Would you accept compromise on gun control?

A compromise we can all live with

How about this: If "The Government," the politicians, the unelected bureaucrats et.al. will stop screwing with our right to arms, We The People promise not to start a second American Revolution, round up all the abovementioned and hang them.:D

Just a thought...
 
Steelheart
After the Presidential election of 2004, Democrats asked the question, "Is it proper to shoot Republicans?" First they want to disarm the us, then they want to kill us.
We must question the lucidness and motives of people who think like this - they are against killing foreign terrorists, but not Americans with whom they differ.
Click to expand...

;) Thanks for that...

Marko Kloos

+1 :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

Reading your modest proposal - what do the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." mean to you?
 
Yeah, I figured it would go that way.


We are never going to have absolute control of any freedom or right. There are just as many compromises on speech as there are on arms.

The illustrations some of you made kind of underline that clouded thinking. Slavery, for instance, was abolished by law, but replaced with other social and legal institutions that prevented complete emancipation. To speak of the abolition of slavery as a momentary event shows no understanding of what actually happened. Same with the freedom of speech example - you accept hundreds of social and legal abridgements on your speech, and even salute many as proper and just.


I think that the all or nothing approach doesn't work. It may make you feel like a real stand up guy, but you may as well believe in the Easter Bunny if you believe that gun control could be totally abolished.


This isn't a question of "reasonable gun" control. The question is whether there is a way to ACTUALLY resolve the issue or not. From the majority of the responses, I'd say there isn't.


Since one side will always push the pro-gun agenda with a demand of absolute deregulation, there will always be opposition and stalemate to that extreme stand. I fear that situation is too volatile and is actually more likely to result in draconian gun laws than a general truce on the whole issue. Stand offs have a way of ending that is rarely anticipated, or welcome. Sometimes a true stalemate is better than risking everything.


I appreciate your level of your resolve, but I find that absolutes, like Trix, are for kids.
 
Since one side will always push the pro-gun agenda with a demand of absolute deregulation, there will always be opposition and stalemate to that extreme stand.
Click to expand...
Coming at that a bit backward, are you not, Handy? After all, the Freedom existed first. Abridgments (what you call "compromise") came after the fact. So, it's hardly us "hard liners" that created the call for "compromise".

Further, the nuance of your statement indicates that, if we'd just be "reasonable", the antis will (for the most part) disband.

And you call opposing viewpoints "childish"?
Rich
 
Rich, I realize it is your inclination to try and make me out as a badguy, but hold your horses.

I submit that not a single item on the Bill of Rights has EVER been in absolute affect, even when the ink was still wet. I know this seems like a very offensive thing to say, but if you are going to imply that we have "gotten away from" those rights, I challenge you to demonstrate a period when EVERY US citizen enjoyed absolute protection of speech, arms, whatever.


We live in a compromise called society. I'm not recommending that you should like compromise, "embrace diversity" or anything else. I am suggesting that there are practical limits on the ability to exercise any right, and that an absolute stance on gun control is not a winnable stance. Moreover, it might be a fatal position, since most absolute positions only allow for total surrender.


If you prefer to talk about these issues with religious fervor rather than reality you are only speaking hypothetically. We will NEVER have complete freedom of arms. I think that we need to accept that and figure out what we actually want to get out of it, instead of making silly references to our "cold, dead hands".



Back to you. Are you sure villifying me for speaking of the unspeakable (on a gun forum) shows an ability to discuss this problem as grownups?
 
I would accept nothing less than all the Gun legislation since 1934 being made obsolete and the BATF having some serious reform
 
Rich, I realize it is your inclination to try and make me out as a badguy
Click to expand...
Where's that come from? I spend more time defending your right to opinion publicly and behind the scenes than any other Member here.

If you prefer to talk about these issues with religious fervor rather than reality you are only speaking hypothetically.
Click to expand...
Religious fervor? What on earth are you talking about, Handy? I simply pointed out that your choice to portray BoR conservatives as the very reason why others attack those rights is intellectually disingenuous; and your statement that we are somehow extremists because we prefer a status quo on The BoR, rather than a new "interpretation" with every new generation, is patently absurd.

I'm "vilifying" you? Good Lord, are we reading different threads here?

This Nation did quite well without the types of Second Amendment "compromise" you espouse, well into the 20th Century. It is not us who are required to defend our position; it's you. We're trying to change nothing; you're the one claiming "compromise" is required. State your reasons and defend them or politely beg off.

Rich
 
Handy,

All these right-wing gun boards should be shut down immediately and all their subscribers investigated. OK, I'll compromise and only keep open the ones who contain "reasonable" people like you, and only investigate the other ones.:rolleyes:
 
The heart of the issue, again:


There has never been a period when the BoR has been absolute.

There is no way, given the composition of this country, to ever return to the largely fictional days of absolute protection under the BoR. It is not possible politically, and really, it is not possible practically. The Second Amendment, in particular, is so vague that a strict interpretation creates situations that make even pro-gun people uncomfortable. I have seen this demonstrated recently by many of the things even our most ardent members relinquish as "not covered by 2A".



I (unfortunately) see absolute protection under the Second Amendment as a pipe dream. I don't like that, but I don't like that I can't buy a Lamborghini, either. This thread is supposed to stimulate discussion of our realistic position. If you can't have the Lamborghini, are you going to walk, or actively choose some other car?

I call this discussion "religious" because talking about compromise on this board is like talking about Jesus's dating habits in church. This should be something that we can at least address without getting upset about it or slamming it as an idea beneath contempt.


Continuing to pretend that a total victory in this war is possible is just deciding not to decide. But coming up with key elements that we feel are actually important, and identifying what is not, at least suggests a strategy to deal with the issue and find a resolution. If you can't have the strict letter of the law, what will satisfy the spirit?

I bring this up because I genuinely fear the current state of affairs and feel that the way we fight might well be our downfall. It excludes many possible allies and makes the issue more dramatic and polar than is useful. Do not mistake my attitude for a call for capitulation; I want all the gun rights I can get, and I'm concerned that the philosophical high road is suicide to our cause.



Rich,

If my continued membership is owed primarily to your forebearance, then I thank you for your sponsorship. It has often seemed like my words particularly raise your hackels, but I'm sure the opposite is often true. I'll back off on my language, and ask you to consider that I make the points I do because we need to think, as well as believe. There is no black and white, and we don't make enough effort considering how to deal with gray.
 
Reading your modest proposal - what do the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." mean to you?
Click to expand...

As mentioned before, I already am required to have a licence to keep and bear arms under state laws. My modest proposal would actually increase the rights of citizens in the more restrictive states.

If we could eliminate current gun laws and go to the system I'm proposing, we would all be much better off in the end I think.
 
Shake hands and be friends

I agree with Handy. The only beneficial change to gun laws lately has been the expiration of the 1994 law. It is Unrealistic to expect that future changes in the law will benefit gunowners.

IMHO, we are better off as we are than we will be in a few years. If you don't like it, don't complain: do something.

By the way, how many (other) NRA life members have posted in this thread?:rolleyes:
 
what if they go back and repal that law then you are back whare you started. hire in ohio our ccw laws are a freggin joke. whats the point, it will never work.
 
Handy-
The problem is that you continue to debate using today's laws as the "floor" of the debate; the "compromise" being somewhere between the floor and the ceiling (wherever that is).

Speaking for no one else but me, I will state that I don't "compromise" with liars (Color that VPC and Brady); I don't negotiate with those who have already taken from me. What I will do is look rationally at the laws on the books and state what I believe is fair, without labeling you as "childish" should you disagree.

- Full auto weapons? I have no desire to own one, but see no reason why others shouldn't. Can you provide any pre-'34 info as to their danger?
- Suppressed weapons? Same question as above. In fact, if they were available to all, the technology would be so amazing that no shooter would end up wearing hearing aids (as I and many others here do).
- Sawed off shotguns, rifles and the like? Knock yourself out and supply 'em. The "Wild West" was hardly "Wild" by today's standards.
- Registration? Absolutely. Just demonstrate any society where it has ended up protecting the citizens in the long run. See, that's the way a Constitutional Republic works...the Power is vested in the Citizens. They need provide no defense for their freedoms; rather, the onus is on the Government to demonstrate why it needs a bit of "compromise" between its powers and those of The People.

So, don't talk to me of "compromise" when the next sentence details "just a few" more restrictions, with absolutely zero backup regarding the benefits to society. Talk to me of "compromise" when the next sentence details a few less restrictions or a bit more rationale.

It is not Gun Owners who started this battle; it's Gun Haters. It is not Gun Owners who need to rationalize their position to get a Second Amendment adopted; it's Gun Haters who need to do so to get it watered down.

Capisco?
Rich
 
Hypothetically speaking, to paraphrase some long forgotten old roman guy, "Gun (Control) Laws aren't needed by the law-abiding for they are moral people to begin with, and Gun (Control) Laws are ignored by the criminally inclined"... broadly speaking of course.

So what compromising "Gun (Control) Laws" do is make Politicians feel & look like they're doing something to control crime in order for them to:

a. get re-elected to office and
b. keep the power that firearm ownership allows out of the hands of the low-lifes, by...

(let me think here) easing into full gov't gun control via... gov't regulation & control of full-automatics in the beginning, to setting up a registry of licensed (regulated) firearms salesmen (FFL) and limiting sales out of state or thru' the mail, making certain items illegal to mfg (post '86 Class III) and sell to joe citizen, forcing a waiting period/gov't approval for ALL persons purchasing any type of firearm (long, hand or smoothbore), outright executive order ban on all foreign mfg semi-auto military-type rifles...

Compromise?

BTDT. Got the tee shirt. It says NRA Member
 
Further, the nuance of your statement indicates that, if we'd just be "reasonable", the antis will (for the most part) disband.

And you call opposing viewpoints "childish"?
Rich
Click to expand...
+1.

Just curious, Handy - exactly which facets of our right to arms would you have us throw away?

Handguns?
Autopistols?
Normal ("high":barf: ) capacity magazines?
12ga. ("destructive device":barf: ) shotguns?
Self-loading ("assault":barf: ) rifles?
Scoped centerfire ("sniper":barf: ) rifles?
50 caliber ("terrorist":barf: ) rifles?

What restrictions would you have us agree to?

One gun a month purchase limit?
No more than 100 rounds of ammunition can be owned?
No more than "x" number of guns total can be owned?
No reloading equipment/supplies?


In your opinion, which parts of our right to arms really don't matter?
Which are we being "unreasonable" by defending?
Which do you think will satisfy the antigun zealots if we give them up?
Which will keep them from never again coming back for more if we give them up?
 
There has never been a period when the BoR has been absolute.
Click to expand...

The Constitution would never have been ratified without the BoR. The BoR as the founders intended it are rights that are not given by government nor can be taken away by the government, as they are the rights of the people.

Some citizens have traded comfort and safety for individual rights over the years. This is how the Bill Of Rights have been eroded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top