I Have the Viable Compromise Solution RE: AWB, Mags, 2013
- Thread starter SharpsDressedMan
- Start date
- Status
PRM
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,111
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.
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
Member
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!
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.
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.
Last edited:
OilyPablo
Member
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.
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
member
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.
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
Member
sharpsdressedman said:
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
Member
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?
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
member
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.
Library Guy
Member
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
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
Member
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
Member
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?
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
Member
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.
No Way I would ever support any provision such as this.
No More Compromises.
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,424
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?
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,424
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 663
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.
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
Member
Two words: "prior restraint"
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
member
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
Member
No.....you don't.
ZeSpectre
Member
Only when it is misused. No "compromise" has been offered thus far, just attempts at appeasement.
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.
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.
Last edited:
easyg
Member
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
