
Never Again!
 
I love the idea of compromise, but the gun prohibitionists prefer Orwellian Newspeak as opposed to English, so when they say the word 'compromise', as has been mentioned in other posts above, they don't mean compromise.

True compromise I would love to entertain. There's just nobody on the other side willing to have an honest discussion.
 
There may be some kind of compromise later. Background checks(with some mechanism to prevent a backdoor registry) for National Reciprocity may be what passes.
 
How about national reciprocity, the banning of all state bans and the right any law abiding citizen to buy a firearm from an FFL without any state waiting period or buy from a private citizen at the gun show with no waiting period if it goes through an FFL (assuming show sales go through an FFL)?

No FFL for off premises sales. Also, putting into law that AWBs, mag limits, etc. are not allowed. Only full auto stay the same as far the fee (but the registry opened).

For that you mandate FFLs for private sales at shows and NO registry of any type by anyone.

Well, this won't ever happen - so it's like asking me what I would do when I win the 300 million lottery bucks.
 
How about a state-level "Interstate Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons" rather than national reciprocity. I'm entirely uninterested in having the feds set the standards for CCW.
 
Here is an idea, how about you compromise our way back toward "no infringement?" I would support a compromise that instead of getting rid of all gun laws we just roll them back to 1967, for now. No BC, mailorder OK, no nitpicky harassment of FFL dealers. That is compromise I can get behind.
 
Spats said:
How about a state-level "Interstate Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons" rather than national reciprocity. I'm entirely uninterested in having the feds set the standards for CCW.
Click to expand...

All the anti-gun states would never go for it. They're afraid of states that issue LTC permits in crackerjack boxes, because then heathens from those states would flood their pristine urban utopia, and wash the streets in the blood of innocents.
 
speedrrracer, that would be OK, too. All an interstate compact would mean is that all the signatory states would agree to recognize each others' permits. Folks seem to forget that there is no federal law requiring one state to recognize the other states' non-commercial DLs. Recognition can be achieved in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions without federal intervention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top