I Have the Viable Compromise Solution RE: AWB, Mags, 2013


PDA






SharpsDressedMan
January 12, 2013, 08:30 PM
If we and the NRA, and all other pro-gunners can get on board, someone should enter a bill that raises the required age for semi-auto weapons and high capacity magazines to age 21, the same as handguns. This IS a compromise, and should, by law and subsequent punishment for infractions of same, keep those weapons out of the hands of anyone less than 21 (which would satisfy at least a portion of the anti-gun crowd, and at least deny access to those under 21, and not include any outright "ban" of anything.) Thnis would slow down gang bangers, raise the age to that beyond most all "school age" kids, and maybe include requirements to "secure" such weapons, etc, in households where those under 21 reside. I could live with this. Basically, we throw persons between 18-20 under the wheel, and make them wait until 21, same as handguns. It isn't perfect, but a compromise rarely is.......

If you enjoyed reading about "I Have the Viable Compromise Solution RE: AWB, Mags, 2013" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mnrivrat
January 12, 2013, 08:39 PM
I am sorry but I have to disagree with this one. First of all I don't think gang bangers use semi auto rifles to any degree.

Even if one is willing to admitt this, but throw persons under 21 under the bus anyway, We are talking about the persons who are of age to serve in our military.

In other words, if they are old enough to fight and die for this country, I will be the last one to agree to restrict their rights based on age.

c4v3man
January 12, 2013, 08:39 PM
I fail to see how this would make anything better.

We want gun rights restored. They want them more strict. The best compromise is for nothing to happen, other than remove federal gun-free laws on school grounds, etc.

There are alot of shooting sports that call for semi-automatic firearms, and I'd hate to tell young adults that they're not welcome. As a young gun owner myself not too long ago, I can think of no reason why LAW ABIDING young people can't own firearms of any type.

Also, I'm assuming that you're joking when you say that this will keep guns out of gang-bangers hands... Children under the age of 18 already obtain these weapons, what makes you think that raising the age higher is going to stop them more than the current laws?

tyeo098
January 12, 2013, 08:39 PM
Basically, we throw persons between 18-20 under the wheel, and make them wait until 21, same as handguns.

I bought my first handgun at 19 from a private sale.
The 21 crap is only from FFL's.

A compromise implies that both parties get what they want. What do pro gun people get in return? Nothing? How is that a compromise?

If ANY legislation is seriously considered I want to see:
Reopening of the MG registry aka, repeal Hughes
Making a supressor a Title I firearm instead of Title II or removing the classification of 'firearm' completely
Removal of 922r from the books

FOPA's poison pill was Hughes, and it should have been scrapped, but we needed FOPA so bad that the NRA made a cost-benefit analysis on it.

I'm glad you 'can live with it' but you dont boil a frog by throwing him into the pot, you slowly turn up the heat. Thousand papercuts, chipping away, etc. Don't give up anything.

K1500
January 12, 2013, 08:40 PM
Lower it to 18, along with the drinking age.

ApacheCoTodd
January 12, 2013, 08:43 PM
I see where you're going but don't like it anymore than I like telling our youth that we can chew them up in foreign adventures holding grenades, machine guns and more but they can't buy a beer till they're 21.

ZeSpectre
January 12, 2013, 08:46 PM
For the sake of discussion I'm going to skip the "and this affects violence how?" line and simply ask you this...what would be the anti-rights side of this "compromise"? I don't see them giving up anything with this suggestion.

Looks a lot more like capitulation than compromise to me.

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 08:52 PM
if we and the NRA, and all other pro-gunners can get on board, someone should enter a bill that raises the required age for semi-auto weapons and high capacity magazines to age 21, the same as handguns. This IS a compromise, and should, by law and subsequent punishment for infractions of same, keep those weapons out of the hands of anyone less than 21

HOW THE HELL IS THIS A COMPROMISE?.....

what are we getting out of this deal?...

and why the hell are we so willing to please these anti-gun hack politicians.


in the USA, you are legally an adult at the age of 18.....you shouldnt have to wait until you are 21 to be able to exercise your god given, and constitutionally protected rights.

zxcvbob
January 12, 2013, 08:54 PM
Here's a compromise for ya, lower the drinking age to 18 (or even 17) for 3.2 beer and 3.2 wine coolers. It's alcohol with training wheels, so when they turn 21 they already are exposed to it.

I think there's a gun-related metaphor there, but not sure how much you'd have to stretch it. (I'm pretty sick right now and running a fever -- so draw your own conclusions.)

HorseSoldier
January 12, 2013, 09:00 PM
Sometimes you have to flow with the momentum an opponent brings to a fight. Bumping up the purchase age for scary guns and evil magazines to 21 would be a potentially effective way to absorb the hit as a "compromise" if the other side has the ability to actually deliver a blow.

It seems to be becoming more debatable as time goes on whether they have the ability to land that blow at all, however. They still want to, obviously, and continued vigilance and pressure on Congress are definitely called for, but it's looking more like a fizzled attempt every day.

If they do manage to make a move, I think one "compromise" that Congress members need to be hammered on hard is making sure any legislation they do push through has a sunset clause like the last AWB, rather than some perpetual piece of legislation. That way, at least there is potential correction from both the SCOTUS and Congress of whatever ineffective hoplophobic drivel they can get on the books.

NavyLCDR
January 12, 2013, 09:01 PM
Raise all the other rights protected by the constitution and everything else to 21 then. 21 to vote. 21 to join the military. Parental responsibility for children until they are 21. At the same time raise the juvenile offender age to 21. No full driver's license until 21.

Why are we so willing to treat the 2nd Amendment so differently than any other right? Compromising on the 2nd Amendment more than any other right protected by the Bill of Rights is how we ended up in this mess to begin with.

avs11054
January 12, 2013, 09:02 PM
HOW THE HELL IS THIS A COMPROMISE?.....

^ This. That is a concession, not a compromise.

BP44
January 12, 2013, 09:07 PM
Call me closed minded but I am unwilling to make any compromise. I mean it not one thing!!! We have bent enough, anymore and we will break:cuss:

armed hiker
January 12, 2013, 09:18 PM
my compromise is they get to keep the first amendment if we get to keep the second.
NO concessions!

goon
January 12, 2013, 09:20 PM
I don't think this would have prevented any of the recent shootings, nor would it reduce crime. Rifles aren't used in very many crimes to begin with - handguns are the most common firearms used in crimes. It's already illegal for someone under 21 to buy a handgun, but that doesn't stop criminals in Chicago from doing it.

I got out of the Army early because of a medical reason, so I was still under 21 at the time. I remember not being able to handle handguns at the local store because I was under 21, when just a month before that I had been lying in the mud and almost freezing water assembling anti-tank mines with seven other soldiers next to me. A mistake there could have blown us all to hell in a frothy pink mist. That was real responsibility, and the destructive power I had in my hands was many times that of any handgun. And I was 19.
A responsible 18 year old who passes the background check is part of the unorganized militia and needs access to the same weapons as the rest of us, and has the same right to self defense with modern weapons.

I'd go with background checks on every sale before I would support raising the age. I support background checks anyhow and they may actually stop some criminals from getting guns and put some straw buyers or disreputable dealers out of business instead of putting the blame on an innocent scapegoat.

The Freeholder
January 12, 2013, 09:22 PM
No. I am not interested in anything that restricts the purchase or possession of firearms more than it is right now. I'm not compromising on my civil rights or anyone else's.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 12, 2013, 09:31 PM
I've been thinking about the compromise thing lately, in addition to what I personally would be "willing to give up." And I know that many here are in the not-give-up-anything camp, but I guess I haven't quite worked out my thoughts on it yet fully.

But my compromise thinking has been more along the lines of something like:

We give up: Close the so-called gun-show loophole and also we are now required to report any guns we sell, lose, or are stolen. Additionally you are now required to lock up your guns if they are not in your direct control/in the same room as you are or something like that. (And I know many won't like that too, but I guess I personally am a believer that locks/safes do sometimes deter or at least slow down crime, even though they are of course not fool-proof.)

We get: Nation-wide shall-issue ccw, along with the removal of the vast majority (or all?) of the "gun free zones."

Obviously there is slim to no chance for this to actually happen, but as an academic exercise, would anyone go for that? Right now I think I'd lean toward yes for myself.

NavyLCDR
January 12, 2013, 09:31 PM
I'd go with background checks on every sale before I would support raising the age. I support background checks anyhow and they may actually stop some criminals from getting guns and put some straw buyers or disreputable dealers out of business instead of putting the blame on an innocent scapegoat.

Exactly how would background checks "put some buyers or disreputable dealers out of business"? It's already illegal to make a straw purchase, and dealers are already required to do background checks on every buyer except in a few states where there is a CCW permit exception. So exactly how would requiring background checks on private sales affect either group?

SilentScream
January 12, 2013, 09:38 PM
There can be no compromise!

mgmorden
January 12, 2013, 09:40 PM
Can't say that I agree. Even though that time of my life is long behind me now I still don't agree with treating 18-21 year olds like children (unless of course they commit a crime, and then we seem happy with charging 12 and 13 year olds as "adults").

I'd be up for lowering the drinking age before upping any gun ages.

marv
January 12, 2013, 09:41 PM
Like tango, it takes TWO to compromise. And they have Nothing to put on the table.

ShamboPyro
January 12, 2013, 09:44 PM
'scuse me sir but I'm 15. I already have to wait till I'm 21 to get a little pistol and to wait till I'm 21 to get a rifle is absurd. How about we throw old people under the bus? What do they need guns for? Who needs a gun for bingo?

jmorris
January 12, 2013, 09:45 PM
Let me form 1 a machine gun again and you can raise it to 40. Yeah, I am over 40.

12131
January 12, 2013, 09:51 PM
Man, this is so lame, I can't believe someone on THR actually conjured it up. Really?

Redlg155
January 12, 2013, 09:51 PM
If a man can wear a combat patch at 18, he should be able to buy a rifle. Why tell a man that be can defend his country- but not his family?

A sensible solution would be to have the state mandate that you take a safety course and present a certification card prior to purchase. Fl has a requirement that younger individuals do so before purchasing a huting license. I DO NOT advocate a gun owners ID card or permit!

jhb
January 12, 2013, 09:55 PM
I say no compromise...and for one reason. All the antis do is take they never give. For example they don't offer if you let us force mental health checks and registration of certain guns, we will allow modern full autos. Mind you I'm spewing nonsense in that example to make a point. That nonsense I just spewed isn't a serious idea.

That is the problem with these compromises and discussions with the looney anti gunners and their politicians. They only want to take. When I hear them say we don't want to take your guns away...or we support hunters rights.....I just smirk. Lie, after lie...they'll say anything to get what they want. I'm probably the minority here, but id rather take the risk of losing more, than to try to negotiate with these people....and play their games by their rules.

blkbrd666
January 12, 2013, 09:56 PM
I wouldn't mind a limit on hicap mags if the antis would compromise. As soon as I can buy an M16 over the counter at Wally World without a TAX, I would promise to never own any single handgun magazine over 200 rounds.

Dr.Zubrato
January 12, 2013, 10:00 PM
How about this for compromise:
A similar system to what we have in Illinois like FOID cards.
But here's a twist, When you get your FOID they do a thorough background check at all state and federal levels, and basic quick mental health exam to screen for schizophrenia, mania, and psychoses.
If you do anything to lose your 2a rights, you lose your card.
The foid would only be used for purchase/sale purposes, and let's say you have a FTF sale, you could just call up your local PD, ask to check if their card is up to date, and make the sale on the spot after taking down all relevant information.

This way we know everyone has a background check without doing it for every sale, saving the authorities time & money, and streamlining the process for everyone, ourselves included in a logistics & safety net win.

OilyPablo
January 12, 2013, 10:02 PM
No compromise.

SharpsDressedMan
January 12, 2013, 10:04 PM
I hate to say it, but you guys are apparently blind. Forget how EFFECTIVE it would be. If the anti's FEEL we are compromising, THAT is all we need to do. Do you really want to test whether they WILL go after semis-, or heavily restrict in some other way, or go for a total BAN on magazines over 10 rounds? You'd have to be a fool to think they COULDN'T pull it off AGAIN (they did it once...and forget any new sunset clause). If you look at the issue objectively, semi-auto rifles CAN, and HAVE BEEN more dangerous than pistols, so this lifts them into more mature and thus more responsible hands, and as stated, if the clause includes additonal responsibility to keep them out of juveniles' hands, that isn't giving up too much, either. So what if a GI of age 18-20 can't buy one? Hell, he practically isn't allowed to smoke on base, or buiy alcohol in most states. Geez! Start thinking, you guys!

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 10:07 PM
I hate to say it, but you guys are apparently blind. Forget how EFFECTIVE it would be. If the anti's FEEL we are compromising, THAT is all we need to do. Do you really want to test whether they WILL go after semis-, or heavily restrict in some other way, or go for a total BAN oln magazines over 10 rounds? You'd have to be a fool to think they COULDN'T pull it off AGAIN (they did it once...and forget any new sunset clause). If you look at the issue objectively, semi-auto rifles CAN, and HAVE BEEN more dangerous than pistols, so this lifts them into more mature and thus more responsible hands, and as stated, if the clause includes additonal responsibility to keep them out of juveniles' hands, that isn't giving up too much, either. So what if a GI of age 18-20 can't buy one? Hell, he practically isn't allowed to smoke on base, or buiy alcohol in most states. Geez! Start thinking, you guys!

thats like saying if you are being raped, its better to just accept it rather than fight it.

if you want to give up YOUR rights, thats fine.....but dont you dare try to give up mine or anyone else's.

PRM
January 12, 2013, 10:08 PM
Why should law abiding citizens compromise or be punished for something a criminal did.

Absolutely No Compromise!!! "...shall not be infringed" is clear enough.


"...if you live in Humphrey, Ark. or Yawkey, W.Va., you might think that regulating private gun sales is a perfectly crazy idea.

After all, if you lived in one of those places or one like them, you would likely have a gun, or multiple guns, in your home. In fact, they might be among the most valuable possessions in your home. Some might be handed down from a grandfather while others might have been long-prized, wish-list items finally obtained."

"For rural America, selling a shotgun to a neighbor, giving a deer rifle as a gift or swapping pistols with a friend are normal things."

"Guns are incredibly potent symbols in American life. For the rural descendants of the Scots-Irish Diaspora, the gun is a symbol of power, equality, protection and self-reliance. Only a free person can have a gun." - Chris Stirewalt

BSA1
January 12, 2013, 10:10 PM
SharpsDressedMan,

You are proposing reducing the number of gun owners by raising the minimum age for ownership.

Using your logic why not further reduce the number of gun owners by establishing a maximium age for gun ownership? After all elderly drivers have slower ability to react to changing driving conditions, poorer eyesight and confusion. As a retired LEO I'm sure you won't have any problems giving up your guns.

razorback2003
January 12, 2013, 10:13 PM
Compromise and the next step will be single shot rifles and revolvers be the only guns left you might be able to own.

SharpsDressedMan
January 12, 2013, 10:35 PM
You still don't get it. There WILL be compromise. No doubt about it. My way, we do not lose the guns, or the magazines, or get thumbhole stocks, altered guns, 10 round mags, or a federal registry, or bans. How much BETTER do you think we will do than that? If they DO get a majority of anti votes, in congress how much worse can we do? It's nice not to compromise, but even the small number of folks who will fall between 18 and 20 will have a chance to buy the stuff when they hit 21. If we actually LOSE ground, they won't, and neither will we (over whatever it is our elected officials DO sell us out on.)

SharpsDressedMan
January 12, 2013, 10:40 PM
Cry "no compromise" to your sentators and congressmen as much as you want, but the crap responses our members have received from them have already shown how much they are not listening. If "no compromise" results in them not listening and voting against us, have we won by "retaining our principles"?

JTHunter
January 12, 2013, 10:44 PM
OilyPablo said:No compromise.

AGREED!
Lest we forget an old truth - "Give them and inch and they will take a mile."
We cannot "compromise" our Constitutional Rights! It would forever weaken them for us and our children.
Think about that word "compromise". When engineers talk about a structure being "compromised", they mean it is substandard, damaged, weakened. "Compromise" leads to failure/collapse.

We cannot afford to let that happen.

ZeSpectre
January 12, 2013, 11:18 PM
SharpsDressedMan said: I hate to say it, but you guys are apparently blind. Forget how EFFECTIVE it would be. If the anti's FEEL we are compromising, THAT is all we need to do.

I think you need to study your history a bit more because right now you are doomed to repeat it.

SharpsDressedMan said: You still don't get it. There WILL be compromise.
"You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means."

com·pro·mise
/ˈkämprəˌmīz/
Noun
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
But as has been repeatedly pointed out, the other side isn't offering any concessions, unless you count them saying that we can keep -some- of what we already have as a "concession". Feinstein et-al have already made it clear that what they really want is capitulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ca·pit·u·la·tion
/kəˌpiCHəˈlāSHən/
Noun

The action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand.

Synonyms
surrender

------------------------------------------------------------------

HorseSoldier
January 12, 2013, 11:40 PM
AGREED!
Lest we forget an old truth - "Give them and inch and they will take a mile."
We cannot "compromise" our Constitutional Rights! It would forever weaken them for us and our children.
Think about that word "compromise". When engineers talk about a structure being "compromised", they mean it is substandard, damaged, weakened. "Compromise" leads to failure/collapse.

Things that can't bend tend to break under impact.

Whether we like it or not we were forced to compromise our 2nd Amendment Rights at various points, at both state and federal levels. Holding ones hands over ones ears and humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic loudly did nothing to stop the implementation of the '94 AWB. That happened, it became the law of the land, and no amount of "NO COMPROMISE EVER!!!! :fire:" sentiments stopped it from happening.

I believe the OP who started the thread was interested in a discussion of approaches we could implement (or urge our Congress types to implement) to undermine and counter act potential legislation that might become law of the land again, no matter how much we wish it not do so.

It's a valid topic for discussion, even if it makes people unhappy or uncomfortable. If some people can't think tactically or strategically on this topic, that is, obviously, their right, but it doesn't change the fact that someone needs to be thinking about this tactically or strategically because our opponents are approaching it that way. My personal belief is that right now they are thumping the rhetoric on massive and sweeping bans not because they think they can get them, but because A) it makes their more modest infringements seem "reasonable" and B) because it gets pro-2A Americans amped up enough that a lot of them stop thinking and/or start lining up to make statements online, on TV, etc., that damage our cause rather than helping it.

316SS
January 12, 2013, 11:53 PM
Compromise is a valid method of reaching an agreement only when both sides hold equal moral ground.

Example 1: In business a deal can be made by both sides giving and receiving concessions in proportion to the strength of their positions. They both hold equal moral ground and compromise is appropriate.

Example 2: A mugger threatens a person with a knife, saying "Your money or your life." Should the victim respond with "How about I'll give you half the cash in my wallet if you agree to leave me alone?" NO! Because the mugger, like the gun-grabber, has no moral basis for their demand, and the victim is morally obligated to resist with everything he has.

BSA1
January 13, 2013, 12:08 AM
SharpsDressedMan,

You say "There WILL be compromise. No doubt about it. My way, we do not lose the guns, or the magazines, or get thumbhole stocks, altered guns, 10 round mags, or a federal registry, or bans."

Your idea of compromise is called appeasement. See Chamberlain, Neville "peace in our lifetime."


" How much BETTER do you think we will do than that? "

The horrors of WW2 would have been avoided if France and England had stood up against Hitler prior to 1939.

I am still waiting on your response for setting a maximium age limit for senior citizens to own firearms.

KenW.
January 13, 2013, 12:11 AM
Legalize adulthood at 18.

At 18 we were adults. They can fight for us, their contracts are binding, and they may vote. Let them drink and purchase whatever firearm they see fit. 18-year olds are citizens too.

Coop45
January 13, 2013, 12:14 AM
I won't accept mayo on my hamburger and you want me to give up a constitutional right. Not likely!! Maybe we should ban sharp dressers from gun ownership unless they are wearing dress blues. Nobody goes under the bus!!

2ifbyC
January 13, 2013, 12:28 AM
Has the left ever compromised their rights with regard to the 1st amendment? Is the 2nd amendment of lesser value? What part of ”shall not be infringed” has caused thousands of laws to erode the gun rights of law abiding citizens?

Perhaps you are thinking ahead to when the pending bills are deliberated. If so, it makes sense to plan ahead. However, if you are advocating a compromise prior to hearing what the other side is willing to offer, then you have a lot to learn about the art of negotiation.

I was a Vietnam era veteran who was drafted right after graduation from college. The line from the song "old enough to kill but not for voting" still resonates.

I believe we are in a much stronger position than you do. Let’s do what we can to prevent further infringement in advance. I have nothing to offer in the way of compromise.

NavyLCDR
January 13, 2013, 12:37 AM
How about this for compromise:
A similar system to what we have in Illinois like FOID cards.

Because then we would all be living under laws like Illinois has..... no thank you.

HorseSoldier
January 13, 2013, 12:58 AM
Has the left ever compromised their rights with regard to the 1st amendment? Is the 2nd amendment of lesser value? What part of ”shall not be infringed” has caused thousands of laws to erode the gun rights of law abiding citizens?

I don't know. You could yell "fire" in a crowded theater, call in a bomb threat, or post a Facebook message about your intent to go on a shooting rampage or assassinate the president -- all exercises of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech in an absolute sense -- and see what happens.

arizona_cards_11
January 13, 2013, 01:00 AM
By conceding at any point, we assume that the pro-gun control/pro-regulation/pro-big government crowd is content with compromise......that they'll be satisfied with a single, temporary measure that inches towards their goals. It may suite for now, but at the next tragedy, the vultures will circle again, claiming the measures weren't strong enough.

DammitBoy
January 13, 2013, 01:06 AM
Why stop with just those under 21? Why don't we throw everybody over 65 under the bus too? Too old, feeble, and mentally incapacitated to own a firearm. Poor eyesight, weakened memory skills, physical disabilities.

We should try to protect these old people from themselves too, you know - as long as we aren't throwing my age bracket under the bus.


/sarcasm

2ifbyC
January 13, 2013, 01:08 AM
I don't know. You could yell "fire" in a crowded theater, call in a bomb threat, or post a Facebook message about your intent to go on a shooting rampage or assassinate the president -- all exercises of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech in an absolute sense -- and see what happens.

You have about 29K plus exceptions to go to equal the infringements on the 2A.

BHP FAN
January 13, 2013, 01:13 AM
I have a compromise...they give up their guns. Really...after all, it's using their own logic....''it works in England!'' LOL!

Skribs
January 13, 2013, 01:34 AM
If you want me to give you $20, and I want to give you $0, then giving you $10 is not a compromise. It's a concession.

PRM
January 13, 2013, 07:38 AM
SharpDressedMan- Your the one who doesn't get it. I'm sure most here are glad you are not controlling the pro-gun argument with the libs.

Give up your freedoms if you want - leave mine alone.

I have never been in a fight that I didn't take a punch, and I've never seen a fight won by someone afraid to tow the line.

FROGO207
January 13, 2013, 08:18 AM
Well just maybe if we absolutely refuse give in an inch and the antis demand the moon as they are trying to presently the sane/sober portion of the population will wake up about what is happening and actually agree with us that it is already TOO MUCH and act responsibly!

Prophet
January 13, 2013, 08:36 AM
Nope. I'm 20 and have been patiently awaiting the day that I will be able to fully utilize my Second Amendment rights without legal repercussion since I was 15. My LTCF is going to be my birthday present to myself. It's enough that I've had to wait this long.

If you want to compromise focus on improving the availability of background checks, not further infringing on the rights of legal adults between the ages of 18-21. The 18-21 restriction has essentially caused a misinformation campaign in my area. Most LE continue to pass along erroneous details pertaining to those of us in the age gap. I even had a FFL and former LEO tell my dad that he could be charged with child endangerment if he gifted me a handgun at 18. :banghead:
A couple of months later I picked up a sportsmans firearms permit which are issuable to those over the age of 18, a fishing license, pole and tackle just so I could carry a firearm in my vehicle to my favorite kayaking locations to carry. I cannot stop anywhere on the way to or from those locations, not even for food or fuel. If I want to go on a hike or some other outdoor activity and carry protection with me, I have to leave on foot from my house because if it requires using a motor vehicle to get there I cannot carry a firearm unless specifically involved in the short list of activities on my SFP, taking the firearm directly to and from the place of repair, or the range. If I want to hike anywhere away from home I'm SOL.

Those of us who are between the ages of 18-21 get enough of a run around as it is.

OilyPablo
January 13, 2013, 08:43 AM
I have an idea.

Why don't the people (press included) who are against our 2nd Amendment:

A) Stop saying they are: "For the 2nd Amendment, but we really need to..........."
B) Stop demonizing, labeling, etc everyone who owns a gun.......

That should be the extent of our concessions.

BSA1
January 13, 2013, 08:51 AM
Oh SharpsDressedMan,

Using your logic why not further reduce the number of gun owners by establishing a maximium age for gun ownership? After all elderly drivers have slower ability to react to changing driving conditions, poorer eyesight and confusion. As a retired LEO I'm sure you won't have any problems giving up your guns.

And

Why stop with just those under 21? Why don't we throw everybody over 65 under the bus too? Too old, feeble, and mentally incapacitated to own a firearm. Poor eyesight, weakened memory skills, physical disabilities.

And

We should try to protect these old people from themselves too, you know - as long as we aren't throwing my age bracket under the bus.

Inquiring minds want to know your response to these compromises.

45_auto
January 13, 2013, 09:19 AM
someone should enter a bill that raises the required age for semi-auto weapons and high capacity magazines to age 21, the same as handguns.

Say we do decide to agree to your proposal. So the next time some lunatic kills his parents to take their weapons and murders 10-20 kids, we're able to charge him with having an illegal semi-auto and illegal mags in addition to the murder charges. Whopee. I'm sure that will really bother them.

What rights do you propose to give away the next time some lunatic breaks several dozen laws and commits an atrocity with a gun? Might be 5 years, might be 10, might be 6 months. But it's going to happen again. There is no way you can stop it.

If you'll post a list of your additional "compromises" each time someone breaks all the existing laws flagrantly enough to get media attention, we should be able to determine about how long it'll be before we have to turn them all in.

we are not amused
January 13, 2013, 09:27 AM
I am with the no-compromise group.

Are you willing to compromise your First Amendment right to Free Speech, Religion, to lobby the government?

What about the rest of your rights?

What are we willing to give up?

NavyLCDR
January 13, 2013, 09:53 AM
I don't know. You could yell "fire" in a crowded theater, call in a bomb threat, or post a Facebook message about your intent to go on a shooting rampage or assassinate the president -- all exercises of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech in an absolute sense -- and see what happens.
Or...how about we require a background check and pay the government for a permission slip in order to post on facebook, attend a movie in a theater, or go to church? That seems to be OK for exercising 2nd Amendment rights, so why not 1st Amendment rights too?

It is illegal to cause panic by yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It is illegal to shoot someone in a theater with a gun not in self-defense. THAT is equal treatment of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Background checks and permits is NOT equal regulation of 2nd Amendment rights and 1st Amendment rights.

tomrkba
January 13, 2013, 10:02 AM
NO!

Library Guy
January 13, 2013, 10:28 AM
SDM,

We have had a similar "compromise" here in Maryland.

"Assault Rifles" are treated like handguns- background check, safety test, waiting period, must be 21.

Nothing larger than a 20 round magazine may be purchased in or shipped to this state.

"Assault pistols" have been banned.

Now the MD gov wants another compromise. No "assault rifles" No mags over 10 rounds.

See a trend here?

Kind regards,

LG Roy

berettaprofessor
January 13, 2013, 11:09 AM
I hate to say it, but you guys are apparently blind. Forget how EFFECTIVE it would be. If the anti's FEEL we are compromising, THAT is all we need to do.

That's been done...1934, 1968, 1986. Where did it get you? It's astonishing to me that someone with over 4500 posts on this forum would ask the question and then be surprised by your fellow forum members.

I once would have been there with you, Sharps, but time and experience have taught me that I was wrong. No Compromises!

cluck
January 13, 2013, 12:08 PM
[QUOTE=SharpsDressedMan;8643532]If we and the NRA, and all other pro-gunners can get on board, someone should enter a bill that raises the required age for semi-auto weapons and high capacity magazines to age 21,...

This capitulation makes as much sense as raising the driving age to 21. You will find, in 2010, that unintentional injury from motor vehicle accidents cause more deaths in the US than firearms! (ages 1-44)

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

Do we stop 16-21 year olds from driving? As appealing as that sounds to some, no.
Does the government take away our cars? No.

For that matter, obesity is a massive public health crisis. It kills more people than automobiles! (heart disease, diabetes, stroke)
Enough is enough!
When are we going to have a serious conversation about spoon and fork control?:rolleyes:
Only Chefs should have high capacity spoons and ladles.
Those who make large scale food purchases should go on a government watch list.

Now is it making sense?

thunder173
January 13, 2013, 12:24 PM
I came home after finishing my SECOND trip to Vietnam BEFORE I turned 21. Still couldn't legally even buy a beer in my hometown.

No Way I would ever support any provision such as this.

No More Compromises.

Fremmer
January 13, 2013, 12:46 PM
No new gun control! No compromise! Your so-called compromise would do nothin to stop insane people from doing this. Just like the no guns signs didn't work. Our 18 year old law abiding citizens reject your proposed deprivation of their 2nd amendment rights. NO.

481
January 13, 2013, 01:07 PM
Being willing to participate in the further compromise of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is being willing to accept the ultimate goal of the anti-gun mob- the incremental and total disarmament of all law-abiding American citizens.

Why is that every time some two-legged piece of waste goes on an murderous rampage, the Left wants to take away guns from people who had no part of it?

481
January 13, 2013, 01:16 PM
I have an idea.

Why don't the people (press included) who are against our 2nd Amendment:

A) Stop saying they are: "For the 2nd Amendment, but we really need to..........."
B) Stop demonizing, labeling, etc everyone who owns a gun.......

That should be the extent of our concessions.

I second this.

Anytime I hear someone utter the words "I am all for the Second Amendment, but we should compromise on....." (or similar words), I cannot help but feel as if I am about hear the words of a closet anti-gunner.

Compromise IS NOT giving up something without an equal/satisfactory gain or return every time someone asks for a "compromise".

There is no need for us to supplicate our 2A rights just because the anti-gun mob says we have to.

jrmiddleton425
January 13, 2013, 01:34 PM
If they want to take 10+ round magazines, here's what I want in return:

Age to buy a handgun from an FFL lowered to 18.
Buy any Title I firearm over the counter in any state with a NICS check.
CCW in any state, with a permit from your home state.
Remove NFA restrictions on suppressors and make them legal in all states.

That, SharpsDressedMan, is a compromise.

zxcvbob
January 13, 2013, 02:02 PM
I don't know. You could yell "fire" in a crowded theater, call in a bomb threat, or post a Facebook message about your intent to go on a shooting rampage or assassinate the president -- all exercises of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech in an absolute sense -- and see what happens.


Two words: "prior restraint"

Krogen
January 13, 2013, 02:04 PM
To the OP: You think yet another law will affect criminal activity??? Really???

:banghead:

Sam1911
January 13, 2013, 02:10 PM
I'm not sure which is more silly -- the "Hey, let's give them something!!!" mentality or the utter hubris that THEY care one tiny little POO what you want to give them!

All we can do is fight -- TOOTH AND NAIL. Hard, bitter, for ALL the marbles. Anything else is utter suicide.

And I'll thank you not to commit "our" suicide for me.

SharpsDressedMan
January 13, 2013, 03:18 PM
You guys just hate that word "compromise", and feel we have lost too much ground already. Don't get me wrong, I believe that we should have the same armaments as the government....after all, we ARE the government, right? And I view the 2nd Amendment to mean "unorganized" civilian militias are there to MAINTAIN control of the government BY the people....not to have government be an entity of itself. But, in all honesty, the younger people of today are not being groomed for self reliance, responsibilty, or self restraint, in comparison to generations past. As a whole, they live at home longer, rely on their parents longer, and social interdependence is lost to self-absorbtion on the computer or Iphone. This seems to result in less maturity between the ages of 18-21, and instead of lowering the age of responsibilty, I think we out to raise it, in general, to 21. I no longer want to see people under 21 serving in the military. I think THAT, across the board, will make the military more mature and resposible in their job. Gun ownership can go with it, to the 21 year age mark. Ya'all think that is too much of a sacrifice of "rights", so be it. I hope you are all right, and the 2nd Amendment, and all kinds of gun ownership, stays intact (or gets better, but I'm not counting on that, either.) Let's not call it compromise then, but if we had to change our position to lessen the damage an untimely assualt on our gun ownership might have, what better thing can you come up with? Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but a fight is on, and SOMETHING is going to happen.

Lupinus
January 13, 2013, 03:19 PM
I Have the Viable Compromise Solution RE: AWB, Mags, 2013
No.....you don't.

ZeSpectre
January 13, 2013, 03:41 PM
SharpsDressedMan Said: You guys just hate that word "compromise"
Only when it is misused. No "compromise" has been offered thus far, just attempts at appeasement.

SharpsDressedMan Said: But, in all honesty, the younger people of today are not being groomed for self reliance, responsibility, or self restraint, in comparison to generations past....
And your solution to this is to "baby" them more? If you want to see someone handle responsibility then GIVE THEM RESPONSIBILITY. Then and only then will you see the wheat separate from the chaff and then we're going to have some clear indicators as to who can be trusted as a citizen.

SharpsDressedMan Said: what better thing can you come up with? Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but a fight is on, and SOMETHING is going to happen.
Where have you been? The fight has been "on" for quite some time now and a lot of people, including myself, have put in nearly countless amounts of our own time and money. Anyone who has been around any amount of time can tell you some of the projects I've been involved with and the successes I've had standing up for the restoration of our Rights and Freedoms. So at this point I say to you, either get "all in" or get out of the way because you aren't doing our Rights any favors with your current attitude of "just give them what they want and maybe they won't hurt us".

The anti-rights people have plenty of members thinking up wedges to divide and conquer us, no need to hand them more.

easyg
January 13, 2013, 03:46 PM
Sure, and while we're at it let's just take all Constitutional Rights away from those under 21 years of age...

No Right against unwarranted search and seizure, no Right to freedom of religion, no Right to assembly, no Right to free speech, no Right to trial, etc...





No, the entire notion is a horrible idea.

SharpsDressedMan
January 13, 2013, 03:52 PM
I wish you "hardliners" would just go kick the crap out of any senators or congressmen that don't see it your way, so that we could re-instate the 2nd Amendment to mean "shall not be infringed", but since that probably isn't going to happen, then we are in a constant state of negotiation, or "compromise", with both sides having a "stand" that probably isn't going to be maintained by EITHER side. Get off the semantics, and either FIND common ground, or drag the other guy over to your ground (which I cannot seem to do with the extreme leftists that I come into contact with.....maybe y'all can do better!)

mbt2001
January 13, 2013, 03:54 PM
When has "compromise" worked? Also, look at the way it becomes a precedent for compromise in the future. Part of the reason that we are in this mess at all is all of the "compromises" that were done in the past.

Prophet
January 13, 2013, 04:04 PM
But, in all honesty, the younger people of today are not being groomed for self reliance, responsibilty, or self restraint, in comparison to generations past. As a whole, they live at home longer, rely on their parents longer, and social interdependence is lost to self-absorbtion on the computer or Iphone.

I agree. The reason is my generation is being continually relieved of those responsibilities by your generation. If you increase the age at which your child continues to receive health benefits from your insurance to the age of 21, sonny is going to be less inclined to leave until he is 21. If you increase the age at which he is actually able to practically defend himself and his family as he gets married, goes to work, runs errands and lives in his own home to the age of 21, sonny is going to be less inclined to leave until he is 21. So on, so forth.

Furthermore, anyone I know who is my age and currently owns a firearm does not fit the description you gave above. They all received their firearm as a rite of responsibility, as did I. Anyone I know who does fit your above description, however, does not own a firearm and has no interest in owning one. Your "compromise" will only serve to further disenfranchise those of us who so desperately wish to fulfill those adult responsibilities you listed above and drag out our inability to do so. It's bad enough that the economy wants nothing to do with us.

EDIT: Zespectre beat me to it.

And your solution to this is to "baby" them more? If you want to see someone handle responsibility then GIVE THEM RESPONSIBILITY. Then and only then will you see the wheat separate from the chaff and then we're going to have some clear indicators as to who can be trusted as a citizen.

easyg
January 13, 2013, 04:06 PM
Get off the semantics, and either FIND common ground,
There is no common ground.

We're not talking semantics.
The truth is that there are some in our government who want the citizens of this nation disarmed.

TOTALLY DISARMED.

But they aren't fools...they know that they can't disarm us all at once.
So they do it slowly, one step at a time, one piece of legislation at a time.
Bit by bit they take away our Constitutional Right to bear arms.

Every "compromise" we make just gets them one step closer to their goal....
TOTAL DISARMAMENT of the citizens of this nation.

I will not willingly make any compromise.

gdcpony
January 13, 2013, 04:07 PM
So those Marines carrying M-4's and are under 21 are not allowed to own an AR-15? Makes absolutely no sense. Would the current owners have to "sell" their rifles to over 21 friends just to hold them for them?

Justin
January 13, 2013, 04:12 PM
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 "I Have the Viable Compromise Solution RE: AWB, Mags, 2013" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!