If you had to make a Compromise

Tibult said:
Would you agree to that or No?
Click to expand...
No.

Do you think the nuclear treaty with Iran is a good idea for the U.S.? You don't make deals with the devil.

Aside from that, you're forgetting that the entire notion of carry licenses is a violation of the Second Amendment. Where does the 2A say anything about "The right of the People (who have the appropriate license) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? My copy of the 2A must be defective, because it doesn't include the license clause.

Do you need a license to pray?

Do you need a license to read a newspaper?

Do you need a license to call your Congresscritter and express an opinion?

A right which you need to ask permission to exercise is not a right, it's a privilege.
 
I think that one particular part of the first post warrants further discussion...
Tibult said:
Repeal the 86 Hughes Machine gun freeze...
Click to expand...
...Will Never Happen, and we as gun owners don't really want the other side to even discuss this.

First of all, very few politicians on either side of the aisle are going to be willing to vote to "legalize machine guns"; yes, I realize the quoted statement isn't literally true, as they're technically legal now, but everyone knows this is how it will be portrayed in the media and by the political opposition.

Second, I think this idea would be so unpopular with the general public that many "gun friendly" politicians are likely to help stifle it behind closed committee-meeting doors because they don't want an "anti-gun" vote on their records. Ironic? Yes. Likely? Also yes.

Third, bringing up the NFA at all (a) risks an increase to the now-reasonably-affordable $200 transfer tax—and trust me, if there's an increase, it will be drastic; and (b) risks other items being added to the NFA, such as so-called high-capacity mags. Remember that the NFA, as originally proposed, would have included all handguns. We don't want to risk something like this ever again.

The NFA is the third rail of American gun politics. If we put the Hughes amendment on the table, we are putting everything on the table, and essentially stepping out in front of the bus. :eek:
 
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issue nationwide, Repeal the 86 Hughes Machine gun freeze, and no more Assault Weapons and Magazine Bans anywhere all repealed.
Click to expand...
First of all, that's not going to happen. They are not going to give us anything, so this thought experiment stops there.

Second, when it comes to an enumerated right, I'm not playing games or negotiating. The NFA, the GCA, and the Hughes Amendment weren't compromises. They were things that were taken away from us against our will, and with nothing in return. We're done with that.

Third, as others have mentioned, this assumes they can be dealt with in good faith. They have proven they cannot. The very concept of "assault weapons" was built on a deliberate, calculated lie. The Brady Act was exactly what they negotiated into existence. Calling the portion they couldn't get enacted a loophole is an utter falsehood.

For the sake of argument, let's say we play the game. They get "universal background checks" and we get 50-state CCW. How long is that going to last? Until the next public shooting. Then we lose CCW. Do you think they're going to overturn the background-check law? Nope. The result is a net loss.

I've been hearing these ridiculous hypotheticals bandied about all too often these last couple of years. Folks who are new to the gun culture don't like that certain things are forbidden to them, and they assume bargaining with the enemy is a way of fixing those things. The underlying assumption is that those things are wrong because nobody's done anything about it.

The fight to preserve and reclaim gun rights isn't about instant gratification. It's a long process, sometimes taking decades. Sorry it isn't faster, but that's the way politics works.
 
I don't support gun control,but at the same time we are fighting a losing battle if some of us continue to come off as lunatics with open carry rallies with AR15 rifles and AK pistols to Starbucks or Walmart.You will scare away fence sitters and give gun control advocates in this country a reason to say that some of us are unstable and that we should have more regulations against open carry and a Universal Background Check. Compromises will then become a standard of negotiation if we continue to lose credibility and trust in the eyes of the majority and choose to take extremist open carry ideals as a form of protest or demonstration of open carry rights.Remember just because you can does not mean you should.

I am not against open carry however, common sense dictates that carrying a rifle in a urban area such as Detroit is a bad idea especially when going to certain establishments that cater to [people] that may dislike or are scared of guns.This only damages our cause and makes more enemies that wish to restrict our rights further.I have no agenda just am concerned with the thinking of a growing number of open carriers that do not think of the ramifications of taking their rights to the extreme (long guns into grocery stores[...]) with no regard of the long term effect it could have on the future of the 2nd amendment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't support gun control,but at the same time we are fighting a losing battle if some of us continue to come off as lunatics with open carry rallies with AR15 rifles and AK pistols to Starbucks or Walmart.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about open carry tactics or the legislative process?

The Chipotle bandits certainly don't help our cause, but I see no connection between them and the UBC push.

For those who don't recall, this is how it came about. It took four tries to get the Brady Act to the Senate floor. At that point, it was obvious that there was no way to feasibly apply its requirements to private transfers. To get some version of it passed, Brady and Schumer agreed to limit its authority to transfers from licensed dealers.

This was a deliberate concession made by the backers of the bill.

The minute it passed, Schumer started calling the lack of applicability to private sales a loophole. He is a liar. So is anyone who uses the word loophole to describe the situation.

If that sounds harsh, it isn't. Nobody who's going to do any sort of advocacy work doesn't know the history.

So, every year since then, Schumer has pushed his "fix gun checks" act in the legislature. It seeks to apply background checks to all transfers. It wasn't some novel bill proposed in the wake of Newtown, nor was it "inspired" by the shooting, no matter times he wants to show the pictures of the victims on the evening news.

The Brady Act was in 1994. The Chipotle bandits were in 2014. There's no connection between the two.
 
Open carry (especially long guns in cities) is part of this legislative push since it is stirring up a hornets nest and the gun control advocates are using swatting to make any open carry a major risk to the point where eventually laws will forbid open carry.And the recent shootings are also a big reason for a UBC push into Congress.
 
"I don't support gun control,but at the same time we are fighting a losing battle if some of us continue to come off as lunatics with open carry rallies with AR15 rifles and AK pistols to Starbucks or Walmart"
Didn't stop the 'fringe nutjob' sectors of any number of protest/grievance groups from achieving victory, and it won't stop us either. Heck, charges of threatening behavior were leveled against OC Texans by some congressman puke in his office days before the vote, and yet open carry is coming to the Lone Star State regardless*. Press that bad should have scuttled anything, right? Black Panthers with rifles on the capital steps, and all that?

The real question OC-hostile gun owners need to ask themselves is; did you learn about the 'gun carry' issue itself after hearing about an OC protest(er)? To Texans; did you learn about the legal open carry of rifles but illegal open carry of pistols by way of the same?

The 'damage' of these types of agitators is always minimal, so long as they are kept away from the reigns of the movement (otherwise you end up like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, advocating murder-by-cop as a means to silence your opposition). Kory Watkins was never at the negotiating table in the Capitol, so any effect he might have had beyond raising awareness was minimized.

"The Chipotle bandits certainly don't help our cause, but I see no connection between them and the UBC push."
They do if you're an anti-gunner; who else keeps conflating the two besides them?

TCB

*to those who think we wouldn't have taken on amendments & exceptions to universal OC freedom; dream on. The whole spectacle revealed just how anti-gun Texas' urban politicians are, on both sides of the aisle
 
Open carry (especially long guns in cities) is part of this legislative push
Click to expand...

The open carry antics didn't help us one bit. They certainly seemed to be a factor in California's decision to tighten up the Mulford Act.

Beyond that? Nothing. It was a talking point for the gun control lobby between public shootings, but even they've backed off it for now.

And the recent shootings are also a big reason for a UBC push into Congress.
Click to expand...
These are two different issues.

On the matter of public shootings, we're going to keep having them. As long as the gun-control lobby sees these events as opportunities to further their agenda, the possibility of studying the actual causes gets sidelined.

If we can't address the root causes, we can't stop the shootings. If we can't stop the shootings, the antis use them as fodder. It's a vicious circle. It really has nothing to do with the shenanigans of some wrongheaded gun owners.
 
I always tell gun control supporters that the root of the mass shooting and violence as a whole is that we are soft on violent scumbags and let them out too often instead of keeping them locked up for life or executing them.And our mental health system needs reform where if someone is so dangerous and unpredictable that they need medication to sedate them for life.They should be kept in a mental health facility for life and never released since they are always an active threat like a wild predatory animal if they miss their medication once.I am a Libertarian and was called a Fascist because I am against violent criminals getting a slap on a wrist.

Same argument I make for drunk drivers after the first DUI the second one should result in permanent revocation of their driver license and 6 months behind bars and if anyone dies in an accident due to their drunkenness behind the wheel that should be an automatic 30 year sentence in prison they agree with me on that stance
 
Last edited:
No. That would be a temperal move/position for them. The goal is to eliminate all for the common man.
 
Tibult said:
Compromises will then become a standard of negotiation if we continue to lose credibility and trust in the eyes of the majority and choose to take extremist open carry ideals as a form of protest or demonstration of open carry rights.Remember just because you can does not mean you should.
Click to expand...
I strongly suggest you read this: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

Bookmark it. Memorize it. Take it to heart.

You don't understand what "compromise" means. Compromise means I give up a little and you give up a little. That's not how the anti-gun crowd plays. They start off asking for everything, and then they compromise by agreeing to only take something ... this time, until the next time. Just as law Dog laid it out.

That's not "compromise."

Tibult said:
Open carry (especially long guns in cities) is part of this legislative push since it is stirring up a hornets nest and the gun control advocates are using swatting to make any open carry a major risk to the point where eventually laws will forbid open carry.And the recent shootings are also a big reason for a UBC push into Congress.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
If we can't address the root causes, we can't stop the shootings. If we can't stop the shootings, the antis use them as fodder.
Click to expand...
Is that ever even possible?
Better to resurrect the lost idea of personal responsibility and discard guilt by association as the norm?
 
If you had to make a Compromise
Click to expand...

What do you mean "If".

The 2A has already been compromised, that's what got us the Brady Bill, NICS checks, permits to carry the list goes on and on.

Any compromise of the 2A weakens it along with my other rights guaranteed me by the constitution of the USA.
In 1968 I swore an oath to protect the constitution, an oath I believe in and still stand firm on today.
 
I could definitely see the Brady Campaign making this deal and I could absolutely believe their intent to follow it. I doubt they would even break the deal.

When they dissolved and re-incorporated the following week under a different name pursuing the same policies I wouldn't be surprised either.

As for politicians, what a joke. You can't trust them to do anything but trade/sell their vote for whatever keeps them in office.

I am more than willing to accept very small incremental improvements in our rights. I have accepted we can't have everything now. I am not willing to accept going the other direction.
For instance, I would like to see NFA 34 repealed, but it isn't going to happen in one step. Step one, remove suppressors. The work on that is already happening. Look at what is happening in your state legislature with suppressors to see how. Step 2: re-open registry, even if NFA fees need to be updated for inflation($200 tax to about $3500). Even if it is for 22 cal rimfires only at first. Even if it is for "historic designs" pre-dating '34, like a Thompson SMG Still, an M16 for under $5000. Find a way to remove SBR, SBS or set a separate fee in there somewhere. If there aren't major problems at that point, removing NFA 34 won't be unreachable.

Similar compromises have been made in the past. The most destructive of which was probably the Hughes Amendment. I don't think any of them worked out well.
 
Last edited:
Even if they were entirely honest - which has been proven demonstrably false already in this thread - gun control advocates will never be satisfied because their proposals simply don't work. Assume for a moment they are all good hearted and their goal really is to reduce violence in the nation as a whole. They will soon see that their legislation did not meet their goal and they will feel morally obligated to increase gun control to the point that violence is reduced. We see the reasons that increased gun control does not decrease violence, but I believe that a significant number of people who support such measures honestly don't. There is a spiral of increasingly restrictive legislation even if their intentions are good.
 
I could definitely see the Brady Campaign making this deal and I could absolutely believe their intent to follow it. I doubt they would even break the deal.
Click to expand...
That's our first problem right there. I've actually spoken to a few of their employees over the years. They have one agenda, and they're going to do what it takes to make it happen. Do not expect honesty or fair dealing with them.

Step 2: re-open registry, even if NFA fees need to be updated for inflation($200 tax to about $3500).
Click to expand...
Nope. All that does is reinforce the original intent, which was to price NFA weapons out of the hands of normal citizens.

Gang, the whole pretext of this thread is utterly faulty.

We are ammosexuals. We are knuckle-dragging, flyover country, inbred idiots. We are the most callous, heartless people on earth. Don't believe it? Ask a gun-control advocate. We're not people with differing opinions, we are the people who get in their way, and they despise us for it. Especially when we're right.

They have taken every effort to mock and belittle us. They have lied without shame to us, to politicians, and to the general public.

The underpinning of any negotiation is trust, and we don't have that.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
For instance, I would like to see NFA 34 repealed, but it isn't going to happen in one step. Step one, remove suppressors. The work on that is already happening. Look at what is happening in your state legislature with suppressors to see how.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this, and I've said so before, but this doesn't strike me as a "compromise" per se, because we're not giving up anything. We just get something good. :)

FWIW I would even suggest a "Step 3/4" consisting of removing 7.62 and smaller rifle-caliber suppressors from the NFA first, with hunting as the focus, calling the proposal the "Quiet Wilderness Initiative". I predict it will be quite popular with rural-dwelling people who don't like firearms and gunfire, and we'd actually see suppressors being required on hunting rifles in certain areas within a few years, just like in Europe.

That said...
johnwilliamson062 said:
Step 2: re-open registry, even if NFA fees need to be updated for inflation($200 tax to about $3500).
Click to expand...
No, no, no, NO.

As much as I dislike the Hughes Amendment, the goal needs to be to scrap the NFA, not renegotiate the transfer tax. My skin crawls at what might happen once we suggest that we're open to renegotiating the transfer tax. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top