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

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.

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?

Basically, we throw persons between 18-20 under the wheel, and make them wait until 21, same as handguns.

Click to expand...

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.

Lower it to 18, along with the drinking age.

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

my compromise is they get to keep the first amendment if we get to keep the second.
NO concessions!

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.

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.

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.

goon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

There can be no compromise!

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.

Like tango, it takes TWO to compromise. And they have Nothing to put on the table.

'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?

Let me form 1 a machine gun again and you can raise it to 40. Yeah, I am over 40.

Man, this is so lame, I can't believe someone on THR actually conjured it up. Really?

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!