What is enough compromise??

Good question. I would stand now..but I am not so foolish as to stand alone. I am willing to fight for Liberty...but I am not willing to foolishly give up my life unless in the giving the end result will be better for EVERYONE than it was before.

I've seen firsthand what civil war does to a nation. I did a tour in Bosnia as part of a NATO stabilization force...during my time there I saw not a single building that was unmarked by small arms fire or worse. I drove through areas of the country in which whole towns and villages were leveled. Not a single building was left standing.

I do not wish that for my country..but those in control will NEVER give up that control voluntarily. The beast is loosed from it's chains...it will never willingly submit to the chain again.
 
Redworm said:
However I also realize that people saying "my nine year old should be allowed to walk around the city carrying a rifle" are not going to win.
Click to expand...
I really dislike people who either put words in my mouth that I didn't say or read more into what I wrote than I actually wrote.

What I'm trying to tell you, is that for a long long time, kids walked around with their 22 rifles, just as free as you please. We knew what they could do, after all, we hunted with them! The east coast metro areas are probably the only places in the US that you didn't see this... And I'm not at all sure about that!

Now what the heck changed, in the span of 10 years that wiped out what had been going on for the last 300 hundred years or so? Why are you so all-fired sure that you can't trust a firearms educated juvenile?
 
Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just using it as an example of the extremes of the argument that antigunners use against us. Again, it may be fine in rural environments but in densely populated areas that will not fly. The probability of there being a lot of untrained nine year olds with rifles is much higher, enough for the antis to say "If they want kids to be walking around with guns they're too crazy to have any themselves!"
 
yknow what, let's forget the nine year olds. how about the four and five year olds? I'm sure most if not all of us can agree that a child that young cannot possibly comprehend the responsibility of carrying a firearm. y'all can hit me with whatever anecdotes you wish but to have a four year old you can trust with a gun is astronomically rare. the point is that some people feel that even nine year olds are not responsible enough, that they don't quite have a grasp of how they can hurt others. others feel that way about twelve year olds, others about sixteen year olds (especially considering the number of car accidents they cause)

The antis have a perfectly reasonable expectation of keeping guns out of those too young to truly understand what they have, especially in dense populations where the chances of someone getting killed by an irresponsible kid skyrocket. What we ought to do is come to an agreement on that age. Ten is unreasonable, as is twenty-five. Fourteen? Still too young for too many considering the driving age, even sixteen is too young for some. Twenty-one is also silly, if you're mature enough to vote you're mature enough to shoot. So let's compromise with them and agree that eighteen is a good number, that anyone under that age should not be carrying a firearm in public but anyone above that age should not be barred from doing so...unless of course they happen to be a violent criminal.
 
How about this for a novel idea..let's let parents take back the role that has been traditionally theirs..and let THEM decide what their children are old enough, and responsible enough for. Nobody knows a child like that one's parents. If I think that my seven year old son Liam is old enough and possesses the mental faculties to learn the importance of the rules regarding firearms use then I'd have to ask what business is it of yours to intrude into that?? It should NEVER be based on age..but maturity level.
 
yknow what, let's forget the nine year olds. how about the four and five year olds? I'm sure most if not all of us can agree that a child that young cannot possibly comprehend the responsibility of carrying a firearm. y'all can hit me with whatever anecdotes you wish but to have a four year old you can trust with a gun is astronomically rare. the point is that some people feel that even nine year olds are not responsible enough, that they don't quite have a grasp of how they can hurt others. others feel that way about twelve year olds, others about sixteen year olds (especially considering the number of car accidents they cause)

The antis have a perfectly reasonable expectation of keeping guns out of those too young to truly understand what they have, especially in dense populations where the chances of someone getting killed by an irresponsible kid skyrocket. What we ought to do is come to an agreement on that age. Ten is unreasonable, as is twenty-five. Fourteen? Still too young for too many considering the driving age, even sixteen is too young for some. Twenty-one is also silly, if you're mature enough to vote you're mature enough to shoot. So let's compromise with them and agree that eighteen is a good number, that anyone under that age should not be carrying a firearm in public but anyone above that age should not be barred from doing so...unless of course they happen to be a violent criminal.
Click to expand...


So you want to compromise away the American tradition of hunting until someone is at least 18? I'm with Danzig and Antipitis on this one. I'm only 39, but I was one of those 10 year olds with a gun out hunting squirrels and rabbits on my own. Most states already have laws against those under 16(18 in some states) possessing a firearm unless they are accompanied by an adult. It's a parent's responsibility to teach their kids. They know the maturity level of their kid not the state. Sorry but you can't legislate safety.
 
Some example.

I give you a history lesson and you twist it, like any anti would... Hmmmm!
Click to expand...
I get the history lesson but the point remains. Fewer and fewer people see children as responsible enough to carry guns in public. Far fewer than those that could agree adults are all responsible enough. It's far more important that all adults be able to carry than some adults and some children.
 
How about this for a novel idea..let's let parents take back the role that has been traditionally theirs..and let THEM decide what their children are old enough, and responsible enough for. Nobody knows a child like that one's parents. If I think that my seven year old son Liam is old enough and possesses the mental faculties to learn the importance of the rules regarding firearms use then I'd have to ask what business is it of yours to intrude into that?? It should NEVER be based on age..but maturity level.
Click to expand...
That'd be nice if it were possible to convince all the parents of the country to think that way but it's not. You may believe your seven year old is mature enough to carry a gun in public - a different issue than you simply teaching him about firearms and how to shoot - but ten other parents will disagree with you and the safety of those children will outweigh the need for your child to shoot a bunny.

Maturity level is not a quantifiable figure. Then think about this: those that don't want any of us to have guns will likely believe that we're not mature enough if we believe kids are.
 
So you want to compromise away the American tradition of hunting until someone is at least 18? I'm with Danzig and Antipitis on this one. I'm only 39, but I was one of those 10 year olds with a gun out hunting squirrels and rabbits on my own. Most states already have laws against those under 16(18 in some states) possessing a firearm unless they are accompanied by an adult. It's a parent's responsibility to teach their kids. They know the maturity level of their kid not the state. Sorry but you can't legislate safety.
Click to expand...
How does saying that children cannot be armed in public stop you from taking your kid hunting? You're not hunting on Main Street.

You have to remember that while one parent may know the maturity level of their child all the parents around them don't. You can indeed legislate safety; we require automakers to build cars with airbags, we put violent people behind bars, we make food companies comply with standards and drug companies run numerous tests all in the name of safety. Of course it never solves all the problems but it does cut down on the number of them and while your kid might be responsible enough to carry a gun by himself the kids of ten other parents might not be and thus the parents of thirty other kids are going to say no to them being allowed to do so.

Barring a child from carrying a gun does not prevent tyranny. You can take your kid hunting under supervision and teach him how to use that rifle to defend the home if someone breaks in. But it is far more important than adults be able to carry than children and I am certainly willing to compromise on that. It'll be a hell of a lot easier to convince antis that carrying in public is ok if we agree to limit that to adults. Like it or not they are the majority and scaring them into wanting more gun control is not in our best interest.

They've mastered the tactic of slowly ebbing away this right in baby steps. The way to get them back is not to demand a complete reversal overnight but to also take baby steps. Convince them slowly, compromise on an age restriction for carrying, giving the rest of us the ability to do so, and once we have that back we can take another baby step and fight to lower that restriction.
 
but ten other parents will disagree with you and the safety of those children will outweigh the need for your child to shoot a bunny.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I disagree. If the one kid is safe the other ten kids are not in danger. I can't/don't/won't buy into the "it's for the kids safety" argument. Not until they ban every harmful thing on the planet and do it "for the kids safety". That would mean alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, petroleum, all drugs and medications, I think you get the drift. You can't legislate safety. Safety has to be taught and some common sense has to be applied.
 
Redworm..easy answer..please give me something more challenging in the future.. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was meant to protect the minority from the tyranny of a majority. That is part of the reason why this country is NOT a democracy. The founders rightly feared the tyranny of democracy. My rights cannot be morally violated simply because a majority may be afraid of my exercise of those rights.

That should have been a no brainer.
 
Sorry, but I disagree. If the one kid is safe the other ten kids are not in danger. I can't/don't/won't buy into the "it's for the kids safety" argument. Not until they ban every harmful thing on the planet and do it "for the kids safety". That would mean alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, petroleum, all drugs and medications, I think you get the drift. You can't legislate safety. Safety has to be taught and some common sense has to be applied.
Click to expand...
You may believe the one kid is safe but those ten other parents have nothing to go on but your word and for many people the word of a parent saying "my son's a good boy" is not enough. Kids are not allowed alcohol, tobacco, automobiles or drugs and medications without parent supervision. Age limits - some reasonable, two certainly not - have been set on those in the name of safety. You can legislate safety by reducing the possibility of something going wrong.

"Common sense" doesn't fly; so many people think it's "common sense" that kids should not walk around with guns that "common sense" isn't very common.
 
Redworm..easy answer..please give me something more challenging in the future.. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was meant to protect the minority from the tyranny of a majority. That is part of the reason why this country is NOT a democracy. The founders rightly feared the tyranny of democracy. My rights cannot be morally violated simply because a majority may be afraid of my exercise of those rights.

That should have been a no brainer.
Click to expand...
Tyranny of a minority over a majority is pretty bad but tyranny of a majority by a minority is just as heinous.

Your rights are not being violated when you're told that your seven year old cannot get on the school bus with a rifle on his back. Your child is not fighting of tyranny at school, your child is not defending his classroom from terrorists or government agents. Your child may be perfectly capable of being safe but the children of other parents may not be and the risk of a little kid getting killed - accidentally or intentionally - is greater than the risk of a little kid having to defend his school from thugs or his freedom from the ATF.

What the founders feared may happen if we don't wake up and realize that the majority doesn't want us having guns. The way for us to keep them is not to pound on the Constitution like it's some magical tome that's going to save us, the way for us to keep them is not to frighten the rest of the country with "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" but to make them see reason and agree with us. It's a lot easier to do that when we compromise, when we say "Ok we won't let seven year olds walk around town with guns...but seventeen year olds and anyone over that age is certainly responsible enough."

It will be a lot easier for us to retain our rights when we convince others that they're important. Keep scaring them and making them think you're going to open fire at the first federal agent that comes a-knockin' because Junior went to school with a .22 and we're only going to make things worse.
 
Redworm said:
I get the history lesson but the point remains. Fewer and fewer people see children as responsible enough to carry guns in public. Far fewer than those that could agree adults are all responsible enough. It's far more important that all adults be able to carry than some adults and some children.
Click to expand...
This answer simply begs the questions I asked before, that you not only failed to address, but ignored altogether.

City kids (urban, suburban and rural) in the time period I'm talking about, used to do this quite often. They didn't attack other kids. They didn't attack the schools. In fact, up until Columbine, kids had not done this kind of thing at all. These kinds of things were all done by adults. Not children.

So what changed? Because the change occurred well before Columbine. Why did society all of a sudden decide we couldn't trust these kids, who had been doing this for hundreds of years prior?
 
You may believe the one kid is safe but those ten other parents have nothing to go on but your word and for many people the word of a parent saying "my son's a good boy" is not enough. Kids are not allowed alcohol, tobacco, automobiles or drugs and medications without parent supervision. Age limits - some reasonable, two certainly not - have been set on those in the name of safety. You can legislate safety by reducing the possibility of something going wrong.

"Common sense" doesn't fly; so many people think it's "common sense" that kids should not walk around with guns that "common sense" isn't very common.
Click to expand...

In most states currently they also aren't allowed to carry a gun without parent supervision.
BTW there is no age restriction for owning a car, only registering and driving a car.
 
This answer simply begs the questions I asked before, that you not only failed to address, but ignored altogether.

City kids (urban, suburban and rural) in the time period I'm talking about, used to do this quite often. They didn't attack other kids. They didn't attack the schools. In fact, up until Columbine, kids had not done this kind of thing at all. These kinds of things were all done by adults. Not children.

So what changed? Because the change occurred well before Columbine. Why did society all of a sudden decide we couldn't trust these kids, who had been doing this for hundreds of years prior?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing a variety of factors from increases in population density, violence in media, fewer responsible parents raising their children properly (more single parents and two working parents leaving more kids at home alone), more drugs on the street...whole lot of things may have contributed and just because the laws were changed at that time doesn't mean that all those changes happened around that time.

Nor does it mean I think it was a good idea for those laws to change the way they did however today's environment is considerably different from fourty years ago. Even if kids that young are perfectly capable of handling guns in public it's counter-productive to demand they be allowed to when it's only going to make the antis fight harder. Instead we demand that adults be free to exercise their rights and once we've jumped that hurdle we can move on to the kids.
 
In most states currently they also aren't allowed to carry a gun without parent supervision.
BTW there is no age restriction for owning a car, only registering and driving a car.
Click to expand...
Well there ya go. The age restriction is already there and if we want to lower that age we ought to put that on the back burner, let the antis say that kids are not mature enough to walk around with guns unsupervised and instead fight for adults to carry whenever and wherever we damn well please. But in that case it's going to be a lot easier for us to fight to carry in public than it is to fight to carry in airplanes, court houses and schools.

Baby steps and compromise.


oh and as far as cars go, you're right. but you can take your kid on your own property and teach him how to shoot providing your property makes for a decent range.
 
You may believe the one kid is safe but those ten other parents have nothing to go on but your word and for many people the word of a parent saying "my son's a good boy" is not enough.


Sorry but I forgot to address the first part of your question. What you're telling me is that I have to take the word of another parent that their 16 year old is responsible enough to drive a Corvette or Yamaha R6 in public which are just as deadly if not more so than a .22 rifle or .410 shotgun. Living in NWFL I see alot more of the former than the latter and can tell you I would trust my neighbor kid with a .410 before I trust most of the kids I see driving sports cars and motorcycles.
As an example: My wife arrested a kid for doing wheelies and 70mph in a 35 on one of the main and most busiest streets in town. The kid was 17, no helmet, no shirt, just wearing shorts and flip flops. When dad came to pick him up, he goes ballistic about picking on "little Jonny". Good news little Jonny won't be driving until he's 21 and daddy dearest paid some hefty fines for Jr.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry but I forgot to address the first part of your question. What you're telling me is that I have to take the word of another parent that their 16 year old is responsible enough to drive a Corvette or Yamaha R6 in public which are just as deadly if not more so than a .22 rifle or .410 shotgun. Living in NWFL I see alot more of the former than the latter and can tell you I would trust my neighbor kid with a .410 before I trust most of the kids I see driving sports cars and motorcycles.
As an example: My wife arrested a kid for doing wheelies and 70mph in a 35 on one of the main and most busiest streets in town. The kid was 17, no helmet, no shirt, just wearing shorts and flip flops. When dad came to pick him up, he goes ballistic about picking on "little Jonny". Good news little Jonny won't be driving until he's 21 and daddy dearest paid some hefty fines for Jr.
Click to expand...
In that case we take the word of many people over the years that have created licensing exams. Want your 16 year old to carry his .22 or .410 shotgun around? Let's create a licensing system for it. But first let's make sure that you, I and the rest of the legal adults are not kept from exercising our rights. We can argue with the antis about 16 year olds later. Let them have their pound of flesh for now, once our rights are secure we can move onto the next step.

That being said driver's tests are woefully inadequate and also need toughening up. We clearly see what a lack of responsibility can cause when paired with a dangerous machine even when licensed so why on earth make it even easier for such lack of responsibility to be paired with yet another dangerous machine but a machine designed specifically with killing in mind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top