We are going to have to give up something

AirForceShooter said:

Wait!!!

I have to give up something because of the actions of an admitted LUNATIC????
A CRAZY??????

We're gonna talk about this one.

AFS

Click to expand...

This.


.

"Feel free to state your own, but don't tell me I'm wrong unless you have proof."

I need proof to support my opinion, but you don't? That's a bit odd.

wtr100 said:

hold the applause - just throw money

federal program similar to the Flight Deck Officer program where administrators and teachers can be trained and armed

100% tax credit for firearms training

federal program to upgrade police firearms ranges IF at least 20 hours per week 5 of those on weekends and 5 in weekday evening hours is availble for public use at a rate of no more than $15 per hour

Click to expand...

There's already a Troops to Teachers program. Why not make a program for retired/retiring police officers to work in schools in a teaching or administrative capacity? Arm them. They go about their day, doing a job and they happen to be armed and trained to deal with many scenarios that might arise.

Freedom is rarely given; it has to be fought for and earned.

The RKBA is recognized and protected by the Constitution, and so-called "reasonable restrictions" are exactly the sort of infringement that the Founders had in mind when they drafted the 2A language forbidding infringement which Congress passed and the states ratified. They knew that the government they devised, in spite of their efforts to preclude it, might someday grow too big for its britches and try to assert powers that are not constitutionally legitimate, and that is exactly what's been happening since the Wilson era and is now approaching warp speed.

Going to have to give up something? No, and again, no! We have given up far too much already, in the area of RKBA and in many other areas. Punishing the law-abiding when a lunatic breaks a raft of laws has never helped prevent a recurrence, and it never will; it is nothing more than government leveraging an emotional outburst to exert more control in an area meant to be free of that control.

It's time to dig in our heels and fight the overreach of government and its stripping of the freedoms its office holders are sworn to protect.

Any thoughts on this? anything you can say to console me?

Click to expand...

Indeed! Congressmen/women and senators have one major concern, which is getting reelected and collecting campaign contributions to facilitate it.

Therefore they specialize in kicking the can down the road for some future decision rather then solve a hot-button issue. The so-called fiscal cliff is a good example. They kicked the can down the road, but here they are – down the road – and it is probable that they’ll do it again.

What the gun owner community needs to do is flood them with enough communications (letters, FAX’s, emails, phone calls, etc) to make it clear to those who are not from “safe” districts, a wrong more could endanger reelection prospects.

Also this morning President Obama’s plan has been leaked, so the direction they intend to go is clear, and involves little or nothing that’s new, just a push to advance past proposals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/biden-to-head-white-house-effort-to-curb-gun-violence.html

As time passes the general public will tend to lose interest as other matters, (mostly economic in nature) will grasp they’re attention. Very few will make this one the absolute deal-breaker in deciding whom to vote for. On the other hand those who have a lot to lose will tend to watch what the lawmakers are doing and vote accordingly. This is what happened in 1996, and it unexpectedly cost the gun-banners control of both the house and senate.

Any attempt to push the Obama proposals through congress will take time, and time will work in our favor. Meanwhile sales of tactical firearms will continue to set records, and that alone will be a deterrent against future gun control statutes. Nowhere is it written - except in the liberal/left news media - that we have to compromise on anything if we stand our ground.

Sgt.Murtaugh said:

Sadly, it sounds like the general public is in huge support of legislation. Go look at whitehouse.gov and see the numerous gun control petitions vs. the one or two pro-gun petitions. Note how many multiples more signatures the anti-gun ones have. I know it's not an absolute measure, but it shows, at the very least, who is being more vocal and who is on board with what.

Click to expand...

Looks like they've got you convinced.

Actually, looks like they've got you panicked, panicked enough to make the proposals you've made here in this forum. Me, I see them as an easily steered mob with nothing but parroted yakyak with a horrible signal-to-noise ratio.

Not even a week gone by and you wanna hand em the keys to our gun safes? Suffice it to say you don't speak for me.

t

Before you guys who feel we have to "give up" something just up and throw the rights away for future generations, why not pause and think about it?

YOU might be willing to give up your rights.

But when YOU do this, you are ALSO giving up the rights of EVERY GENERATION OF AMERICANS WHO FOLLOW YOU.

Off the top of my head here's what I think is going to happen:

There will be an attempt to re-instate the AWB but it will fail in the House of Representatives (provided we voice our vigorous opposition).

A restriction on magazine capacity will pass because it will affect all guns regardless whether it's an "assault weapon" or not. The rationale will be that if magazine capacity is restricted then banning guns isn't necessary. Perhaps a federal tax on retail sales of "spare" magazines. (Yes, I realize the proliferation of magazines will make this ineffective, but we're talking about the government here which never gets things right in the first place.)

The "gun show loophole" will fail as it has in the past due to objections in regard to the definition of a "gun show".

There will be an attempt to restrict the amount of ammunition that can be purchased and/or possessed, possibly with a federal data base of ammunition purchases.

There will be an attempt to restrict internet and "mail order" ammo sales.

Of all the things in my lifetime that have threatened our 2A rights, this one worries me the most.

Click to expand...

You must be pretty young.

As for conceding something, letting them have anothier piece of our right? No way. They're going to have to take it. The "compromise" benefits only one side, which makes it no comrpomise at all. I'll give up nothing.

I actually suggested this to some friends the other day and that laughed in my face. My suggestion was having 2, highly trained and certified, volunteer teachers (preferably ones who already have a CCW) carry (or have access to) firearms on school grounds. Their identities would remain anonymous and they would have to undergo yearly training/certification to keep the responsibility. Obv, cops would be better suited for this but most cities don't have the manpower to stick a cop in every single school in the city.

on the other hand, this would never happen and I could see why parents wouldn't go for it. It's just my humble suggestion upon many others that may or may not be viable.

Click to expand...

Never say never. Maybe you just need to move to Harrold, Texas and make some new friends.

Texas school district encourages armed teachers for protection

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...ict-encourages-armed-teachers-for-protection/

Texas law allows concealed weapons in schools with a district's permission. Harrold was the first district to do it.

Teachers and administrators here carry concealed handguns. They won't say how many faculty members are armed. They get extra training, but the district would not give us details.

Click to expand...

The only thing we should give is poison pills to every piece of gun control legislation.

AWB? Ok. Then we add a bill to open up the machinegun registry and allow nationwide constitutional carry. We add a bill that makes state registration of weapons illegal.

In short, we make the add-ons so unappealing to the gun control crowd that they will never see the bill passes

I cannot understand the mindset that we must give up something. My rights are being threatened and at no time have I thought of surrendering those rights just to appease, albeit short-term, the cravings of subversives.

I’m in favor of constructive discussion to determine real solutions. But when I see a stack of bills aimed at diminishing my gun rights prior to seeking my input, call me paranoid. Rest assured that I am not delineating a list of compromises to those seeking to remove those rights.

I’m glad to see there is still a little Patrick Henry in some of us.

If the gun-grabbing socialist elitists want an AWB, I say let's compromise, okay, we'll have the AWB, but it will have add-ons defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, and ban abortion only in the case of medical necessity, and DEA agents will arrest pot-smokers in Washington State and Colorado on sight.

I hear that argument a lot and I usually don't know the best response to it.

Click to expand...

In 1776 the Colonials had better rifles than the English smoothbore muskets. The Founders understood this and the 2nd Amendment was written to perpetuate it. The Bill of Rights does not protect our right to hunt, shoot tin cans or make holes in paper targets. This "sporting purposes" is biting us in the posterior. The other side is too detached from the original intent of the Amendment. The intent was that the people were never stripped of their ability to depose the government if it became necessary. The government has machineguns, tanks, missiles, armored vehicles and airplanes. I think it'll be okay for us to have AR-15's.

Sgt.Murtaugh said:

I 100% agree with all this. But how do you combat the argument that people bring up all the time that goes something like this:
Anti: "well the forefathers didn't foresee what weapons would be like 200 years down the road and they never intended for us to have semi auto rifles that fire 30 rounds so quickly. Nobody wants to take away all your guns, but you have no real need for an AR15"

I hear that argument a lot and I usually don't know the best response to it.

Click to expand...

Let me help you. You answer it this way. "Our forefathers wanted to make sure the people had the weapons that any standing army had in order to resist tyranny. They didn't say you could only carry "X" amount of ball and powder. Notice they put "NO" restrictions on weapons. They didn't say you could not own a cannon."

I wish you would stop trying to justify any more intrusion of our rights. Call me when a nutjob attacks a police staion....

LNK

Sgt.Murtaugh said:

I 100% agree with all this. But how do you combat the argument that people bring up all the time that goes something like this:
Anti: "well the forefathers didn't foresee what weapons would be like 200 years down the road and they never intended for us to have semi auto rifles that fire 30 rounds so quickly. Nobody wants to take away all your guns, but you have no real need for an AR15"

I hear that argument a lot and I usually don't know the best response to it.

Click to expand...

You counter it the same way Scalia did in Heller:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

In other words - if the 2nd Amendment can only apply to arms in existence in the 18th century, then 1st Amendment rights apply to only devices in existence in the 18th century. Ergo, your freedom of speech does not extend to anything beyond a soapbox. The freedom of the press applies only to moveable type printing press generated material etc.

I will not be giving up any of my rights or freedoms due to the actions of as madman, elected or otherwise.

Im not giving up anything without a fight. Why should I? The anti's have taken and taken, but they just never seem to give anything.... Id like to see the anti's have to give if there is any giving.