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

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.

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.

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.

No compromise.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Compromise and the next step will be single shot rifles and revolvers be the only guns left you might be able to own.

OilyPablo said:

No compromise.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

"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

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

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.

Click to expand...

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!!!! " 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

Dr.Zubrato said:

How about this for compromise:
A similar system to what we have in Illinois like FOID cards.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

I have a compromise...they give up their guns. Really...after all, it's using their own logic....''it works in England!'' LOL!