What are you willing to accept?


PDA






paintballdude902
January 12, 2013, 12:04 PM
while reading this article today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/12/range-executive-actions-possible-on-guns-some-more-controversial-than-others/#ixzz2Hlo5qyCa



it got me thinking (dangerous, i know..) how much are we willing to accept? I for one, would like to see tighter control on gun sales to keep them out of the hands of people that shouldnt own them. but who makes the decision on who can and cant? if i get diagnosed with PTSD(im active duty) is someone going to make the call that im dangerous? what if i go on antidepressants? what if i just start talking to a shrink because i need someone to talk to?

at what point do i stop letting them invade my personal life?

where do we draw the line? id love it if another gun never fell into the wrong hand again and id love to see harsher punishments for anyone committing a crime with a gun


but where do we draw the line? where do we start pushing back? this is a real possibility right now as were facing a possible executive order.




when its time to bury them, its time to dig them up.....

If you enjoyed reading about "What are you willing to accept?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
January 12, 2013, 12:20 PM
What am I willing to accept? Repeal of NFA'34 and GCA '68. That would render the other questions moot.

Beyond that, not one single thing.

thunder173
January 12, 2013, 12:25 PM
+1000 ...Just what Sam1911 said above. We have already "comprimised" too much.

Greenmachin3
January 12, 2013, 12:27 PM
I'm willing to accept apologies for creating "gun free zones" on public property and removing them immediately. Other than that, I think any concessions would be a HUGE mistake in that not only would violent crime increase, but the constitution would have effectively been ignored again.

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 12:31 PM
while i may be FORCED to accept new regulations......i am not WILLING to accept a damn thing.

ngnrd
January 12, 2013, 12:32 PM
What compromise? What has the anti-gun movement ever given up?

jerkface11
January 12, 2013, 12:32 PM
I'm willing to accept resignations. Nothing less.

gunsandreligion
January 12, 2013, 12:33 PM
Im willing to accept CMP m60s after the NFA and GCA are repealed.

gearhead
January 12, 2013, 12:35 PM
Laws and regulations will do little to keep weapons (let's not limit the discussion to only firearms here) out of the hands of those who are willing or even anxious to do harm to others while doing much to keep weapons out of the hands of those who will never use them against another living creature except in legitimate self-defense.

yokel
January 12, 2013, 12:46 PM
We must challenge ourselves and each other to think and act as if these fiercest and most treacherous of foes have put our Liberty -our very lives- in peril.

The time for apathy and appeasement must end and the time for serious change must start.

dogrunner
January 12, 2013, 12:48 PM
I'd vote for Sam!

BSA1
January 12, 2013, 12:51 PM
I for one, would like to see tighter control on gun sales to keep them out of the hands of people that shouldnt own them.

During Hitler's rise to power France and England beieved compromise was the best way to avoid war with Germany. It sounds like you are falling victim to the same type of thinking.

tomrkba
January 12, 2013, 12:51 PM
What Sam said.

Skribs
January 12, 2013, 12:53 PM
Sam1911 for President!

Been said in other threads but I'll say it again!

Sam1911
January 12, 2013, 12:54 PM
We seem to be stuck in a blind rut running around in circles hollering "GIVE 'EM SOMETHIN' QUICK BOYS, SO THEY'LL LEAVE US ALONE!!!" Kind of absurd.

Kind of like being in a life boat surrounded by sharks yelling, "Throw out all the food and bait...that'll make them go away!"

Sheesh. :rolleyes:
So said I a month or so back.

Manco
January 12, 2013, 12:54 PM
Nothing that takes away from arming the general population against the crazies, and everything that promotes it. Being armed for self-defense is the only effective measure--just ask the police and Obama's security detail.

Cosmoline
January 12, 2013, 12:59 PM
I'd be fine with a complete reworking of federal gun control laws to change the stance from anti-gun to improvement in marksmanship and safety. Not that it's going to happen, but if we WERE proceeding as we were supposed to, the feds would be helping us build ranges and buy everyone a safe instead of trying to throw us in prison for decades because of a .1" variation on a barrel or a malfunctioning firing pin.

The real place to start is to restore trust, and that will not happen so long as the current legal framework is taken apart, the BATFE disbanded forever and they stop treating us like presumptive criminals. I think there is room for federal gun laws, but ones designed to encourage and improve marksmanship or provide surplus arms to citizens.

paintballdude902
January 12, 2013, 01:02 PM
During Hitler's rise to power France and England beieved compromise was the best way to avoid war with Germany. It sounds like you are falling victim to the same type of thinking.

no but i think drug addicts shouldnt own guns or people with violent felonies on the record. but i dont think any law abiding person should be limited. i think we can all agree that someone who is going to kill someone else shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. but how do we make that determination? we cant....

Manco
January 12, 2013, 01:08 PM
What compromise? What has the anti-gun movement ever given up?

Exactly, they give up nothing. Every single "compromise" is a defeat for America and a victory for the socialists who wish to "fundamentally change America" (their own stunning admission that few seem to comprehend). The more guns we have, the safer we all are from the lunatics among us, as well as tyranny from the lunatics in our increasingly socialistic government. Fewer guns is not a solution for anything, unless we want to enable mass-murderers and tyranny.

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 01:10 PM
no but i think drug addicts shouldnt own guns or people with violent felonies on the record. but i dont think any law abiding person should be limited. i think we can all agree that someone who is going to kill someone else shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. but how do we make that determination? we cant....

illegal drug users and people with felonies are already barred from legally buying a gun.....and murder is already illegal.

you can pass all the laws you want, it wont stop people from killing each other......and it still wont stop a criminal from buying a gun.

you mean to tell me someone who knows how to score smack cant also find a guy to sell him a gun?

jerkface11
January 12, 2013, 01:10 PM
Here's a compromise. We add all "assault weapons" to the NFA as machineguns. With a free registration for all existing guns. All new ones require a tax stamp.

76shuvlinoff
January 12, 2013, 01:13 PM
No compromise.

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 01:15 PM
Here's a compromise. We add all "assault weapons" to the NFA as machineguns. With a free registration for all existing guns. All new ones require a tax stamp.


how the hell is a gun registration a 'compromise'....?

LeonCarr
January 12, 2013, 01:16 PM
I would accept the Feds actually enforcing the existing gun laws, I believe there are about 20,000 of them, and repealing NFA '34 and GCA '68.

How many people were prosecuted between 1994 and 2004 for illegally building high capacity magazines or putting pre-ban features on post-ban guns? If it happened, it never made the national news.

Any new laws coming out will be only for the purpose of infringing on our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Wyndage
January 12, 2013, 01:17 PM
I will happily transfer my privately sold firearms through an FFL (thereby helping to support my local gun shop) if the gun prohibitionists agree to remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA.

Old Fuff
January 12, 2013, 01:25 PM
When the founders of this country wrote and adopted the first 10 amendments to they're new Constitution (now called The Bill of Rights,) they made the second one to insure the people could defend the others if push came to shove.

Obviously if the entire population was to have a universal right to keep and bear arms, there would be some who probably should have been excluded. But the founders considered that to be a minor consequence when looking at the overall picture. Their wise vision has insured that throughout its subsequent history this country has not found itself living under a dictator - foreign or domestic.

Criminals and the mentally deranged have no inclination to pay any attention to laws, or what they say. Anyone who thinks something can be eliminated through legal prohibition or statutes in a lawbook should take a look at how well it has worked with alcoholic beverages and controlled(?) substances.

I for one will never compromise ANY of the rights granted to me by the Constitution. Too many others have died to protect them, and I will not sacrifice to even the smallest degree what they defended.

OptimusPrime
January 12, 2013, 01:25 PM
+1 on accepting resignations and apologies.

larryh1108
January 12, 2013, 02:02 PM
Why accept anything that has been proven to be ineffective, erodes our rights and will lead to further erosion of our rights. What is there to gain? In compromise, you give up something to gain something. Here, we give up something, get nothing in return and set ourselves up to have more taken away when they don't get the results they want. It's a lose/lose proposition. What are we willing to give up? Nothing. Period.

barnbwt
January 12, 2013, 02:08 PM
where do we draw the line? id love it if another gun never fell into the wrong hand again and id love to see harsher punishments for anyone committing a crime with a gun

The line keeps getting pushed back by those in our country who no longer believe in personal responsibility. The notion that; because a few individuals refuse to look after their own, to provide for themselves, to protect themselves, we must cease to expect any shred of decency from everyon else. That, because some guy in Connecticut lost it, I must be assumed incapable of controlling my actions.

Usually, there is some sort of transference involved in this argument (I think that's the right psych word :o). People demanding restrictions on guns frequently don't trust themselves with the power carried by firearms, and therefore cannot trust them in the hands of others. If you cannot trust yourself with your own defense, you have no recourse to protect your safety other than to disarm those around you. The first step in building self-trust (confidence) is gaining experience, something too few bother themselves with when it comes to firearms.

We need to promote the importance of self-determination in this country; far too many see no need to govern their own affairs anymore, and find comfort from anyone willing to perform this task for them. Independence and self-reliance is increasingly seen as "outmoded" or worse, a sign of anti-social behavior (see the early press report of the the Conneticut shooter "not having a Facebook account" as being evidence of his mental instability :rolleyes:). Real men look to themselves (and God) for salvation, and real women do what is necessary to protect what is precious to them. We badly need a Henry David Thoreau in this country.

TCB

ScrapMetalSlug
January 12, 2013, 02:10 PM
Opening up the MG registry again would be a good compromise. I haven't seen that talked about by anyone.

GBExpat
January 12, 2013, 02:13 PM
how much are we willing to accept?

Willing to accept?

As I do not willingly accept the 2A restrictions that have been forced upon us over the years, I am not willing to accept more of the same.

JohnnyK
January 12, 2013, 02:15 PM
I'd accept teachers being able to carry concealed in the classroom and no more "gun free" zones.

CountryUgly
January 12, 2013, 02:20 PM
What am I willing to accept? Repeal of NFA'34 and GCA '68. That would render the other questions moot.

Beyond that, not one single thing.
^^^ What he said ^^^

Landis
January 12, 2013, 02:32 PM
I am willing to accept the arrest of all legislators claiming to want to pass more civilian disarmament laws on the basis that they are violating the constitution, and their oath they took to protect it, for they are truly enemies of the American people.

Followed by conviction of treason and the resulting firing squad.

MaggiesPapaw
January 12, 2013, 02:40 PM
I'm willing to accept better enforcement of laws we have and stronger punishment of those who currently posess and/or use firearms illegally.
Those with violent criminal histories SHOULD be prohibited from ownership/possession. Use a firearm in a murder/rape/robbery... you're history. Caught with a firearm with a history of violent crime... you're history.
Caught selling drugs while armed....you're history.

They are trying to attack the wrong end of the snake. Here's the 'compromise' I'm willing to accept: We've tried 'gun control' (think Chicago, Washington D.C.) and it hasn't worked, so let's try criminal control and see how that works.

If guns cause crime, then Morton Grove IL and Kennesaw Ga should have the highest crime rates in the country, but look up their crime rates!

Landis
January 12, 2013, 03:03 PM
You forgot to include the entire country of Switzerland.

TCB in TN
January 12, 2013, 03:09 PM
I will agree to universal background checks on a couple of conditions.

#1 background checks are done round the clock for free
#2 no registration
#3 since we are background checked no more class III crap, do away with
all restrictions on DD, SBR, supressors etc.
#4 national CC.

Manco
January 12, 2013, 03:11 PM
We need to promote the importance of self-determination in this country; far too many see no need to govern their own affairs anymore, and find comfort from anyone willing to perform this task for them.

Yes, self-determination, self-reliance, and strong morals for guidance are critical for a free country to exist, hence all the effort by many of those in power and the media to undermine them. Firearms are a major, major part of the equation, being both a symbol and practical tool of self-reliance, as well as a bulwark against tyranny (obviously I'm paranoid because tyranny has NEVER happened anywhere ever before :rolleyes:). Many politicians and the media are doing their utmost, through gatekeeping bias and terminology, to turn firearms into symbols of murder and madness exclusively; they're doing a darn good job of it, too. The only way to counter this is to reach the people as much as they have, and encouraging Americans to be real Americans is an important part of this.

AlexanderA
January 12, 2013, 05:07 PM
I will agree to universal background checks on a couple of conditions.

#1 background checks are done round the clock for free
#2 no registration
#3 since we are background checked no more class III crap, do away with
all restrictions on DD, SBR, supressors etc.
#4 national CC.

This. Now you're thinking creatively!

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 05:30 PM
What am I willing to accept? Repeal of NFA'34 and GCA '68. That would render the other questions moot.

Beyond that, not one single thing.
+10,000,000

WE should be demanding things to see what THEY are willing to "compromise" on.

The obvious answer is "nothing", since their ultimate goal is a government monopoly on the means of armed force.

But still it would be fun, because the only thing that seems to fluster them more than outright refusal to roll over for them is demands that MORE freedoms for gun owners be recognized.

Shinbone
January 12, 2013, 05:34 PM
I will give NOTHING up. :fire:

figment
January 12, 2013, 05:35 PM
I'm willing to accept:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Chris-bob
January 12, 2013, 05:42 PM
I'd accept teachers being able to carry concealed in the classroom and no more "gun free" zones.

I am willing to accept "free gun" zones too...

Coop45
January 12, 2013, 05:58 PM
An apology for irritating me and doing away with NFA.

JFtheGR8
January 12, 2013, 06:03 PM
Not willing to give up anything. I could see background checks on all firearm transactions but not registration. A very small, as in minute, tax for public service announcements related to firearm safety and how to recognize dangerous mentally ill individuals and how to report them. I'm sure people know who the crazies are but either won't report them (family members) or don't know the proper channels to do so. Also, a clinical psychologist in the schools that can recognize criminal behavior in students before they are unleashed on society as adults. After that just what Sam said.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 06:11 PM
Not willing to give up anything. I could see background checks on all firearm transactions but not registration. A very small, as in minute, tax for public service announcements related to firearm safety and how to recognize dangerous mentally ill individuals and how to report them. I'm sure people know who the crazies are but either won't report them (family members) or don't know the proper channels to do so. Also, a clinical psychologist in the schools that can recognize criminal behavior in students before they are unleashed on society as adults. After that just what Sam said.

why should that tax fall upon gun owners?

why not tax pharmaceuticals?

why not tax hammers?

why not tax automobiles?


taxing firearms somehow implies the firearms is at fault, or somehow benefits from the tax.......in this case, gun owners are not benefited, so the tax seems punitive in my opinion.

also, i dont trust the govt to run PSAs on gun ownership.....i can see it now "guns are dangerous! if have reason to believe someone you know has a gun, please call this hotlineXXX-XXX-XXXX"

JayPee
January 12, 2013, 06:16 PM
I'm willing to accept the validation of the Second Amendment provided in the distinction Benjamin Franklin drew between democracy and liberty:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."

ol' scratch
January 12, 2013, 06:23 PM
What would I accept? How about they start enforcing the laws on the books. Straw purchasers should get 10 years, not three months probation. Straw purchasers should get more time than some dumb kid who is picked up for drug possession.

ol' scratch
January 12, 2013, 06:25 PM
I'm willing to accept the validation of the Second Amendment provided in the distinction Benjamin Franklin drew between democracy and liberty:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."


The wolf and lamb thing is a urban legend. Ben never said that. Lets start on a level playing field and not use propaganda to further our cause.

cfullgraf
January 12, 2013, 06:32 PM
I am not willing to accept any compromises.

Why do we not have background checks when buying alcoholic beverages?

meanmrmustard
January 12, 2013, 06:47 PM
I will happily transfer my privately sold firearms through an FFL (thereby helping to support my local gun shop) if the gun prohibitionists agree to remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA.
Nice. Give a lil to get a lil. Not bad.

The Freeholder
January 12, 2013, 10:28 PM
I'll accept repeal of the NFA and GCA, along with Constitutional Carry in all 50 states. I'd like a side order repealing all executive orders effecting gun ownership.

And finally, I'd accept a side of bacon. :)

jerkface11
January 12, 2013, 10:29 PM
how the hell is a gun registration a 'compromise'....?

Did you miss the part where I said they'd all become machineguns?

JFtheGR8
January 12, 2013, 11:28 PM
Quote:

Not willing to give up anything. I could see background checks on all firearm transactions but not registration. A very small, as in minute, tax for public service announcements related to firearm safety and how to recognize dangerous mentally ill individuals and how to report them. I'm sure people know who the crazies are but either won't report them (family members) or don't know the proper channels to do so. Also, a clinical psychologist in the schools that can recognize criminal behavior in students before they are unleashed on society as adults. After that just what Sam said.

why should that tax fall upon gun owners?

why not tax pharmaceuticals?

why not tax hammers?

why not tax automobiles?


taxing firearms somehow implies the firearms is at fault, or somehow benefits from the tax.......in this case, gun owners are not benefited, so the tax seems punitive in my opinion.

also, i dont trust the govt to run PSAs on gun ownership.....i can see it now " guns are dangerous! if have reason to believe someone you know has a gun, please call this hotlineXXX-XXX-XXXX"

Didn't say just on firearms did I. You inferred that.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

r1derbike
January 12, 2013, 11:59 PM
No compromise. Any questions?

Infidel4life11
January 13, 2013, 12:29 PM
I will accept a written formal apology that Washington is too stupid to find their way out of a wet paper bag and that they are willing to give back all pay given for the last 4years.

Avenger29
January 13, 2013, 12:40 PM
Here's the compromise I'm willing to accept:

Complete repeal of all federal gun control all the way back through the NFA. Complete removal of all federal import restrictions. Complete, fingers out of the firearms pie by the Feds. States, ya'll are on your own but at least it's a lot easier to get your state to do something than the feds in many cases.

Used to be you could mail order a Tommy gun through the mail or buy it at the local hardware store just like you would a hammer (well a very expensive hammer...). That's the way it ought to be

That sounds like reasonable compromise to me. After all, isn't that what the antis call legislation that takes away my rights, "compromise"? Hell I'm even going to give them a bargain by not taking away any of their rights or having them thrown in prison, or raising taxes, or anything that's actually impinging on their lives...unlike their version of "compromise" that further controls my life.

gripper
January 13, 2013, 01:02 PM
I will accept...
.
.....complete repeal of all laws and administrative regs necessary to revert to a Pre- NFA 1934 state....freedom , in other words.

taliv
January 13, 2013, 02:28 PM
Why do people keep saying enforce the laws on the books?

It's bad enough that there are unconstitutional laws on the books. If they're not enforcing them that's a good thing.



I might accept compromises that made gun use more mainstream. For example making it so people could walk down the street with a rifle and not get 911 calls in exchange for responsible storage.

gripper
January 13, 2013, 02:30 PM
Hear ye , hear ye!!

Fremmer
January 13, 2013, 02:33 PM
Nothing. None of these new ideas will do anything other than deprive law abiding citizens of their 2nd amendment rights. No compromises, no new gun control!!!

Diamondback6
January 13, 2013, 02:43 PM
Not a bloody thing. Focus on fixing the mental-health system and commonsense measures like more secure classroom doors and allowing CCW permittees on staff to carry on the job, and leave the M1 Carbine my great-uncle liberated the Mauthausen concentration-camp with the hell alone!

Seriously, anybody ever notice that the venerable old M1 is ALWAYS almost right at the top of their Blacklists? Uncle Frank always said, "Only three men need fear my Carbine... the Nazi, the Communist and the man who intends harm to me or my family. If you have a problem with me having it, which one are you?"

jim243
January 13, 2013, 02:44 PM
While I agree with Freeholder, it is time we woke up and understand that there is NOTHING that can be done to stop CRAZIES from obtaining guns, legally or illegally (stolen, black market, or even building their own).

Give up WHAT, my rights, no way. I have to pay for someone else's criminal act?? You must be kidding. I believe it was Patrick Henry that said "Give me liberty or give me death". Good words to live by. Better yet what would Geroge Washington do?

Jim

Onward Allusion
January 13, 2013, 02:58 PM
Not willing to accept any type of AWB. Forced to take a AWB, perhaps, but not willing accept. We have enough laws for firearms. Start enforcing them. Start funding the system, but not create new laws. Hell, I would "accept" repeal of '68!

R.W.Dale
January 13, 2013, 03:27 PM
Senator bluemthall is on fox right now railing about the need to ban Teflon tipped bullets......

I think that's a point we should be willing to concede for something in return.

(Really Teflon tipped bullets)

Aside from how laughably 80's this urban myth is Teflon production is already supposed to be banned in a couple years for environmental reasons.




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

Sam1911
January 13, 2013, 03:32 PM
I think that's a point we should be willing to concede for something in return.

(Really Teflon tipped bullets)

Aside from how laughably 80's this urban myth is Teflon production is already supposed to be banned in a couple years for environmental reasons.That's awesome, right there! Finally found something we can give 'em! :D

R.W.Dale
January 13, 2013, 03:34 PM
Hopefully the Teflon bullet shooters wont get too bent out of shape when we toss em under the bus ;-)




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

22-rimfire
January 13, 2013, 03:44 PM
What are you willing to accept?

I am willing to listen to proposals. But I am unwilling to accept a new regulation that will have no effect on crime and only affects lawful gun owners by restricting their rights though more hoops to jump through.

Mental health.... sure? But I want to read precisely the language of the legislation. I predict there are no suggested remedies for the mental health issue other than twisting the arms of more states to provide the information that they already have.

"Gun show loophole".... nope.
Training? Nope
FOID cards? Nope
Registration? Nope
Saving NICs check data in a database? Nope
Restricting ammunition sales? Nope
Restricting the number of firearms you can buy in a given period of time? Nope
Magazine capacity? Nope
Banning any currently legal firearms? Nope
Waiting periods? Nope
Firearm storage requirements? Nope
Annual licensing of firearms? Nope
Yearly background checks to CCW holders? Nope
Caliber restrictions? Nope
Firearm action (semi-auto, single shot etc) restrictions? Nope
Sin Tax on firearms or ammunition? Nope
Restricting the amount of ammunition you can legally own? Nope
Signing for ammunition purchases? Nope
Restricting mail order sales of ammunition? Nope

Have I missed any?

psyopspec
January 13, 2013, 03:48 PM
no but i think drug addicts shouldnt own guns or people with violent felonies on the record.

Already illegal, dude.

j.kramer
January 13, 2013, 04:08 PM
im willing to have all gun laws repealed

i would go as far as to have the second amendment as it should be

gdcpony
January 13, 2013, 05:18 PM
while i may be FORCED to accept new regulations......i am not WILLING to accept a damn thing.
I am afraid you are not "forced to accept anything. You choose to and face teh consequences of those choices.

I choose to keep my weapons and will face those reactions regardless.

Lupinus
January 13, 2013, 05:48 PM
All of my rights back.

I am willing to accept all of my rights back.

ritepath
January 13, 2013, 05:50 PM
Basic civil rights should never be compromised.

Impureclient
January 13, 2013, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Cruise
I will happily transfer my privately sold firearms through an FFL (thereby helping to support my local gun shop) if the gun prohibitionists agree to remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA.
Another vote for this.

Vern Humphrey
January 13, 2013, 05:58 PM
I am willing to accept the surrender of the anti-gun forces, and in return I will not pursue legal action against them for conspiracy to violate civil rights under color of authority.

AlexanderA
January 13, 2013, 06:13 PM
A "compromise" means that both sides must give something up. What are the antigunners willing to give up? Nothing. Their ruling philosophy is "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable." Their endless salami tactics must be brought to a stop.

If they're willing to give something up, say, repeal of the NFA '34, we should be willing to listen.

HOWARD J
January 13, 2013, 06:32 PM
The term Assault Rifle
Is Obama going to attempt to use Fiendsteins description of Assault rifle which covers 100's of guns--forcing us to pay to keep our guns & giving them to the government when we die--a true NAZI program

Vern Humphrey
January 13, 2013, 06:48 PM
Is Obama going to attempt to use Fiendsteins description of Assault rifle which covers 100's of guns--forcing us to pay to keep our guns & giving them to the government when we die--a true NAZI program
Of course!

WYOMan
January 13, 2013, 06:56 PM
My compromise :
Federal Goverment repeals all firearm laws, back to, and including, NFA 34.
All national politicians who either wrote, sponsored, or voted for, any of those laws, will be given free passage to the nation of thier choice, and forbidden to EVER return, instead of being hung for treason.
HOW'S THAT FOR COMPROMISE ?

481
January 13, 2013, 08:09 PM
Wow.

What's with all these "Let's rollover and appease the anti-gun mob" threads?

We are told by certain THR members here that "we need to roll-over and compromise" before we lose a part of our rights before such a thing has even occurred.

If you are a gun-owner yet feel the need to surrender your Second Amendment rights before anything happens, please do those of us who don't wish to surrender a favor and don't offer up the rest of us as part of your "plan" to save us from ourselves.

That's not compromise. It's surrender.

Sam1911
January 13, 2013, 08:13 PM
Good point.

I'm going to close this one and quote the wise and venerable Justin in closing:

Can we pretty, pretty please with sugar and strawberries on top stop with all the damnable loser talk around here?

For crying out loud, the forces of anti-gun bigotry haven't even brought a bill to the floor for discussion yet, and some of you are busy rolling over and peeing on yourselves in an act of submission.

Perhaps, instead of wasting all of our time starting threads like this, you could go write/fax/email/show up in person at your elected representatives' offices and voice your disagreement with further laws restricting cosmetically scary guns or useless bans on magazines.

After all, there are plenty of threads here on THR that have given you the ammunition to win any of those debates and make your case clearly and rationally. For crying out loud, just yesterday I reduced one of Dianne Degette's aids to stammering like a brain-damaged idiot with information that is freely available on the web. It's really not that hard.

If you can't at least do that, then the gun culture doesn't need you. Go collect beanie babies or Pokemon instead.

If you enjoyed reading about "What are you willing to accept?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!