DonR101395
New member
Instead of sidetracking the Ron Paul thread I decided this was better discussed in it's own thread. Below is a quote from me on the other thread and my stance on the issue. Feel free to chime in....................
What is enough compromise??
- Thread starter DonR101395
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Well, I'll say this: as long as neither side is interested in actually compromising we'll probably never find out. The bad news being that as the numbers stand now, and as gun control is being packaged with other polarizing issues, I think we're on the losing end.
I'd appreciate for starters if anybody writing a gun control law would at least give this wikipedia article a skim. Most of them act as though they've never heard of it.
I'd appreciate for starters if anybody writing a gun control law would at least give this wikipedia article a skim. Most of them act as though they've never heard of it.
DonR101395
New member
That's where I'm kind of at a loss Juan. The individual states seem to be lessening restrictions while federal legislators are on the hunt to ban anything and everything.
yay thanks <3
To answer the questions from the other thread: one, you guys are right about the manufacturing caps but JC's point was also important; inflation has to be taken into account when discussing price differences.
As for the idea of compromise, none of the things you listed were compromise. That was legislation put forth by the antigun crowd. The point of compromise is that both sides get together and discuss what would benefit us all. No, we can't have unchecked firearms ownership in the country. Mr Cho bought his guns from a store because it was too damn easy to just check the "no" box on a form. No, I don't want everyone who can legally own a gun to be carrying one around at all times unless there's some standard of safety training that they've met. Treat them as we do cars.
Again, none of what you listed was compromise. If anything it was antigunners response to the extreme views of those that think there should be no restrictions whatsoever. People need to realize that urban life is different from rural life. What works in the boonies does not work in Chicago and suggesting that city-dwelling liberals should live their lives as the farm boys do is going to do more harm than good. You have to realize that those urban areas are densely populated and have a lot of sway over elections. Piss them off and we'll lose all our rights instead of maybe working with them and retaining the ones that are important.
To answer the questions from the other thread: one, you guys are right about the manufacturing caps but JC's point was also important; inflation has to be taken into account when discussing price differences.
As for the idea of compromise, none of the things you listed were compromise. That was legislation put forth by the antigun crowd. The point of compromise is that both sides get together and discuss what would benefit us all. No, we can't have unchecked firearms ownership in the country. Mr Cho bought his guns from a store because it was too damn easy to just check the "no" box on a form. No, I don't want everyone who can legally own a gun to be carrying one around at all times unless there's some standard of safety training that they've met. Treat them as we do cars.
Again, none of what you listed was compromise. If anything it was antigunners response to the extreme views of those that think there should be no restrictions whatsoever. People need to realize that urban life is different from rural life. What works in the boonies does not work in Chicago and suggesting that city-dwelling liberals should live their lives as the farm boys do is going to do more harm than good. You have to realize that those urban areas are densely populated and have a lot of sway over elections. Piss them off and we'll lose all our rights instead of maybe working with them and retaining the ones that are important.
JuanCarlos
New member
Best nutshell argument I've heard on this one.
My right to keep and drive a car is not explicitly declared in our Constitution. I think had the automobile been invented in the 18th century, it still would probably not have been.
I'm just sayin'.
But like it or not gun laws will be written...and if we refuse to participate in the process, we're that much less likely to be happy (or less upset, more likely) with the outcome. The second amendment, like it or not, does not guarantee absolute and completely unrestricted access to firearms...anymore than the first amendment covers inciting a riot or verbal threats. There are restrictions that can be placed even on constitutional rights.
Like I said before, I just wish when deciding what restrictions to place on them they'd at least pay some lip service to that whole "strict scrutiny" thing. Hopefully depending on the outcome of Parker they may just have to.
DonR101395
New member
You're welcome I think
Agreed, but the prices are more than inflation. Here are two current examples, both M16A1s; one is a pre86 that is transferable, the other a post86 only transferable to LE/govt both are used. That's not inflation or free market.
Pre86 $15,970
Post86 $795
http://www.gunsamerica.com/976816496/Guns/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles/REAL_COLT_M16A1_MACHINEGUN.htm
http://www.gunsamerica.com/97637940...3-Dealer-Law-Enf-Only/A1M16_7_quot_shorty.htm
Nearly all legislation is a compromise of something. It may have been put forth by the anti-gun, but it got passed by a vote and signed by a president. I'm not against background check in theory, but it's still not fool proof, and if Mr Cho wanted a gun he could still have gotten one. Criminals have been getting them in DC and NYC for years and they are all but banned in both places. I submit that there are enough guns "off the books" that illicit gun sales could go on for the rest of both our lifetimes before all of the illicit guns were gone. A law saying you can't trade guns without a background check won't stop it. There is a law that says you won't carry on campus in VA, but it didn't stop Cho, there is a law saying you can't murder, but it didn't stop him either. Would it have made the antis feel better had he ran over a bunch of people.? The point, where there's a will, there's a way.
BTW: Guns aren't cars, cars aren't protected under the constitution. Don't buy into the anti-gun treat them like cars bunk. If they want to treat them like cars then they would be fine with a 16 year old buying a handgun.
I didn't know viewing my rights as written in the 2A was extreme. Is it anymore extreme than a liberal reporter believing in his undying right to free speach? Suggesting that "farmboys" live their life like a city dweller is just as repugnant. Sorry, but I won't lay down and kowtow to Chicago. I'm not worried about pissing them off, I've pissed people off most of my life. All of our rights are important, not just the ones they say are important. Once again, retaining all of them is important. Not just the ones they tell me are important.
Edit: So there is no mistake, I'm not an all or none kinda of guy, but I'm pretty far right on the issue.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Allrighty...
Victory is now staring the gun movement in the face. Gun Control as we knew it is the bad old days is a dying political concept. The EDUCATED liberal academeicians are now accepting the 2nd as an individual right. The moderate, progressive left is becoming more accepting of firearms, mirroring the overall moderate thoughts of the US population. The all or nothings on both sides are falling by the wayside. Now is the time for us to become a progressive, inclusive movement and purge our ranks of the far right loonies so as to make gun rights even more all pervasive.
Like it or not, the rascist, sexist, homphobic, xenophobic, and "bubba" image foisted on progressive gun owners by elements within have cause as much harm to gun rights as screaming lefty meemies, who only got a sopabox due to the gun movements actions.
Analyze 1968 if you cdare to,
WildmoretofollowAlaska
Victory is now staring the gun movement in the face. Gun Control as we knew it is the bad old days is a dying political concept. The EDUCATED liberal academeicians are now accepting the 2nd as an individual right. The moderate, progressive left is becoming more accepting of firearms, mirroring the overall moderate thoughts of the US population. The all or nothings on both sides are falling by the wayside. Now is the time for us to become a progressive, inclusive movement and purge our ranks of the far right loonies so as to make gun rights even more all pervasive.
Like it or not, the rascist, sexist, homphobic, xenophobic, and "bubba" image foisted on progressive gun owners by elements within have cause as much harm to gun rights as screaming lefty meemies, who only got a sopabox due to the gun movements actions.
Analyze 1968 if you cdare to,
WildmoretofollowAlaska
DonR101395
New member
Sorry for the error, I incorrectly lumped school and college as one in the same when I read it off of packing.org
Don: I am not suggesting that more laws will prevent those criminals from getting their hands on guns but a few more sensible ones - like making sure that someone that can carry in public actually knows how to use that weapon and won't wave it around with his finger on the trigger or that the neighbor you sell your revolver to didn't just walk out of a mental institution - will prevent some of the people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Cho may have known how to get his guns elsewhere but then again maybe he didn't. Maybe a rich asian kid from the suburbs would have zero clue how to get his hands on a gun aside from a gun store. There's no reason that the laws have to make it easier for people like him to get guns.
Are convicts not "the people"? We don't allow them to own guns in prison. That's gun control.
We don't allow mortars and grenade launchers and land mines and chainguns. Those are "arms". Donald trump can certainly afford to buy a squadron of retired F14 Tomcats and equip them with Sparrows and Sidewinders but we don't let them even though they all qualify as "arms".
We are all accepting some degree of restriction on the plain words of the second amendment. It's just a matter of how much.
Depends on how you view them. Are nine year olds not "the people"? We don't allow them to carry in public nor should we ever. That's gun control.
Are convicts not "the people"? We don't allow them to own guns in prison. That's gun control.
We don't allow mortars and grenade launchers and land mines and chainguns. Those are "arms". Donald trump can certainly afford to buy a squadron of retired F14 Tomcats and equip them with Sparrows and Sidewinders but we don't let them even though they all qualify as "arms".
We are all accepting some degree of restriction on the plain words of the second amendment. It's just a matter of how much.
DonR101395
New member
Very nicely stated, but how much compromise is enough? I believe we've given up too much already. I don't see any further restrictions accomplishing anything that the last 73 years of creeping restrictions hasn't already attempted to accomplish and failed. My position is that we've tried it the liberal way and it's failed miserably. I have no disillusions of grandeur that we will return to a time when you could mail order guns without and FFL, you could buy a machine gun without asking for permission and a second mortage or that guns in the corner diner will be as prevalent as knitting needles. It's not going to happen. We have legal CCW in more states than not, more states are opening to Class lll weapons, DC may get there rights restored, all of that is a good thing. But IMHO, the time for further restrictions has come and gone and failed.
DonR101395
New member
Redworm,
See post #12, I don't think I could state it any better. Good approach by the way.
"All or nothing."
According to some, that's a very dangerous and questionable attitude these days. But I guess it's always been that way. Even when a bunch of guys gathered together and signed "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." What was it they risked? Oh yeah, their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. And what are we asked to risk? Our lives perhaps, our fortunes probably, but if we're not ready to risk those we can't have much honor to throw into the ring.After Concord and Lexington Green there were mothers who wept for their children and men who shook their heads and called those who fought against the Redcoats fools and traitors. They were unwilling to risk their status quo by standing against the tyrant. Years later, after the eventual victory, few of them could remember those words.
That our forefathers were emminently successful in establishing a new and better system of government is obvious now. While we may complain about this law or that politician or the unintended consequences of some minor (at the time) bill passed by our elected legislators, I don't see many of those who complain moving to another, better county. Bad as our country is, it's better than any other.
Perhaps that's why we have such a hard time finding men who will stand their ground, uncompromising and unyeilding. Perhaps we, as a country, are too soft to defend ourselves anymore. Perhaps we're just a huge group of "Pastor Neimollers," looking the other way, hoping the crocodile won't notice us.
Well, I could risk my life relatively easily since there really isn't much of it left, and because of that fact I've been careful to rid myself of excess 'fortune.' So where does that leave me? Oh yes, "Honor." Time will tell whether or not that's in play.
In the meantime I'm getting tired of having things taken from me "for my own good." I don't particularly want a machine gun. I've fired them many times and, while they can be fun to play with, they're expensive as all hell to feed. But I don't believe it's in the best interests of anybody but a few corrupt politicians to keep the common person from possessing them. Let's face it, the primary purpose of NFA34 wasn't to regulate machine guns, it was to give a bunch of revenue agents, out of work since prohibition, a job.
GCA68 was a reaction to several high-profile shootings. Congress behaved much like a child suddenly frightened by thunder, hiding in a corner and putting its fingers into its collective ears. The Brady Bill, the Lautenberg Amendment, the AWB... they were all reactions to perceived threats. The whole lot of them occurred over many years so now it's become fashionable to declare that they now have to be repealed over a similar period of time.
Why? Because that's the way politics is? Again, why? Just because it's always been done in one fashion doesn't mean it always has to be done that way. We now have the Parker case wending its way to the Supreme Court. One faction says we need to be very careful lest we lose everything we've gained.
But what have we gained? Permission (in most states) to enter our names on a list of gun owners in the belief that we're suddenly better able to protect ourselves in the event of a robbery or assault. Never mind that when the state decides to confiscate all weapons they'll know just where to go.
Oh yes, we've also gained the comforting knowledge that mental defectives won't be permitted to own guns. That worked so well at Virginia Tech we really need to see that it's handled by a more efficient group - like the BATFE for instance.
So what else have we gained? Well, in order to just buy a gun we have to apply for permission from - the BATFE, of course - who treats us like criminals who just haven't been caught and prosecuted yet. They're working on that too.
Back at the Parker case we have the other faction that says "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead." 'Either we're free or we're slaves with fancy collars.' 'Let's get this over with, dying from a thousand cuts leaves us just as dead as bullet through the brain or a hangman's noose.'
As you have probably guessed by now, I'm kinda with that second group. While some of you worry about what you have to lose I look back and remember what has already been lost, mostly through compromise.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
A realistic read of the USA - there will never be a return easy access to full autoweapons. It is in the realm of saying that we should able to have Bofors L-70s in the backyard according to the Constitution.
What we probably can do (if this is a compromise - that's life):
1. Shall issue for more states
2. Modify the shall issue existing rules to get rid of stupid restrictions
3. Fight off a Federal AWB and AWBs in gun friendly states
That's how I see if for the future in realistic mode. As far as no compromise, the GOA has fought against shall issue permits as part of a no compromise stand. I totally disagree with that.
What we probably can do (if this is a compromise - that's life):
1. Shall issue for more states
2. Modify the shall issue existing rules to get rid of stupid restrictions
3. Fight off a Federal AWB and AWBs in gun friendly states
That's how I see if for the future in realistic mode. As far as no compromise, the GOA has fought against shall issue permits as part of a no compromise stand. I totally disagree with that.
I know, my point is that we haven't given up anything so far, it's been taken from us. I don't recall ever reading about debates on gun control where both sides made compromises in accordance with the will of the people. That's my point, that's what we need to do. Fighting against the antis only makes them fight stronger against us until there will come a time when it's "all or nothing" and that's the day many of us will have to start counting back and figuring out which 4473s are still on file.
Instead, actually working with them to figure out a good middle ground will give us a better chance of keeping the law on our side instead of making them think "good lord, they want machine guns and for kids to take guns to school for protection...they're ALL crazy and NONE of them should have ANY guns!".
Dust Monkey
New member
Just went and read the 2A, just to be sure. I did not see any ifs or buts. It is all or nothing. Am I prepared for nothing, probably not, but I am prepared to do my job, within legal means, to gain the "all".
DonR101395
New member
Semantics, it doesn't matter if it was given or taken, gone is gone. They've taken enough in my lifetime and I'm not really willing to give anything up. In other words, they have abused their power and taken what they may have gotten in a compromise. Unless they are willing to start back to pre-34 gun laws with a clean slate, I see no reason to give anything when they haven't earned what was taken.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Duh...are you serious?
What do you call them?
WildaspadeisaspadeAlaska