I personally think Obama has much bigger priorities than gun laws, ie socializing the tax system. I could easily see him allowing 50-state carry rights in exchange for the republicans not filibustering meanstesting medicare or removing the cap on social-security taxes. Now would he allow states like Wy and MT to have homebuilt machine guns or a new NFA amnesty to be declared? That would be a very interesting proposition. I would hope that Sen. Ensign has some tricks up his sleeve when the Dems try to raise taxes.
compromises in gun laws
- Thread starter tt600
- Start date
- Status
MisterMike
Member
It's kind of hard for me to get behind the notion of compromise when you're dealing with a fundamental human right that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
It's clear that even the guarantees of the Bill of Rights can be subject to some limitations. The problem is that the antis push the concept of "reasonable limitations" to the point of the ridiculous. If they were rational, then yes, there would be room for compromise. However, their constant focus is to deny the fundamental right; when that fails, they shift to back door attacks with the same aim. I can't see that compromise with folks who have that sort of agenda is possible.
It's clear that even the guarantees of the Bill of Rights can be subject to some limitations. The problem is that the antis push the concept of "reasonable limitations" to the point of the ridiculous. If they were rational, then yes, there would be room for compromise. However, their constant focus is to deny the fundamental right; when that fails, they shift to back door attacks with the same aim. I can't see that compromise with folks who have that sort of agenda is possible.
Michael Thomson
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 95
It's easy to talk about not compromising but compromise is part of the legislative process whether you like it or not. NRA doesn't cast a vote in Congress or state legislatures and has to work with the lawmakers they've got. If every lawmaker supported the Second Amendment as much as those on this board do, it wouldn't be a problem and gun owners could pass anything they want. The reality is far different. While there are some true believers, there are a lot of lawmakers who simply vote with NRA because it's politically expedient to do so at a given time. It doesn't mean you can count on them when push comes to shove as we saw in 1994.
The reality is that it all boils down to votes. If you don't have the votes you will lose. Sometimes, even when you have the votes, you may not win because they can tie up pro gun legislation with procedural maneuvers or attach poison pills like the Hughes Amdt.
As for FOPA and the Hughes Amdt, NRA opposed the Hughes Amdt but it was passed anyway on a voice vote. Also, do you really think Congress wouldn't have banned new full autos in 1994 if they hadn't done so in 1986?
If you've ever traveled interstate with your firearm, you have NRA and FOPA to thank. If you've ever bought a long gun in another state, you have NRA and FOPA to thank.
The reality is that it all boils down to votes. If you don't have the votes you will lose. Sometimes, even when you have the votes, you may not win because they can tie up pro gun legislation with procedural maneuvers or attach poison pills like the Hughes Amdt.
As for FOPA and the Hughes Amdt, NRA opposed the Hughes Amdt but it was passed anyway on a voice vote. Also, do you really think Congress wouldn't have banned new full autos in 1994 if they hadn't done so in 1986?
If you've ever traveled interstate with your firearm, you have NRA and FOPA to thank. If you've ever bought a long gun in another state, you have NRA and FOPA to thank.
Hear, hear.
I get so tired of the phony "assault weapon" moniker that the media has put on some firearms.
Every time I see that Helmke fellow on TV I get nauseated. That man seems half insane, yet the media will be more than obliging to give him a mic and platform to spew his nonsense.
It's this same bias that has given us the likes of "winners" like Michael Moron, er Moore.
Talk to us like adults. Myself, I think we can parley something on the whole gunshow loophole, but get off that 'assault weapon' label. It's fake and you know it.
zignal_zero
Member
i'm not a big fan of compromising, especially when it comes to the Constitution.
there's only one gun law i would agree with, but not even in it's current configuration, here's what i'd support - If you've used a weapon to commit a violent felony, for which you were convicted, you can't have any more weapons. but, i don't believe people who commit violent felonies, with weapon, should be out any time soon anyway.
there's only one gun law i would agree with, but not even in it's current configuration, here's what i'd support - If you've used a weapon to commit a violent felony, for which you were convicted, you can't have any more weapons. but, i don't believe people who commit violent felonies, with weapon, should be out any time soon anyway.
Deanimator
Member
NO compromise on gun control.
We don't accept "a little" slavery.
We don't accept "a little" Jim Crow.
We don't accept "a little" lynching.
We don't accept "a little" slavery.
We don't accept "a little" Jim Crow.
We don't accept "a little" lynching.
CoRoMo
Member
I regularly argue with members here who believe certain restrictions, requirements, and regulations are just a wonderful addition to our constitutional rights. They are all too anxious to jeopardize freedom in the name of whatever it is that they tell themselves is logical.
It sickens me. If the battle for our 2nd Amendment rights comes down to the dirt, and I'm looking around for whom I can join forces with, I'll find a bunch of linguine spine gun enthusiasts who want to just nod and proclaim that this next step toward fascism feels 'reasonable'.
It sickens me. If the battle for our 2nd Amendment rights comes down to the dirt, and I'm looking around for whom I can join forces with, I'll find a bunch of linguine spine gun enthusiasts who want to just nod and proclaim that this next step toward fascism feels 'reasonable'.
Carl N. Brown
Member
we need to end the computer show loophole
I get so tired of having to answer this. If private owners are barred from selling old computers at computer shows, they will just go back to selling old computers at flea markets, classified ads in the paper, the bulletin board at the laudromat, the local bar, swap meet or the parking lot at work. At least the computer show is a relatively controlled environment, and the used computer is more likely to end up in responsible hands if sold or traded at a computer show, than if sold by other private transaction venues (such as from a car trunk in an inner city back alley). Geez. Let's put that old canard in a methane filled mine where it belongs.
(ADDED: I was answering Post#20, please reference)
I get so tired of having to answer this. If private owners are barred from selling old computers at computer shows, they will just go back to selling old computers at flea markets, classified ads in the paper, the bulletin board at the laudromat, the local bar, swap meet or the parking lot at work. At least the computer show is a relatively controlled environment, and the used computer is more likely to end up in responsible hands if sold or traded at a computer show, than if sold by other private transaction venues (such as from a car trunk in an inner city back alley). Geez. Let's put that old canard in a methane filled mine where it belongs.
(ADDED: I was answering Post#20, please reference)
Vern Humphrey
Member
People who advocate "some restrictions" are people who know they are too ignorant, careless or reckless to be trusted with guns. I say that people are too ignorant, careless or reckless to be trusted with interpreting our Constitution.
berettaprofessor
Member
(Berettaprofessor chuckles) Couldn't have been better said by a Founding Father...or by a Confederate Rebel. From those historical lessons, maybe compromise IS preferable to losing completely.....unless you're pretty darned sure of winning or have absolutely nothing to lose. Hard to see the future, isn't it? SFC_mark's explanation of what happened in '86 is why I chose to take the offer on this board to become an NRA Life member...even though I occasionally have my reservations with the NRA tactics, I have to believe they see the whole chess board better than little-ole-I do.
And to someone's earlier description of Russian compromises; the proper diplomatic response is to accept the compromise by agreeing to provide access to your colleague's wives, just not your own....quite similar to what happened when the Hughes amendment was accepted to make certain things, like buying ammunition and interstate long guns, easier. Wait, what am I saying?
zignal_zero
Member
i'm curious, am i the only one who agrees with forbidding convicted violent felons from possessing weapons?
i'm extremely pro 2A, i believe in open carry, i don't believe in requiring permits for concealed, i don't believe in (virtually) any restrictions. BUT, if someone has been found guilty of using a firearm to rob or kill someone, i'd be happier if they never had another gun. am i the only one?
i'm extremely pro 2A, i believe in open carry, i don't believe in requiring permits for concealed, i don't believe in (virtually) any restrictions. BUT, if someone has been found guilty of using a firearm to rob or kill someone, i'd be happier if they never had another gun. am i the only one?
StarDust1
Member
A compromise is a loss, period! The 2nd Amendment is supposed to bar the fed from bearing arms, not "We The People!" Which is curious considering just how far they've gone in subverting & abominating the original intent by doing exactly the opposite.
You are most certainly not the only one, there is others.
However this becomes a way for the government to control. They determine what a felony is or is not. There is serious and relatively petty felonies and everything in between. Disagreement with the government can result in felony charges.
Most civil rights activists for example were guilty of felonies.
Many of the things they did, or unjust laws they violated made them guilty of felonies. Just protesting against the police was often a felony offense. Both resisting arrest and/or assault on a peace officer also felonies. Whether the police are justified in beating, shooting, or things like spraying with fire hoses or not, any act of defiance is a felony.
Speaking out strongly on an issue in public if some people in your crowd do something violent may result in felony "inciting a riot" charges.
Many First and Second Amendment freedoms are today felonies. A great irony exists that by exercising your right to keep arms, or certain arms in some states you can be given a felony that then makes your permanently prohibited from having Second Amendment freedoms. In some states mere possession of a handgun without a pre approved license in your home can be a major crime or felony (MA, NY.)
By exercising your 2nd Amendment right you can lose your 2nd Amendment right.
By exercising your First Amendment right you can lose your 2nd Amendment right.
This is most obvious a contradiction in acts of civil disobedience involving firearm laws.
For example say thousands of people decided to open carry to protest a law against lawful open carry. They could then all be felons in some states unable to ever legally have a firearm again. Or say some decide not to renew their license to protest a requirement to have a license to even own a gun. They could lose their right to ever own a gun again.
Or more currently the Firearms Freedom Act of a few states allowing freedoms that the feds say is not valid will require felony violation of the law to utilize. How many people of those states are going to show a strong widespread willingness to stand up to the feds and increase firearm freedoms?
People unable to ever legally own a gun and subject to "felon with a gun" charges once charged with the first felony for having an NFA firearm for the rest of their lives.
Most other laws or rights can be effectively challenged with widespread civil disobedience. Yet firearms laws because felons are prohibited from ever owning firearms again (which in turn is naively supported by many gun rights activists and the community) cannot be as effectively challenged.
How many volunteers do we have to become prohibited persons losing all their firearm freedoms to try and gain some small increases in firearm freedoms?
How many people would speak without the proper license if speaking without that license resulted in the permanent loss of First Amendment rights?
See how un-Constitutional it is?
Last edited:
So why in the hell do we keep doing it then?
You'd think we should make the liberals more afraid of upsetting us, we have the guns.
All this "no comprise" business sounds nice and is somehow satisfying. But where do you suppose it would have gotten us. Do you really think a refusal to comprise would have stopped gun regulation in its tracks? What about the possibility that had we refused to deal, the political machine, with the support of a majority of the body politic in many places, would have just gone on with their gun banning agenda?
There's the alternate reality of no compromise, and then there's the real world. But if you insist, give "no compromise" a try and let's see where things wind up. But what makes you think it's going to work?
We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."
There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go a long with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And these people vote.
We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.
Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.
Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.
How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.
So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.
We're left with opportunities to influence how much. Some things will be doable and somethings will not be reasonably doable.
There's the alternate reality of no compromise, and then there's the real world. But if you insist, give "no compromise" a try and let's see where things wind up. But what makes you think it's going to work?
We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."
There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go a long with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And these people vote.
We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.
Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.
Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.
How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.
So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.
We're left with opportunities to influence how much. Some things will be doable and somethings will not be reasonably doable.
Last edited:
sourdough44
Member
No compromise, incrementalism(sp) is at work all around us.
NRA=Compromise, and they've recently hired Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!
So keep supporting the NRA because all your doing is buying the right NOT to bear arms. Yes they've sold us out more times than they like to admit. So keep believing the NRA, after all they like your money too.
Hopefully some day enough can wake up, and actually think on their own.
But then again now I'm begining to understand how Obama was elected.
Don't worry guys this post will be deleted too, so hurry and do your own research.
I'm afraid THR is affiliated with the NRA and much like the NRAs anti 2A stance THR is anti 1A.
You just wait and see......
So keep supporting the NRA because all your doing is buying the right NOT to bear arms. Yes they've sold us out more times than they like to admit. So keep believing the NRA, after all they like your money too.
Hopefully some day enough can wake up, and actually think on their own.
But then again now I'm begining to understand how Obama was elected.
Don't worry guys this post will be deleted too, so hurry and do your own research.
I'm afraid THR is affiliated with the NRA and much like the NRAs anti 2A stance THR is anti 1A.
You just wait and see......
And about the NRA --
[1] The NRA is the most effective RKBA organization. They have the largest membership of any of them, and they do the best that they can with that membership base. Politics is strictly a numbers game. If the NRA had more members, it could be that much more effective. And those folks who complain about the NRA's so called failures need to tell us who did, or could have, actually accomplished more.
[2] Facts of political life -- politicians don't listen to individual voters and they don't listen to or care much about reason. They care about numbers. One hundred phone calls or letters in support of or against something are better than 10. Ten thousand would be a lot better yet. It doesn't matter what the caller or writer says is the reason to support or oppose the thing. All that matters is the number on each side of the question.
[3] An NRA with 4 million members gets attention. An NRA with 5 million will get more, and an NRA with 10 million members could get some real serious attention. As annoying as the NRA can be, it's in our interests to see it grow and prosper.
[4] Politicians aren't swayed by fine arguments, logical demonstrations or even facts. They are swayed by how many voters (and potential voters and contributors) line up on each side of the question. They are influenced by political and economic power.
[5] Given all that, the NRA does what it reasonably can do in the political climate in which it operates. It can not perform magic. Under the right circumstances, it can, and has, effectively moved affirmative pro-RKBA legislation (like the law protecting gun makers from frivolous law suits and the National Park carry legislation). And sometimes it can block legislation we don't like. But sometimes the political deck is so stacked against our interests, the best we can reasonably expect the NRA to be able to do is help make the best of a bad situation.
[6] It's fine to talk about "no compromise." But remember that he who insists on all or nothing gets nothing. If the votes aren't there they aren't there.
[7] The NRA is at the forefront of shooter education and safety training. Their program for certifying instructors in a variety of disciplines helps make competent training more readily available to the public. And their "Refuse to be a Victim" program is excellent.
[1] The NRA is the most effective RKBA organization. They have the largest membership of any of them, and they do the best that they can with that membership base. Politics is strictly a numbers game. If the NRA had more members, it could be that much more effective. And those folks who complain about the NRA's so called failures need to tell us who did, or could have, actually accomplished more.
[2] Facts of political life -- politicians don't listen to individual voters and they don't listen to or care much about reason. They care about numbers. One hundred phone calls or letters in support of or against something are better than 10. Ten thousand would be a lot better yet. It doesn't matter what the caller or writer says is the reason to support or oppose the thing. All that matters is the number on each side of the question.
[3] An NRA with 4 million members gets attention. An NRA with 5 million will get more, and an NRA with 10 million members could get some real serious attention. As annoying as the NRA can be, it's in our interests to see it grow and prosper.
[4] Politicians aren't swayed by fine arguments, logical demonstrations or even facts. They are swayed by how many voters (and potential voters and contributors) line up on each side of the question. They are influenced by political and economic power.
[5] Given all that, the NRA does what it reasonably can do in the political climate in which it operates. It can not perform magic. Under the right circumstances, it can, and has, effectively moved affirmative pro-RKBA legislation (like the law protecting gun makers from frivolous law suits and the National Park carry legislation). And sometimes it can block legislation we don't like. But sometimes the political deck is so stacked against our interests, the best we can reasonably expect the NRA to be able to do is help make the best of a bad situation.
[6] It's fine to talk about "no compromise." But remember that he who insists on all or nothing gets nothing. If the votes aren't there they aren't there.
[7] The NRA is at the forefront of shooter education and safety training. Their program for certifying instructors in a variety of disciplines helps make competent training more readily available to the public. And their "Refuse to be a Victim" program is excellent.
TexasBill
Member
Actually, it was a bloc of 65 pro-gun Democrats that told Nancy Pelosi that reintroducing the Assault Weapons Ban was a non-starter. When Obama's AG tried to push the ban, Pelosi and Harry Reid sent him a letter saying it wasn't going to happen and that he should focus on enforcing existing laws.
If you don't know who your allies are, it's going to be difficult to appeal to them for support in the future.
Fiddletown, Yes that's exactly how the NRA justifies their anti 2A stance.
I could post tons of info about the NRAs unconstitutional activities but the THR mods would just delete the info. I know, it's sad.
I never have been and never will be an NRA member. I can see through the sugar coating. I only wish everyone could.
Last year the NRA sidded with the Illinois legislature AGAINST a county by county CCW in Illinois. The Illinois representatives were very happy by the way.:banghead:
Sorry guys but I just can't support and organization like this.
I could post tons of info about the NRAs unconstitutional activities but the THR mods would just delete the info. I know, it's sad.
I never have been and never will be an NRA member. I can see through the sugar coating. I only wish everyone could.
Last year the NRA sidded with the Illinois legislature AGAINST a county by county CCW in Illinois. The Illinois representatives were very happy by the way.:banghead:
Sorry guys but I just can't support and organization like this.
Of course it's silly to talk of the NRA acting in an unconstitutional manner since the Constitution dose not regulate private conduct. And it's also silly to hint at evidence of some sort of nefarious conduct without providing that evidence. Talk is cheap. And if you make claims, the burden of proof is yours. As Carl Sagan used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."PCGS65 said:
Or perhaps you don't understand things.PCGS65 said:
That was a hotly debated issue, and there were some very good reasons why CCW without state preemption could be a very bad thing. This isn't the place to renew that debate.PCGS65 said:
You think this is a game? Even you are so blinded by the NRA and the collectivists propaganda you think the constitution is just an antique picture that hangs on the wall. You ever read the constitution as it's written? Who gives a hoot what Carl has to say, as far as I know he's a member of the NRA too. I TOLD YOU THR would delete this info. And they have before, as a matter of fact just last night I posted some truthfull info about the NRA in the NRA membership thread and POOF it's gone tonight. Yes that's real constructive. That's the same type of tyranny the British brought here that inspired the constitution. If you want I can e-mail it to you but I've run across your kind before and was hoping you weren't the blind type that refuses to research and think for yourself.
Your sadly mistaken, have you ever researched the NRAs anti 2A activities? or have you just relied upon what the NRA has told you to believe?
I fixed it for you, no need to thank me, and don't tell me where I can or cannot discuss constitutional rights.
I can still e-mail that info to you but I want to let you know it's lengthy.
[1] This is politics in the real world.PCGS65 said:
[2] And yes, I've read the Constitution, many times. And I've read many Supreme Court decisions, and taken classes in Constitutional Law. The law, which includes the Constitution, is my profession.
First, you have no business changing my words, and I've restored the quote, above, to its original form. Second, this is not the place to renew that debate because it would be off topic for this thread.PCGS65 said:
In any case, I find it odd that you bring up the Illinois CCW issue. On one hand you criticize the NRA for compromising, and on the other hand, you excoriate the NRA for refusing to compromise by not accepting a county by county infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights.
Gouranga
Member
IMO, there have been too many already.
The laws in place already do nothing. They do not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. They only succeed in keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. In many cases these laws are jokes.
For example in NC it is a county by county thing. it is entirely at the discretion of the county sheriff. This has led to many abuses including the former Mecklenburg Sheriff who used to hold onto CCW permits AFTER they were approved till the full 90 days before calling citizens to come pick them up. In the meantime gun violence from gang (illegally obtained firearms I should add), when through the roof and we had numerous shootings.
We have tried working with the anti-gun crowd in the past, it amounts to nothing more than a policy of appeasement. Appeasement never works out well and does nothing more than buy you time and lose you territory until you decide to take a stand.
There overwhelming mountain of evidence and statistics to support the notion that law abiding gun ownership does NOT result in gun fights in the streets and mass murders. We need to stop compromising with the paranoids and more importantly the liberals who realize that there is no way they can force their agenda on a legally armed populace.
The laws in place already do nothing. They do not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. They only succeed in keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. In many cases these laws are jokes.
For example in NC it is a county by county thing. it is entirely at the discretion of the county sheriff. This has led to many abuses including the former Mecklenburg Sheriff who used to hold onto CCW permits AFTER they were approved till the full 90 days before calling citizens to come pick them up. In the meantime gun violence from gang (illegally obtained firearms I should add), when through the roof and we had numerous shootings.
We have tried working with the anti-gun crowd in the past, it amounts to nothing more than a policy of appeasement. Appeasement never works out well and does nothing more than buy you time and lose you territory until you decide to take a stand.
There overwhelming mountain of evidence and statistics to support the notion that law abiding gun ownership does NOT result in gun fights in the streets and mass murders. We need to stop compromising with the paranoids and more importantly the liberals who realize that there is no way they can force their agenda on a legally armed populace.
StarDust1
Member
No, you're not, but that doesn't make you right either! I only support the full defrocking of this right in the extreme case, that being violent felons & predatory sexual offenders...Other then those, it's my opinion that when they've paid their debt, they've paid their debt!
- Status
