How much are we willing to give up?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In recent years I've seen a trend opposite of what the media reports about guns and the 2A.
I get ask frequently about guns for concealed carry and home defense. Often by people that were fearful of guns not long ago.
I hear a lot of talk about allowing teachers to carry as well. Of course I live in a rural area, no "urban mentality" (no offense meant).
Sadly, the most discouraging voices I've heard lately have been on this forum.
 
jrmiddleton425 said:
To answer the original question...how much am I willing to give up? Nothing, unless I get something in return.
Click to expand...
This is the key.... getting something in return. And it would have to be something substantial. My personal priority would be the repeal of the Hughes Amendment, but repeal of the entire NFA would be even better.

What we have now is not "negotiations," but sheer voting power (on each side). So far we have enough votes in Congress to block the antigunners, but, looking at the trends, eventually this won't be true. Like it or not, we are fighting a rear-guard action. I see it clearly in my home state of Virginia. In a few more election cycles, Virginia is going to be like Maryland when it comes to guns.

The point at which real negotiations can take place is when there is near-equilibrium in voting power. That moment may be fleeting, and we have to be prepared to seize that opportunity when we can. What I see on the pro-gun side, unfortunately, is a lot of posturing but not a lot of strategic thinking. That's perhaps inevitable since anyone openly doing the strategic thinking is going to be labeled a Quisling. But all that does is compound our long-range problems.
 
AlexanderA said:
This is the key.... getting something in return. And it would have to be something substantial. My personal priority would be the repeal of the Hughes Amendment, but repeal of the entire NFA would be even better.

What we have now is not "negotiations," but sheer voting power (on each side). So far we have enough votes in Congress to block the antigunners, but, looking at the trends, eventually this won't be true. Like it or not, we are fighting a rear-guard action. I see it clearly in my home state of Virginia. In a few more election cycles, Virginia is going to be like Maryland when it comes to guns.

The point at which real negotiations can take place is when there is near-equilibrium in voting power. That moment may be fleeting, and we have to be prepared to seize that opportunity when we can. What I see on the pro-gun side, unfortunately, is a lot of posturing but not a lot of strateghinking. That's perhaps inevitable since anyone openly doing the strategic thinking is going to be labeled a Quisling. But all that does is compound our long-range problems.
Click to expand...
Are any other rights on the table or is it just the RTKBA you're willing to barter with?
 
I am in a state of utter disbelief that some here actually seem to think that we will ever get anything of substance in return for what we will lose.

That's just not how the politics of gun control works, and for those that believe otherwise, what have you been smoking?
 
Old Dog said:
I am in a state of utter disbelief that some here actually seem to think that we will ever get anything of substance in return for what we will lose.

That's just not how the politics of gun control works, and for those that believe otherwise, what have you been smoking?
Click to expand...


QUOTED FOR TRUTH.
 
justice06rr said:
It doesn't matter if we were there or not.

The Constitution and our Rights does not change, and it shouldn't. We cannot move an inch either. The anti-gunners always use the arguement that the 2A is outdated, but it is not. If it is, then it can also mean that our other rights such as those for free speech, religion, etc are outdated.

Nope, not giving up anything.
Click to expand...

Actually, we currently are living under the revisions to the Constitution ratified in 1992. Yes Our Constitution and Our rights due change. This is the genesis of the "Living Document Dogma"


https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992


"
Why has the Constitution changed?
Here's why, including what might be in store for the future of the Constitution.

You may have heard the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." Though it may seem like a dry piece of paper to you, it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows.

Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law.

In the past 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment, in 1865, forever banned the practice of slavery. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race.

Americans have added laws only to take them back. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was passed. It banned the making and selling of alcohol. But it was impossible to get all people to stop drinking. Many people felt the government had no right to make laws about their private habits. So in 1933, the 21st Amendment was adopted. It repealed, or canceled, the 18th Amendment.

The nation may need amendments in the future. For example, advances in technology may change the way we communicate. Someday, we may be able to vote from our own homes, hooked into central computers through our TV sets. And what if we are able to live in space? We may need new laws to govern space life. "

Source:
How the U.S. Constitution Has Evolved Over Time


America has grown and changed during the last 200 years, and so has the U.S. Constitution, including amendments to our voting laws and age, and limiting presidential terms in office.



Grades

3–5, 6–8, 9–12

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers...nt/how-us-constitution-has-evolved-over-time/
 
Last edited:
You realize the Universal Background Checks are the registration of all gun buyers by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

You do realize that if they really wanted such a list, your posting or reading here or any other "gun" forum, making any gun related purchases on credit cards, or ever purchasing a gun from an FFL dealer you are already "on the list".

Lets not let paranoia about something, that if really wanted is (likely) already being done by other means, cause us to lose the chance to get a bigger positive for us in exchange for a small negative with this crisis. I would gladly junk my bump-stock in exchange for having suppressors removed from the registry or the full-auto registry re-opened (in nmy dreams).

People seem to forget, or are too young to remember, that Oswald's "mail order" rifle was traced to him in like a day at a time before any significant computer databases existed, simply by using "normal business records" on paper as the general practice of the time after a few phone calls. Much effort was put into preventing what essentially codified this record keeping to be required by law, from becoming a centralized registry of gun owners. But that horse has left the barn due to Internet technology.
 
M118LR said:
Actually, we currently are living under the revisions to the Constitution ratified in 1992. Yes Our Constitution and Our rights due change. This is the genesis of the "Living Document Dogma"


https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992


"
Why has the Constitution changed?
Here's why, including what might be in store for the future of the Constitution.

You may have heard the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." Though it may seem like a dry piece of paper to you, it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows.

Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law.

In the past 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment, in 1865, forever banned the practice of slavery. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race.

Americans have added laws only to take them back. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was passed. It banned the making and selling of alcohol. But it was impossible to get all people to stop drinking. Many people felt the government had no right to make laws about their private habits. So in 1933, the 21st Amendment was adopted. It repealed, or canceled, the 18th Amendment.

The nation may need amendments in the future. For example, advances in technology may change the way we communicate. Someday, we may be able to vote from our own homes, hooked into central computers through our TV sets. And what if we are able to live in space? We may need new laws to govern space life. "

Source:
How the U.S. Constitution Has Evolved Over Time


America has grown and changed during the last 200 years, and so has the U.S. Constitution, including amendments to our voting laws and age, and limiting presidential terms in office.



Grades

3–5, 6–8, 9–12

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers...nt/how-us-constitution-has-evolved-over-time/
Click to expand...

Yes it can change, through the proper process and channels.

It seems recently that many lawmakers try to propose anti-gun bills, which can or can't go through based on how they approach/apply it. What I meant is that, while the Constitution may change, it should've be considered outdated. Banning all guns (or certain type of firearms such as what happend in the AWB) is not the answer.

E.g. since our forefathers only had single-shot rifles, that shouldn't mean we can't have the Semiauto (or even Select Fire weapons) that should be guaranteed by the Constitution. Its a very complicated subject indeed.
 
Walkalong said:
There is no such thing as reasonable gun control. And you support it every time you tell people we need to embrace it for fear of losing more than we give them. It is ridiculous to give them anything. Make them take it if they can. Never roll over.
Click to expand...

If there was no such thing as incremental gun control and the ultimate goal of the SJW's wasn't wide sweeping bans on all firearms, there are plenty of reasonable gun control measures. No well adjusted person with any sense of civics would argue that; however, this is a gun forum = I'm going to get flamed for saying such a treasonous thing.
 
justice06rr said:
We refuse to give up our gun rights as stated in 2A.

Its quite simple really. The anti-gunners have already chipped away little by little. It is time to push back.

So you're saying that if some conservatives are willing to allow semiauto rifles to be banned in some way, you are let that happen?
Click to expand...

If a law is passed how do you stop it? Please tell me. Will you hide your guns? Will you defend your home & guns with force? Will you go to prison to stand up for your rights? How do you "push back"? We are always used to being proactive and now we are a little more on the defensive. Like it or not the scenario is changing and we cannot just say I will not be moved while our rights are being eroded. We need more than words. And NO, I am NOT espousing violence!
 
Last edited:
Walkalong said:
Ok, so you admire those of us who have drawn the line in the sand and refuse to give them anything with no fight. Join us? Stand against us by wanting to "deal"?
Click to expand...

Did you read anywhere that I wanted to "deal"? Please do not put words in my mouth. You keep talking of a "fight" to protect our 2A rights. I am asking what you mean by the word fight? I have personally visited all of my State Reps and Senators and contacted my national ones. I know exactly who is against us and who is for us. They know exactly where I stand and what I expect from them. "Shall Not Be Infringed" is pretty clear. But what I am saying is that the political sands are shifting against us ever so slightly and it MIGHT turn into a landslide. We can not just say. "I am not moving an inch." That doesn't mean anything without a definition or a plan.
 
“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”

~Lenin

The enemies of individual liberty know those quotations too. That's why they employ the insidious technique of incrementalism to slowly, patiently and methodically poison the minds of unsuspecting victims to accept "compromise" as a natural and necessary component of societal conduct—with the compromises all leading in the same direction: neo-totalitarianism.

I am reminded of a word from the great Father of the Desert, Abba Anthony, who when asked by his monks what the future held said: “The day will come when the world will go mad. They will come to us and tell us we must be mad because we are not like them.”
 
drunkenpoacher said:
I agree if you mean laws against using a gun to commit murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery etc.
If you want to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, I vehemently disagree.
Click to expand...
Technically, requiring a test like they do in Texas to carry a firearm is infringement. I'm OK with requiring that someone actually knows how to shoot a gun before they get to carry one in a public setting.

My best friend's brother is mentally retarded. He has the mind of about a 5 year old. He is a law abiding citizen, so denying him the right to purchase a gun is infringement. I'm Ok with him not owning a gun.
 
Not one more inch no more compromising no more us giving in Why don’t we fight to get back some of what we lost already!
 
AlexanderA said:
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I have to say that UBC's could be set up in such a way as to not create a usable gun registry. For example, you could clear the person and not the gun. Sen. Tom Coburn proposed such a system after Sandy Hook, but it didn't go anywhere.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this an application for block chain.
 
Bigmike79 said:
I'm OK with requiring that someone actually knows how to shoot a gun before they get to carry one in a public setting.
Click to expand...
Do you not see the danger of the government having the power to determine which citizens are worthy of this right?

Bigmike79 said:
My best friend's brother is mentally retarded.
Click to expand...
I hope your friend doesn't need a law to tell him not to hand a gun to his brother.
 
How much should we be willing to give up?

None.. Zero... If we are willing to loose a little piece of our second amendment rights in a knee jerk response to every evil person that commits a horrific crime there soon won't be any second amendment left. Instead, we should be concentrating on why the FBI and local police in Florida failed to do their jobs and holding those responsible for the many failures in the system accountable. We should also overturn the laws making schools and churches "gun free zones." Those who are opposed to this idea should think back to the last time they ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun show.... Of course this approach makes guns part of the solution to the problem rather than being part of the problem which is why the Left is always opposed to it.
 
Last edited:
drunkenpoacher said:
Do you not see the danger of the government having the power to determine which citizens are worthy of this right?
Click to expand...
Not as much as I see the danger in letting someone walk around with a gun that's never shot a gun before.
Look, we live in a civilized society. I don't want someone that doesn't know how to drive sharing the road with me. I don't want a doctor performing surgery on me that's not licensed. I don't want a welder that's not certified building bridges. Does this make sense?

If I had no sense of civics and feared the government that much, I would move to some 3rd world ****hole like Somalia which has no central government or regulations.


drunkenpoacher said:
I hope your friend doesn't need a law to tell him not to hand a gun to his brother.
Click to expand...

Why would he need to. His retarded brother is a law abiding citizen. Owning a gun is his right. He could just go buy one with his state check...AMIRITE?.
 
drunkenpoacher said:
Are any other rights on the table or is it just the RTKBA you're willing to barter with?
Click to expand...

You don't understand. I don't want to be raped, but if I am raped -- despite all my best efforts to avoid being raped -- I don't want to also be killed. You do what you have to do to avoid being killed. Same with guns.

Look, the RKBA has already been eroded. So it's not a simple situation where we have the RKBA or we don't. There's a sort of continuum where there's absolute gun freedom at one end, and absolutely no gun freedom at the other end. We're now at a point somewhere between the two poles. I'd like to push that point in the direction of more freedom. Simply stonewalling doesn't more that point at all -- until suddenly the other side wins and we end up with zero gun freedom.
 
AlexanderA said:
You don't understand. I don't want to be raped, but if I am raped -- despite all my best efforts to avoid being raped -- I don't want to also be killed. You do what you have to do to avoid being killed. Same with guns.
Click to expand...


I understand.

You're wanting to offer to be raped while assuming you wont be killed too by someone that has made it known that they want to kill all people they rape.
 
danez71 said:
You're wanting to offer to be raped while assuming you wont be killed too by someone that has made it known that they want to kill all people they rape.
Click to expand...
No. That's not what I'm saying at all. If the U.S. could negotiate with the Soviets during the Cold War -- mortal enemies -- and reach some agreements beneficial to both sides, then the pro- and antigunners could negotiate in good faith under the right conditions. Obviously the right conditions don't exist at this moment. To create those conditions, there would first have to be "confidence-building measures." I want to see a token of good will by Schumer & co. How about agreeing to repeal the Hughes Amendment? After all, don't they want to register and regulate currently unregulated machine guns?
 
danez71 said:
I would absolutely support requiring the same test implemented in the late 1700's :D
Click to expand...

You really believe nothing has changed in the last 250 years don't you?

You do realize our government has the power to vaporize just about the entire planet, no? Let that sink in as you're reading this on a portable computer that is connecting you to others through a wireless connection to a series of servers that are going to become a 3 dimensional world before too long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Unpatriotic and defenseless...
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
4K
chemist308
C
F
  • Locked
HOW MUCH PRIVACY ARE WE WILLING TO GIVE UP? They will be on this forum finding your g
Replies
5
Views
686
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
V
  • Locked
SCOTUS says release felons due to overcrowding
Replies
6
Views
464
rbernie
rbernie
C
  • Locked
How do we Best Teach Our Kids?
Replies
0
Views
329
CAPTAIN MIKE
C
N
  • Locked
A house divided - what we should be focusing on
Replies
7
Views
748
chipcom
C
Back
Top