You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Would you accept compromise on gun control?
- Thread starter Handy
- Start date
How is "compromise" spelled.
All and sundry, by this time, shiould be well aware of the ultimate goals of the anti gunners, after all, they have told us about them often enough.
So given the evidence of history, and the tactics of the antis, what, in the sprit of "compromise", are they willing to give up and I do not mean taking what is offered today, and coming back for more tomorrow?
All and sundry, by this time, shiould be well aware of the ultimate goals of the anti gunners, after all, they have told us about them often enough.
So given the evidence of history, and the tactics of the antis, what, in the sprit of "compromise", are they willing to give up and I do not mean taking what is offered today, and coming back for more tomorrow?
steelheart
Moderator
"Compromise" is a one way street - always has been
And that "feces" has got to come to an end - otherwise there will come a day when we don't have anything left to give.
As far as I know, the antigun bigots have never given up anything - it's always our side who does the giving up.So given the evidence of history, and the tactics of the antis, what, in the sprit of "compromise", are they willing to give up and I do not mean taking what is offered today, and coming back for more tomorrow?
And that "feces" has got to come to an end - otherwise there will come a day when we don't have anything left to give.
Robert Heinlein had it right years ago (he sounds just like Thomas Jefferson) when he wrote
Any law more restrictive than a ban on possession by violent felons (until they regain responsibility by a period of law-abiding living) or by persons who are presently dangerous because of insanity or chemical dependency (burden of proof on the government) is IMHO unconstitutional.
Beyond this Horizon (1948)."The police of a state should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight, is the foundation of civil freedom."
Any law more restrictive than a ban on possession by violent felons (until they regain responsibility by a period of law-abiding living) or by persons who are presently dangerous because of insanity or chemical dependency (burden of proof on the government) is IMHO unconstitutional.
qualify for a RIGHT
If you have to "qualify" for a right, then it is not a right, it is a priviledge. I do agree that there are some people who should no be allowed arms, for their, and the public safety. But how does one determine who these people are? Perhaps, by their actions?
A permit requirement, a background check, a proficiency test, a waiting period, any thing that denies you until you have satisfied the "authorities", is, by definition, an infringment. This is prior restraint. If you have to wait, and get approval, you are being restrained from exersizing your rights.
Now, some restraint is needed, for the public good. In our past, the restraint was provided by the individual, NOT the government. If the individual failed, THEN the government stepped in.
The example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as restraint on the right of free speech, is recognised as valid. We all recognise that yelling "fire" in that kind of situation can/will cause harm. So, we voluntarily restrain ourselves. If someone fails to do that, then the government takes action against that individual, on our behalf.
When it comes to arms, however, today the situation is reversed. We are restrained by the government (provided we follow the law), until we "prove" that we are capable of behaving properly. This is how one treats children.
I am not a child, and have not been one for quite some time. Therefore, it irks me to be treated as one. I tolerate infringment of my rights (to a point) because I realize that generally it does more good than harm. Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, we are at the point where it does more harm than good.
My own philosophy goes something like this, you want to buy a gun? You gimme cash, I give you gun (ANY GUN). Period. Just like, you gimme cash, I give you book, or cow, or tv, or whatever it is that I sell.
I also believe that, if you screw up with the gun, you should be punished harshly. If you deliberatly misuse your right to bear arms, you should be punished SEVERELY!
By not punishing people who abuse their right to arms severely, we have allowed to come into being a state of affairs where those who do not abuse their right to arms are punished slightly, to "prevent" harm to others. All we have managed to do is put chains on our liberty, and we get the harm anyway!
If you have to "qualify" for a right, then it is not a right, it is a priviledge. I do agree that there are some people who should no be allowed arms, for their, and the public safety. But how does one determine who these people are? Perhaps, by their actions?
A permit requirement, a background check, a proficiency test, a waiting period, any thing that denies you until you have satisfied the "authorities", is, by definition, an infringment. This is prior restraint. If you have to wait, and get approval, you are being restrained from exersizing your rights.
Now, some restraint is needed, for the public good. In our past, the restraint was provided by the individual, NOT the government. If the individual failed, THEN the government stepped in.
The example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as restraint on the right of free speech, is recognised as valid. We all recognise that yelling "fire" in that kind of situation can/will cause harm. So, we voluntarily restrain ourselves. If someone fails to do that, then the government takes action against that individual, on our behalf.
When it comes to arms, however, today the situation is reversed. We are restrained by the government (provided we follow the law), until we "prove" that we are capable of behaving properly. This is how one treats children.
I am not a child, and have not been one for quite some time. Therefore, it irks me to be treated as one. I tolerate infringment of my rights (to a point) because I realize that generally it does more good than harm. Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, we are at the point where it does more harm than good.
My own philosophy goes something like this, you want to buy a gun? You gimme cash, I give you gun (ANY GUN). Period. Just like, you gimme cash, I give you book, or cow, or tv, or whatever it is that I sell.
I also believe that, if you screw up with the gun, you should be punished harshly. If you deliberatly misuse your right to bear arms, you should be punished SEVERELY!
By not punishing people who abuse their right to arms severely, we have allowed to come into being a state of affairs where those who do not abuse their right to arms are punished slightly, to "prevent" harm to others. All we have managed to do is put chains on our liberty, and we get the harm anyway!
Ben Swenson
New member
The situation where our opposition risks losing more than us cannot be achieved.I was not suggesting an accomodation, but a forced armistice. The creation of a situation where the opposition risks losing more than we do.
You say you want a situation where anti-gunners would stand more to lose than we would. What exactly do they ever stand to lose? If an anti-gun law is repealed, they haven't really lost anything. Their possessions aren't being made illegal. The price of their hobbies aren't being artificially inflated. Their safety isn't jeapordized (indeed, their safety can arguably be increased when the laws they support are overturned). They don't have to pay new fees or taxes, get fingerprinted, apply for licenses, or anything else. They lose nothing, even when we "win".
Others drew parallels to Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time!" situation. I think that deserves a little more attention. Neville looked at the situation in Europe and decided that sacrificing the Czechoslovakian Sudetenland to Hitler would appease him. Thus far and no further was the idea. Chamberlain tried to tell the world that if they bend, compromise and give into Hitler's demands, he'll stop pushing for power. Of course, he didn't. Essentially, the Munich agreement served only to solidify his position before he launched his greater campaign. Compromise can work. Appeasement cannot. The Handy Plan is not a compromise, it is appeasement.
Despite the wonderful intentions of the Handy Plan, it would be nothing more than a new floor for them to stand on, and solidifies the ground they've already taken from us.
You're looking at the gun issue like a border skirmish between two honorable opponents, where if both sides decide to freeze things where they are and shake on it, all will be well. In reality, it is more like a major conflict wherein we are the defenders and our dishonorable enemy has already penetrated deep behind our borders. We are not made safer by deeding them the land they've taken and calling it a day.
That concept holds some merit but must be very carefully done. Giving in to even minor concessions can lead to major unintended consequences. FOPA is an example of a very good law that contained a minor concession which ended up increasing the cost of some guns by multiple orders of magnitude. Your example of minimum engineering standards for firearms might eventually end up freezing material development in commercial firearms. It would certainly cause financial hardship to poor families who want or need a firearm for protection but can't afford a high-quality weapon. Your example of mandatory licensing seems safe enough, and it would make it easier to own Title II weapons ... until the licensing requirements are arbitrarily increased, the costs raised and the difficulty magnified.Another example would be the proposal of laws that appear to be gun control but grant wider powers to the guns or people that meet the criteria in the law.
[...] snip [...]
Both of those proposals are examples of selling gun control and ending up with less effective control in return. It uses the gun-grabbers rhetoric against them, but requires a flexible view on our part to force the issue.
Keep in mind, these suggestions of yours would still be enforced by the same people who say a shoelace is a machinegun and a washer is a silencer. Do you think that when they were passed the NFA/GCA originally intended for people to be to jailed for having rubber washers?
44, this is a non-sequitar. A background check is a method of determining what someone's actions are. Or are you talking about some sort of lie detector/pysch test in the gun shop to determine what someone's actions might be.But how does one determine who these people are? Perhaps, by their actions?
A permit requirement, a background check, a proficiency test, a waiting period, any thing that denies you until you have satisfied the "authorities", is, by definition, an infringment
This is a matter of perspective. Anti-gun people, despite the rhetoric, truly believe that the existance of guns has a DIRECT impact on their personal safety and well being. We disagree with that perception, but its value to THEM is not to be denied.You say you want a situation where anti-gunners would stand more to lose than we would. What exactly do they ever stand to lose? If an anti-gun law is repealed, they haven't really lost anything.
Think of it like Santa Claus. Anti-gun people are like kids who would be greatly bereaved to hear Santa isn't coming anymore. And, as with kids, the threat of that has the ability to change behavior and get them to agree to give up other things. Perceotion is reality.
steelheart
Moderator
Wrong.Perceotion is reality.
Reality is reality. "Perception is reality" is like saying "I've never lied to you - I've always told you some version of the truth."
Try that next time you are in court and testifying under oath.
It does follow
Handy, you brought it up in post#140. And, essentially, I agreed with you on this point. It is an infringement, but it is also needed. I accept that, because the "instant check" is less onerous than having to wait days/weeks for approval.
I am not referring to any kind of test to determine what someone might do. I am referring to what they have done. A background check showing someone has had problems obeying the law in the past is a pretty good indication of how they will behave in the future. Not absolute, I grant you, sometimes people really do change. There should be an appeals process available for those who have.
Perception is not reality, but perception can become reality for the believer. This does not make it real in truth, but it does make it real for them. Just as real as the truth. For them. And because of this, great disputes have arisen, and much harm has been done.
Isn't that the whole basis for gun control? Some people's perception of what guns are? They percieve guns as a malignant force of evil, lying in wait for their chance to wreak harm on people. Some believe that the mere presence of a gun can somehow seduce individuals into violent behavior, when without the gun's "evil" influence, they would never consider such acts. And therefore, they must be controlled, for public safety.
I believe my preception of reality is the same as the actual truth, that guns are inanimate objects. Tools. Nothing more. Their purpose is to strike an object with force, at a distance. What that object is, and why it should be struck is entirely dependant on the will of the user.
There are no irresponsible guns. Only people. There are no evil guns. Only people.
Handy, you brought it up in post#140. And, essentially, I agreed with you on this point. It is an infringement, but it is also needed. I accept that, because the "instant check" is less onerous than having to wait days/weeks for approval.
I am not referring to any kind of test to determine what someone might do. I am referring to what they have done. A background check showing someone has had problems obeying the law in the past is a pretty good indication of how they will behave in the future. Not absolute, I grant you, sometimes people really do change. There should be an appeals process available for those who have.
Perception is not reality, but perception can become reality for the believer. This does not make it real in truth, but it does make it real for them. Just as real as the truth. For them. And because of this, great disputes have arisen, and much harm has been done.
Isn't that the whole basis for gun control? Some people's perception of what guns are? They percieve guns as a malignant force of evil, lying in wait for their chance to wreak harm on people. Some believe that the mere presence of a gun can somehow seduce individuals into violent behavior, when without the gun's "evil" influence, they would never consider such acts. And therefore, they must be controlled, for public safety.
I believe my preception of reality is the same as the actual truth, that guns are inanimate objects. Tools. Nothing more. Their purpose is to strike an object with force, at a distance. What that object is, and why it should be struck is entirely dependant on the will of the user.
There are no irresponsible guns. Only people. There are no evil guns. Only people.
Handy
The rigidity in those Bill of Rights "rules" is in that they are "ABSOLUTELY" not to be infringed upon... They are inalienable, and as such should be revered as inviolate.
44AMP
I submit that this is the root of the erosion of "inalienable" rights...
No... it makes them eroded!ideals to be realized as much as possible, rather than absolutely rigid verbatim rules, and that a certain amount of law pertaining to them doesn't make them void.
The rigidity in those Bill of Rights "rules" is in that they are "ABSOLUTELY" not to be infringed upon... They are inalienable, and as such should be revered as inviolate.
44AMP
What you are advocating with this is that it is alright to inconvenience or punish or infringe upon the Majority, in order to expedite and facilitate controlling of the Minority...and make the LEO's job easier...It is an infringement, but it is also needed.
I submit that this is the root of the erosion of "inalienable" rights...
Ben Swenson
New member
Fair enough. Still, how does the Handy Plan cause them to stand to lose anything? If you propose that anti-gunners stand to lose when we make gains, how does freezing laws at their current restrictive level cause them to lose?This is a matter of perspective. Anti-gun people, despite the rhetoric, truly believe that the existance of guns has a DIRECT impact on their personal safety and well being. We disagree with that perception, but its value to THEM is not to be denied.
steelheart
Moderator
Irrational thinking such as this is the root of the problem. That and the fact that there are politicians who want to disarm us for their own purposes.Isn't that the whole basis for gun control? Some people's perception of what guns are? They percieve guns as a malignant force of evil, lying in wait for their chance to wreak harm on people. Some believe that the mere presence of a gun can somehow seduce individuals into violent behavior, when without the gun's "evil" influence, they would never consider such acts. And therefore, they must be controlled, for public safety.
Roger that!There are no irresponsible guns. Only people. There are no evil guns. Only people.
Ben,
They don't have to lose anything. The point is not to punish but to make them worry that there will be even more guns if they don't take the deal. It's all about manuevering the liberals into concessions through either a perceived threat or legal chicanery.
Steelheart, when there is a cure for "irrational thinking" we'll put it in the water supply. Until then, maybe it would be better to try and bend it to our needs rather than fruitlessly contest it.
They don't have to lose anything. The point is not to punish but to make them worry that there will be even more guns if they don't take the deal. It's all about manuevering the liberals into concessions through either a perceived threat or legal chicanery.
Steelheart, when there is a cure for "irrational thinking" we'll put it in the water supply. Until then, maybe it would be better to try and bend it to our needs rather than fruitlessly contest it.
One of the lessons from the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s is that rights are personal, they belong to the individual, not to the locality, and while a government may add rights it cannot take basic ones away. Hence I often think of myself as obligated to work for the gun rights of those who live in NYC, Washington D.C., Chicago, etc. in the same way civil rights
worked on the 1960s felt themselves morally obliged to work for voting rights
for those who lived in areas where people were disenfranchised through a
combination of discriminatory laws and intimidation.
worked on the 1960s felt themselves morally obliged to work for voting rights
for those who lived in areas where people were disenfranchised through a
combination of discriminatory laws and intimidation.
Let me throw a fly in the ointment:
How many people on this board, who voted to not compromise, are also believers in "state's rights" or federalism? If you truly believe in state's rights, you can't also consistently believe in having the federal courts force gun freedom down the throats of CA, for instance. I detest the fact that the judicial tyrants have forced certain profound moral issues down our throats recently, and I would welcome very much a Supreme Court change of heart, allowing the citizens of the several states to decide those issues for themselves.
So the real question for me is: Would you be willing to compromise on gun control, if we were a truly free people able to vote and make a choice on every topic of moral consequence at the state level? That answer would have to be yes.
My previous posts were hypocritical with regard to state's rights. Mea maxima culpa.
How many people on this board, who voted to not compromise, are also believers in "state's rights" or federalism? If you truly believe in state's rights, you can't also consistently believe in having the federal courts force gun freedom down the throats of CA, for instance. I detest the fact that the judicial tyrants have forced certain profound moral issues down our throats recently, and I would welcome very much a Supreme Court change of heart, allowing the citizens of the several states to decide those issues for themselves.
So the real question for me is: Would you be willing to compromise on gun control, if we were a truly free people able to vote and make a choice on every topic of moral consequence at the state level? That answer would have to be yes.
My previous posts were hypocritical with regard to state's rights. Mea maxima culpa.
afsnco
Bravo!... State Rights WAS the best thing that ever happened in the US...
But now it is mostly dead and the United States should be renamed the Merged Provinces because the States have allowed "compromises" until their rights have been badly eroded...
So, it would seem that the Federal Gov'mint has become a strong central and controlling gov'mint and therefore the "sheeple" think that more compromising is the only way to cope with it...
Few, if any, have the stomach to stand their ground...so they yield an inch at a time and even advocate our sacrifice in exchange for our principles...
AND they ignore the obvious, like the elephant in the living room...
Bravo!... State Rights WAS the best thing that ever happened in the US...
But now it is mostly dead and the United States should be renamed the Merged Provinces because the States have allowed "compromises" until their rights have been badly eroded...
So, it would seem that the Federal Gov'mint has become a strong central and controlling gov'mint and therefore the "sheeple" think that more compromising is the only way to cope with it...
Few, if any, have the stomach to stand their ground...so they yield an inch at a time and even advocate our sacrifice in exchange for our principles...
AND they ignore the obvious, like the elephant in the living room...
States' Rights...
From the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
Various courts have held that this clause of the 14th Amendment applies the protections and prohibitions of the Bill of Rights to state governments. However, the courts have never explicitly addressed whether the Second Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, until there is a determination by the Supreme Court of the United States that the Second Amendment applies to the states, each state will be free to write its own more restrictive gun control laws if it chooses to do so. Many states have written mirrors of the Second Amendment into their state constitutions. States with the more restrictive gun laws, e.g. California and New York, presumbably have not (although I'm not familiar with their constitutions), and see themselves as free to restrict the rights of gun owners with impunity. A ruling by the US Supreme Court that the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to the Second Amendment would go a long way toward more uniform gun laws across the United States.
From the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
Various courts have held that this clause of the 14th Amendment applies the protections and prohibitions of the Bill of Rights to state governments. However, the courts have never explicitly addressed whether the Second Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, until there is a determination by the Supreme Court of the United States that the Second Amendment applies to the states, each state will be free to write its own more restrictive gun control laws if it chooses to do so. Many states have written mirrors of the Second Amendment into their state constitutions. States with the more restrictive gun laws, e.g. California and New York, presumbably have not (although I'm not familiar with their constitutions), and see themselves as free to restrict the rights of gun owners with impunity. A ruling by the US Supreme Court that the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to the Second Amendment would go a long way toward more uniform gun laws across the United States.
by default all others should go to the state level
by default???
The states represented by the Senate had NO intention of giving up states rights as sovereign entities at the time of the Declaration of Independence and the original uniting of the States.
It was the primary argument when creating the plans for a federal gov't...which was to provide for national security and the general welfare (Not the dole) of the people...and over the many decades since, the general welfare has come to include anything that can possibly be imagined as the general welfare and has been usurped by every conceivable Federal Bureaucracy at absolutely incredible expense in taxes, permits, personal rights and self-determination and the total erosion of the American spirit of self-respect and responsibility for their own decisions...
(New Orleans anyone?)
I will not compromise one more inch until I see the liberal left sacrifice several yards!!
Last edited: