If you had to make a Compromise

T

Tibult

New member
The Brady Campaign and all the gun control politicians came out and offered a resolution that would end the whole debate once and for all.
Say they offered to allow CCW shall issue nationwide, Repeal the 86 Hughes Machine gun freeze, and no more Assault Weapons and Magazine Bans anywhere all repealed.In exchange they mandate Nationwide Universal Background Checks on everyone wanting to buy a gun and no more private sales without a background check, all have have to go through a FFL. And they promise no more new restrictions after UBC if their word actually was the truth.
Would you agree to that or No?
 
NO! What makes you think they won't store your data from the BG check and when they think they have most to all the people registered they won't come around saying, "Turn them in." :mad: I trust the Brady Bunch and all both other gun grabbers about as much as I can pick up the "Mighty Mo" battleship and throw it at least one mile, let alone at all. Anyone who thinks they can be trusted is a fool. Just my not very humble opinion as politely as I can say it without a long string of four letter words.
Paul B..
 
This is hypothetically if you could trust them and they don't turn around with registration and say turn them in.
 
Not a snowball chance in hell do I want anything to do with even more Fed involvement in their stupid "one-size-fits-all" approach to ANY social issue; they never get it right it right, they ALWAYS screw it up, make it more convoluted, and then raise costs and tighten the restrictions. Lastly, it is ALWAYS corrupted to fulfill the current political whim from DC.
 
No.


The only way for UBC to work, or any gun control to work would require registration.
Registration will not work unless they completely search every single space that humans occupy and then some in order to turn up every single weapon in the US.

The goal of gun control is to have none in civilian possession.

What you are describing would be a "good first step" to gun control.
 
NO !!!

"Shall not be infringed"

The Constitution is sovereign. How would one compromise that .... ;)

Be Wise and;
Be Safe !!!
 
No.

First of all, I do not trust them, not even hypothetically. They've lied to us and to the American people too many times. Even if they are trustworthy for the moment, what's to keep them from deciding that they made a bad deal and going back on it?

Second, why should I agree to more restrictions on my purchases when the DOJ, by and large, won't prosecute people who violate that BC laws to begin with? Bartholomew Roberts (member here and moderator at The High Road) put together a good thread on Why Universal Background Checks Are Bad for Gun Owners. It would be worth your while to read it.

Third, UBC laws are virtually unenforceable without registration. A prosecutor will have a devil of a time proving that Mikey Meth didn't buy a gun before the effective date. Further, if Mike Meth is a felon, he may be (for intents and purposes) immune from prosecution for violating a UBC law. See the 1968 case of Haynes for more information on that.

Fourth, why should I compromise on my rights? They're mine.
 
No Compromise

They can't be trusted to stand by their word. :mad:

I would like to see how the Brady or the Moms propose to do background checks on thieves selling guns to their fellows. That would be the only act that would reduce violence. That is the reason for UBCs isn't it Moms and Brady?
 
Last edited:
Dream on.
Their agenda has been very clear from the get go.
No civilian guns.
Only the trustworthy government needs guns.
Any rhetoric to the contrary is smoke screen.
 
Even if they were not lying Statist. They would push to increase the prohibited list to include even traffic tickets, or other restrictions like a 30 day waiting period, Why do you need another gun. Not to mention trying to restrict ammo. The gun control debate was settled in 1787.
 
Third, UBC laws are virtually unenforceable without registration.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world I'd go along with your proposal. Even agreeing to gun registration. But...history has shown that this would not be the end of it and the registration would ultimately lead to gun confiscation.
 
Presuming the Gun Control movement to be honest and forthright persons who could be trusted to make and honor such a deal would be a very stupid mistake.

Registration precedes confiscation. No other reason for it exists except as a lie told to gull the gullible before enactment into law.
 
Considering that those holding public office take an OATH and covered under that oath is the "shall not be infringed" rights, which they publically work so hard to infringe, I don't see why one should take their word as good on ANYTHING!


Say they offered to allow CCW shall issue nationwide, Repeal the 86 Hughes Machine gun freeze, and no more Assault Weapons and Magazine Bans anywhere
Click to expand...

The problem with this is you are already accepting what they have taken from us as a given. You accept "shall issue" as a good thing, but you are missing the point that "issue" means a license, and a license means its not a right. Rights are not subject to licenses.

And forget repealing the 86 Hughes amendment, repeal the ENTIRE NFA 34!

And "no more" Assault Weapon bans? Do you mean more than we already have???

A promise from the anti's is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

Do the words "Peace in our time" and "this is the end of my territorial demands in Europe" mean anything to you? They meant something to Neville Chamberlain, and something else to Adolf Hitler.
 
When it comes to gun registration, which is what this would be, no. Even with a constitutional amendment, the Antis will always be there trying to lawyer some way to take your guns away. So, if the Constitution barely protects us, how would you expect any mere law to protect us?
 
Spinning Wheels

Whenever I see a new post such as this, that really makes little or no sense, I have to question the agenda. These prove very little and yet, we reply to them. This is a gun forum and what gun owner is going to admit that he is willing to compromise his or her freedoms? ...... :confused:


Be free and;
Be Safe !!!
 
Many Gun Shop hang around Joe's and Jane's would jump on this in a heart beat . They just want to be left alone and fell warm and fuzzy about this great new deal and who knows it may make them safer .
These are the same ones that would tell you that you dont "need" a gun like that to hunt .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top