We are going to have to give up something

Status
Not open for further replies.
No doubt the liberals were waiting for an event like this to push their agenda. The way they came out of the gate demanding gun control proves that. As for what is going to happen, it's all just speculation. We'll have to wait and see what the proposal is first. I'm tired of debating what might happen. Let them play their hand first.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
 
I totally agree on the xfer fee & registration.
Feel free to "register" your firearm for eventual confiscation, as has already happened in California and New York City, but here in Free AZ we don't have stupid wasteful idiocy like that, haven't had it for over 100 years, and we're just fine with that.
 
We are not going to give up anything and they aren't asking us to give up anything.....

They are going to take what they think they can get away with.
 
1. more heavily regulated private sales? i.e. close the "gunshow loophole"
2. More obstacles to buying a gun. i.e. psych evaluations, required yearly training, etc.
3. renewed assault weapons ban
4. "high capacity magazine" ban
5. online gun sales (doubtful)

In a free society such as the US is now, putting enforceable regulations on sales is expensive. All the online classifieds sites would be "illegal"? I don't know...

AWB will be back, magazine restrictions will go national, and gun sales will just go more underground. "Normal" and healthy folks will still get their wanted firearms, and the mentally ill will too, such as in the last case wherein the kid killed his own mother to get access to her firearms which she had legally acquired.
 
You can't negotiate with people like this:

I can't believe that some of you even feel we can engage in a dialog of any kind with these people. Joe Klein from the 18th of December:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/18/the-real-gun-violence-discussion/?iid=obnetwork

Let me be clear: I favor gun control. I find the National Rifle Association an abhorrent organization, feeding the wingnut paranoia about President Obama, fattening its coffers with funds donated by uninformed, frightened, gullible sorts in the hinterlands. There is no need for civilians to have semi-automatic weapons. There is no need for clips that contain more than six bullets. There is no need for some of the more exotic and lethal sorts of ammunition, like those used by Adam Lanza. Indeed, I’d favor a very stiff tax on bullets, first proposed by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/18/the-real-gun-violence-discussion/#ixzz2FbqMOCQU

Let me be clear, Joe Klein is representative of the kind of people we will deal with by negotiating, by giving up anything. How many of you are willing to give up your constitutional rights so that Joe Klein and his ilk will think you are a reasonable person?

Let me clue you in, we will always be "frightened gullible sorts in the hinterlands" until we roll over and accept their agenda. These people honestly feel they are our betters and because of their superior intellect they are the elites and know what is best for us.

You simply can't negotiate with these people. Their idea of compromise is us giving them what they want.
 
So standing up for what we believe in is a mistake? I'm tired of giving in. There have been good strides for gun rights -- but I am certainly not going to give up some of my rights just to "play nice."

A huge number of the public doesnt believe that owning a semi automatic firearm with a 30 round magazine is a "right".

And before you start in on the 2nd ammendment allow me to remind you that its just a piece of paper, it only has power because a large number of people believe in the idea behind it. This battle will be won in the "court of public opinion" and public opnion ususally favors compromise. I would rather give a little and live to fight another day, then gamble everything and loose everything. Personally I could live with more stringent background checks and requiring all firearm transactions be conducted through a FFL.
 

That's kinda what I'm thinking. Or hoping.

Maybe something will happen about psych checks. If you're acting badly, and the cops take you to jail, there's a record. If you're acting badly, and the cops take you to the ER, no record. That should change.

The Republicans in the House seem willing to fall on their swords to protect tax rates for millionaires, many of whom are Hollywood and sports/entertainment figures and support the Democrats. Why wouldn't they be even more adamant about the Second Amendment?
 
Joe Klein is representative of the kind of people we will deal with by negotiating,

Not really, Joe Klein and his type are rabid anti-gunners who have always existed. The firearms owning community has only made the progess recently because we had the voting public on our side. Only 1 in 3 americans personally own a gun (not just have one in the household). We need keep the voting public on our side. Joe Klein is an extermist who does not represent the opinion of the majority of the voting public, we need to be careful that we dont get painted as extremist too.
 
One does not have to be Leibnitz to grasp the linearity of the "Acts" that have been enacted over the last roughly 80 years. AWB sunset aside. . .

Give in the least possible and hope. Yeah, okay, sure.

This I know: These events in this society will happen. Period. So, we give up as little as possible, hunker down, and wait for the next massacre. Then we give a little more. Again one does not have to be a profound genius to see where this ends.

Maybe we can kick the can a ways and stave them off long enough for our generation but what of our children?
 
I 100% agree with all this. But how do you combat the argument that people bring up all the time that goes something like this:
Anti: "well the forefathers didn't foresee what weapons would be like 200 years down the road and they never intended for us to have semi auto rifles that fire 30 rounds so quickly. Nobody wants to take away all your guns, but you have no real need for an AR15"

I hear that argument a lot and I usually don't know the best response to it.

If the second Amendment doesn't apply to AR15 rifles, then the first Amendment doesn't apply to the internet or broadcast television.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.
 
The Republicans in the House seem willing to fall on their swords to protect tax rates for millionaires, many of whom are Hollywood and sports/entertainment figures and support the Democrats. Why wouldn't they be even more adamant about the Second Amendment?

Because THEY will keep their money with the tax breaks for millionaires, and THEY will keep THEIR guns in spite of any gun control legislation. The elite are immune to the law, or at least very resistant to its aftereffects. But I do agree. I hope they can stand up for us when it matters.
 
Not really, Joe Klein and his type are rabid anti-gunners who have always existed.

And Obama, Biden, Schumer, Feinstein and the other voices of the antis aren't? They are the people we will be "negotiating" with and Joe Klein and his comrades in the mainstream media are the ones who will tell the public the story of the "negotiations".

The firearms owning community has only made the progess recently because we had the voting public on our side. Only 1 in 3 americans personally own a gun (not just have one in the household). We need keep the voting public on our side. Joe Klein is an extermist who does not represent the opinion of the majority of the voting public, we need to be careful that we dont get painted as extremist too.

With Joe Klein, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the mainstream media reporting the story, anything less then full capitulation to their demands will be portrayed to the voting public as extreme.

They always attach "reasonable and common sense" catch phrases to whatever they propose. We start out in these "negotiations" portrayed as extremists.

There must be no surrender and we must give the enemy no quarter. Every inch of ground we cede to them in the hope of being portrayed as "reasonable" in the media is an inch of ground we will never get back.

Playing defense got us the 1994 assault weapons ban. It's only by going on offense that we made the gains we have during that time. We have to stay on offense. Which NFL team only has a defense? You don't win playing defense. Our military dropped "active defense" as our major strategy during the 1980s for "air/land battle". There is a reason for that. You never win a defensive fight.
 
What we really need is to bring lawsuits against public schools and other gun free zones where shootings happen.

Deny the right to carry, something happens, turn loose the lawyers...
 
For all those who believe we must give up something to avoid losing everything, I suggest the following:

Gather up all your hollow-point rounds, high capacity magazines, AR15s, and whatever else you feel guilty now about owning and take them (unloaded, of course) down to your nearest ATF satellite office. If there's not one nearby, just go the nearest Federal office of any kind (but not a post office or courthouse, as they are gun-free zones). Walk in, tell the bureaucrat manning the counter (assuming there is someone) that you're a gun owner who thinks that all gun owners are going to have to give up something to save some remnant of the RKBA, and you've come to present your offering.

If you wouldn't consider doing that, then please leave off the defeatist talk.
 
My apologies to wannabeagunsmith and the board here then. I read him wrong on his statement. Yes I agree the gun free zones are a fantasy notion. If they really want them to be that then a sign and a law will not make them so. If you want to enforce a gun free zone as you would a court house or airport terminal then you need to use the same measures with security screenings and guards. Short of that and it's just wishful thinking. Worse, as recent history has proven it makes them magnets for maniacs. Agreed.
 
NRA will fold and compromise . They did it last time and will this time. They will not fight. Contact them and demand they don't compromise or you will stop sending money!!! and cancell your membership . Then they just might grow some. . They only live for the $$$$ you send from their scare letters.
 
we are essentially psychotic apes. It's worked well for us. We over-react to immediate danger and that'll tend to keep us alive. But the more advanced we become, the longer we are stable, the less able to recognize long term danger we become.

Its our nature. Rules, data points, logic only matter to those who choose and train to govern themselves by them. That isn't the majority of us. 'Responsible ownership' mantra put the notion of self-regulation into the populaces head. Be it via the NRA, self policing, or what not. I've seen that notion echoed repeatedly on various forums in the last few days.

We failed to control this expectation. It wasn't rational. But the term does seem to imply it. I'm seeing it on numerious other forums that we have to control our own; that their right to not be murdered is more important than our hobby; that the other rights all have reasonable limitations, and the 2nd should too. I do not share these beliefs. However, I am capable of understanding from whence this point of view originated. As Plato pointed out a shield is a burdensome, expensive thing to have when one does not want it. But when you have need of it, you need it quite badly. We are in the its-expensive-to-keep phase, and the arguement is of the social cost of the shield vs what they want. Namely, fewer dead babies. They take as truth that worst things than this can't happen here.

My point: we no longer have a common background or expectation set. Piss enough people off at once and you'll be the minority. Media has drummed up a large number of pissed off people over two dozen dead babies. Was it purposeful? Was it just market forces? It doesn't matter. We are no longer so polite a society as to not sensationalize these events. There is no compromise, no rationality, no data point to put up or arguement that'll change minds. They don't care about genocide in syria, rawanda, russia, or cambodia. They care about the dead kids on the nightly news. Its a face. It is immediate, and it is here.

All we can do is say no. Because we think we know better than they do. We think we are taking the long view and they the short. So, just say no. I hope the NRA takes this stance, and we'll find out tomorrow.

In a few months we maybe able to try and make common ground among us again. But it'll be us reaching out to them. And it can't be for range trips; any more than taking unwed pregenant woman out for a day at the abortion clinic is for abortion. It has to be more general commonality. Because we've lost what we once shared; and when they get the full group pissed off at once they may well now be the majority.
 
Last edited:
Uh no.

I respectfully refuse to buy into the "Us vs. Them" mentality that has divided this country for the last 30 moronic years. I have chosen to live in Faith rather than the perspectives of fear, and whatever that "boogie man" is today, that I am also supposed to focus on instead of living.

I did not say I believe in "giving up" anything, but I do believe in a civil dialogue which is encompassed in the old studies of civics. Slathering around general and blanket insults WILL get a more extensive AWB, magazine restrictions, AND some sort of weapons importation bans. Talking in condescending and finger wagging manners among ourselves?
Pfft, you can kiss a lot more than some 2A ideas good bye- say hello to an Orwell state we see only in movies as we become a land of drone monitoring/strikes and encampments.

If you wanna be miserable talk amongst yourselves and watch the politicians. If you want to live fully watch the activities, and become active with the people.





Let me clue you in, we will always be "frightened gullible sorts in the hinterlands" until we roll over and accept their agenda. These people honestly feel they are our betters and because of their superior intellect they are the elites and know what is best for us.

You simply can't negotiate with these people. Their idea of compromise is us giving them what they



For all those who believe we must give up something to avoid losing everything, I suggest the following:

Gather up all your hollow-point rounds, high capacity magazines, AR15s, and whatever else you feel guilty now about owning and take them (unloaded, of course) down to your nearest ATF satellite office. If there's not one nearby, just go the nearest Federal office of any kind (but not a post office or courthouse, as they are gun-free zones). Walk in, tell the bureaucrat manning the counter (assuming there is someone) that you're a gun owner who thinks that all gun owners are going to have to give up something to save some remnant of the RKBA, and you've come to present your offering.

If you wouldn't consider doing that, then please leave off the defeatist talk.
 
xXxplosive said:
Nope.........The 2A is bigger than all of this....IMO.

I agree, it really is. The talk of semantics, regarding high-capacity magazines, AR-15 "military" features, and all that is all secondary. It's irrelevant in our fight, and there's no reason any of that has to be compromised. None at all. Period. No need for justification. Heck, just say "I'd rather have and not need than to need and not have" or something, if someone really demands any reasons for wanting any of this. Because it's our RIGHT, and there are no good reasons any of that has to be compromised.
 
We don't have to give up squat.

Actually, in one of the 'preliminary drafts' of a bill in Washington, the language clearly states that "squat" will indeed be included in the AWB :D.

Gosh, a little levity in this very serious thread hopefully helps a bit...

-Happy Holidays
 
About two weeks ago, I walked into a pawn shop that I frequent. I pulled a nice looking M48 mauser off the rack to look at it. Before I even looked at the tag, the owner said "I'll sell that to you for $200." I was thinking it would be in the $300 range and would have been happy to have talked him down to $250, but I didn't have to.

The moral? Never start negotiating by giving up a position of strength (him) and don't start offering more than they're asking. The heller decision is going to be significant player in this and we need to remember that. If they want a new AWB, open the NFA registry and acknowledge national constitutional carry.

The other moral: it's good to have friends in pawn/gun shops.

Matt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top