Would you accept compromise on gun control?

H

Handy

Moderator
What I recently posted on the state of bipartisan politics in another thread got me thinking:


If tomorrow both parties agreed to drop gun issues and never write any bills pertaining to guns again, would you support this?

Specifically, the current gun control laws would stick, and not be repealed. Meanwhile no new bans or restrictions on gun rights would be passed.


The NFA and GCA would stick, as well as the machinegun ban, the obnoxious state laws in Mass. and Cali., background checks and the block on foreign made military style rifles. There would never be an ammo tax and the states that have CCLs stay that way. In other words, what we have today remains:

US built military semis.
Registered NFAs for those with enough money.
CCLs in most states.



While I'm sure many RKBA types would never capitulate in this manner, the above scenerio seems more likely than either side actually "winning" on the gun control debate. So I'm wondering how many of you would accept the restrictions we currently have for the guarantee that the rights we do have are here to stay?



(Please keep in mind that this is hypothetical, so it isn't necessary to comment on whether this is agreement is possible or not. I'm just interested in whether compromise is even considered a possibility, IF the compromise is permanent in nature.)
 
Sure that's great for me. I live in a state with fair laws but what about someone who lives in Washington DC?

I'm all for a compromise but I don't think it's a simple process. The first step is to elmiminate these local laws that prohibit people from keeping guns in their home at all or without a pemit. I always thouht the words "keep and bear arms" meant I could do that in my home without a permit but apparently not in some places.

The next step is to set a national standard for the "bearing" part. Every state has laws on driving and recognizes licenses from other states. Hopefully one day all states will have a resonable permitting process that is nationally recognized.
 
alt,

The point is that there wouldn't be any movement in the laws. Local restrictions would stay.

If you don't like them you move, knowing that they couldn't follow you.
 
No. Because the existing laws violate the 2nd Amendment, and we shouldn't sell out our brethren in CA, DC, etc., just because the laws of our particular state are closer to correct.
 
Living in Wisconsin, heck no... No CCW. :mad:

No. Because the existing laws violate the 2nd Amendment, and we shouldn't sell out our brethren in CA, DC, etc., just because the laws of our particular state are closer to correct.
Click to expand...
 
I would vote no. We cannot agree to our right to arms being violated "a little bit." That's like saying it's okay to rape a woman, as long as you rape her "a little bit."

People who live in CA, MA, NJ, IL, NY, D of C and other states controlled by antigun bigots should not have to uproot their lives and families and move to a "free" state in order to exercise the rights they are guaranteed as American citizens. That is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

NFA '34 and GCA '68 have got to go, period. Both are arbitrary, unconstitutional and unlawful. Getting rid of them will not be easy, but we have to try - we cannot agree to accept any law that violates our right to arms.
 
Handy,
No dice. The law as it stands is unconstitutional. If it were brought into compliance (either changing the law or the Constitution) then yes, I would accept it.
 
Our rights are absolute

Changing the Constitution is not an option. The Bill of Rights - amendments 1 thru 10 - is inviolate. Rights are not negotiable - they are absolute.

If we let the politicians pick and choose which rights they will allow us to have, then we really have no rights.

I will not go there, nor will anyone else that cares about the rights and liberties of We The People.
 
No. Because the existing laws violate the 2nd Amendment, and we shouldn't sell out our brethren in CA, DC, etc., just because the laws of our particular state are closer to correct.
Click to expand...

He/she said it all, but I'll add "Hell No!"

Compromise is what got us where we are today.
 
Anti's always fault shooters for not "compromising". We have been compromising away gun rights for 72 years, and its time we compromised in the other direction.
 
What do you think "amendment" means? Of course the constitution can be changed.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes, the "Living Constitution.":barf:

The Bill of Rights is absolute. It is not negotiable. As I said above -
The Bill of Rights - amendments 1 thru 10 - is inviolate. Rights are not negotiable - they are absolute.

If we let the politicians pick and choose which rights they will allow us to have, then we really have no rights.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here is a final solution I'd accept assuming we could do it in some way that would make it permanent:

A federal licencing system. Nothing elaborate, just a background check to verify you're not a felon and a card you carry to purchase and posess. This would be good enough to own, shoot at a range, hunt, etc.

A step up licence for concealed carry that involves a more exetensive background check and requires a safety/proficency course.

A final harder to get licence would allow ownership of machine guns and the like. It would also be necesary for the sale of firearms(basically a dealers licence) This would require an extensive background check and a more extensive safety/profficency course.


This licencing system would have to be affordable and made reasonably accessable(somewhat like DMVs and Driver's licences).

I would also like to see mandatory gun safety courses in jr high school. I think that it is important that citizens of the USA are able to own and use firearms, but I also think it's important to make sure they understand and accept the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
 
I would like to see Vermont style legislation applied nationwide. No permit required to buy, own or carry concealed - you can do so as long as you don't screw up.

Any federal licensing of a right guaranteed by the Constitution is a bad idea, IMO. How about a federal license to vote? Didn't think so.;)

The problem with a federal license is that it creates a database that tells the government who owns guns - information that can be abused. Other threads have already addressed the possibility of a database being used for the purpose of gun confiscation. Therein lies the problem.

As far as skill testing, what's to stop the government from someday changing the requirements? What if the government decides that it is necessary "for public safety" that anyone who carries a gun must be able to shoot a one inch group shot one handed at 25 yards? Or 50 yards? Very few of us would qualify. No one but Olympic target shooters would qualify to carry a gun.

You can't give the government the ability to license the exercise of a Constitutional right. And you can't give the government a database of all gun owners in the nation. If you do, you invite disaster.

I'll go along with Cowman on gun safety being taught in school - good idea. It will never happen though, due to the "zero tolerance" of the antigun bigots who control the public school systems.
 
Btw, to be fair the proposal I made would increase my rights as an IL resident. Some of you in less restrictive states forget that many of us already have had our rights comprimised.

As it stands now I already need such a licence to posess. I can't have concealed carry period. It's also next to impossible for me to get a machine gun. I don't necesarily have any need for those things but the ability to have them if I wanted to would be nice.
 
Would you accept compromise on gun control?
Click to expand...

If a thief comes into your house to steal all your valuables, and he somehow agrees to only take your TV and your computer and leave you the rest of your belongings, would you accept that compromise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top