Proposed compromises on gun laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of you didn't read it clearly enough or you don't understand the current reality.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think we all read it perfectly clearly. You're willing to exchange some freedoms for others. We are not willing to do so.

Given my general mistrust of pretty much everyone, and my rather compulsive desire to keep myself out of any sort of legal issue that might result in someone taking my guns, if I were to sell a gun, you can bet there will be a background check involved.
Click to expand...

Which would make 9/10 of the people you're trying to sell to tell you to just forget it. Which may be fine with you. If it is, that's certainly your right. Me, if I want to go through all the BS red tape, I'll just go to a gun store in the first place.

You can say "no mandatory education", but that leaves an avenue of attack from the left
Click to expand...

That's better than folding and conceding things to them voluntarily as you are suggesting we do.

By instituting Conservation Clubs in schools, in the manner of the 1940s, students will have the opportunities to learn sportsmanship, safe firearm handling, maintenance, etc.
Click to expand...

I actually think this is an excellent idea, but I don't believe it should be mandatory. My daughter's school has shooting sports and I think it's great, and will encourage her to participate. They have a trap team, and will have an archery team soon.
 
Armymutt said:
How many of you go shooting on federal lands?
Click to expand...
I do. And, I would imagine that there are many folks that do, especially in the Western US and Alaska.

What I find disturbing is your "the infringement I'm proposing doesn't directly effect me, so it's OK" attitude.

ederally_owned_land_heritage_foundation_map.jpg
 
I understand your point, just completely disagree.

If Government is the answer, you probably asked the wrong question....
 
Are they federally owned or managed? Who is controlling access to them? You can keep yelling no compromise, but that didn't work out for us in '34, '68, '86, or '94. These compromises restore more freedom than they give up, unless you have a reason for not wanting to make sure you aren't committing a crime by selling to a ineligible person. How many of you have children in schools getting firearm instruction from a police instructor or NRA instructor?

Eventually, the left is going to get what they want. You're fooling yourself if you think politicians are going to stop it. The best case is to regain what's been lost while they focus on their prize.
 
Last edited:
You may not realize it but you're throwing a lot of people under the bus in exchange for just a few.

A lot, and I mean A LOT, of people hunt on Fed propery like national forrests and range land, but only a very few are interested in machine guns. Where does infringing on the rights of the many for the benefit of the few make any sense. Instead you should be working to remove machineguns from the NFA since you've already said that they're simply not a threat to public safety. If they're not used in crime then why make deals that penalize so many people?

Even greater numbers of citizens would be affected by your universal background check scheme, but still only a fraction of them would be interested in purchasing suppressors. Again, why penalize the many for the benefit of the few. Instead you should be working to remove suppressors from NFA so that anyone that wants to protect their hearing would be able to purchase one.

Starting from this is not a sound negotiating approach.

"These compromises restore more freedom than they give up"

No, you exchange the freedoms of millions for a few scores of thousands and that is a net loss.
 
If the left is eventually going to win and get their way eventually. Why not just save yourself some hassle in the future and sell all your guns now?

This defeatist attitude is ridiculous.
 
Armymutt said:
The President says that there need to be compromises in gun laws. I have proposed the following. I'm planning on sending these to my senators and reps.

1. Registration of all firearms to be used on federally owned land. If a state wishes to do the same for the land it owns, fine. In exchange, the machine gun registry is to be re-opened to allow the registration of new machine guns, along with allowing the new manufacture and importation of machine guns. Of all the weapons used in crimes, legal machine guns have the best track record. Since 1934, only one has been used.
2. Back ground checks for all firearms transfers, either through the NICS or some other system set up for the owner of the weapon to conduct the check. No requirement to maintain a bound book for transfers, but it is on the seller to prove that a check was done. In exchange, suppressors are removed from being NFA items. These are safety devices similar to the muffler on a car. They do not eliminate the report of a firearm, despite Hollywood depiction to the contrary. This will reduce noise pollution at both indoor and outdoor ranges, making shooting sports even safer.
3. Mandatory firearm safety education for anyone under the age of 18 on the date of passage. This will be conducted every year in every public school, with the level of education appropriate for the age group. Initially it would start with the don't touch idea, and progress all the way to maintenance and shooting fundamentals. This will ensure that all students know how to safely handle firearms, even if they have no interest in them. Since most of the firearm fatalities are due to accidents, education is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Your points... No, No, and No
 
No requirement to maintain a bound book for transfers, but it is on the seller to prove that a check was done.
Click to expand...

So your proposition is that the ACCUSED bear the burden of proof in a federal firearms prosecution? Your concessions re: federal and state registration are pretty clear violations of the 2nd and 14th amendments, but now you're willing to throw DUE PROCESS under the bus?

This sort of 'reasonable compromise' will have y'all living in a 49-state gulag.

NO MORE COMPROMISE.
 
If registration had not already been used to enact generational confiscation of new machineguns, there might be something to talk about. There is no reason to believe further registration will not be used for future rounds of confiscation, either direct or via "grandfather" provisions.

Let's talk after the repeal of 922o and 922q:
 
I saw that astronaut husband on Fox News Sunday. He makes a real good pitch for fixing NICS and extending it to all private sales. BUT he completely discounts the danger that a national registry will later be used for confiscation, like that is some kind of paranoid delusion we have.

All he has to do is listen to what the Dem leaders are saying right now - "This is just the beginning", 'There is no reason those 'Guns of War' should be on our streets", etc. It's not paranoia when they are openly calling for it.
 
The President says that there need to be compromises in gun laws. I have proposed the following terms of surrender. I'm planning on sending these to my senators and reps.
Click to expand...

There. Corrected it for you. :banghead:
 
not sure if this post is serious or related to the date.
Click to expand...
Gotta be a joke. I taught in a public school for over 30 years and (to me) the idea of federally mandated curriculum across the board in firearms safety is absurd. Schools already have enough to do that isn't getting done.

As far as registration if the firearm is used on federally owned land (as a NFA concession), I live in Wyoming where the vast majority of hunting is done on federal lands. For that matter, the only public shooting range in the county is owned by the BLM (the county is over 5.9 million acres with over 3 million of those acres belonging to Uncle Sam). There are other counties with larger percentages of federal land. I guess you might as well just call for federal gun registration in the west where the local and state governments are already gun friendly. :banghead:
 
Eventually, the left is going to get what they want. You're fooling yourself if you think politicians are going to stop it. The best case is to regain what's been lost while they focus on their prize.
Click to expand...

At the moment so far as events in Washington DC are concerned, even the urban-based media is saying that the only proposal that might pass in the Senate is a modified universal background check bill, and that is doubtful.

In the House of Representatives (controled by Republicans) the word is that even any kind of UBC is in trouble, partly because all of the members are up for election in 2014, and neither side wants to get a large body of voters upset - but for different reasons.

Politicians are most concerned about getting re-elected (or elected, as the case might be). Gun control is a hot-button issue, and their incoming mail has made it clear that touching this issue could cause some members a lot of trouble.

I have personally been in this battle since before 1968, and frankly we have never been stronger. On the question of background checks the other side has made no move what-so-ever on moving toward a compromise. I see no reason we should give up anything in exchange for nothing.

Oh, and why does anyone think that either side in Washington is willing to modify or repeal the 1934 NFA? That idea has not been put forward by either side, and it's highly unlikely that it will be.
 
Some of you didn't read it clearly enough or you don't understand the current reality. I said "used", not transported. If you want to hunt on federally owned land such as a military installation, you are required to register the weapon with the MPs. How many of you go shooting on federal lands? I would take this minor (and already required) inconvenience over having a closed registry and import restrictions any day.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe they would open the machine gun registration to get a log of hunters on federal land? Nobody, including gun control advocates, believe this is going to do anything towards reducing mass shootings or gun violence. What is the point to this "compromise"? I know not all convicted felons are the brightest bulbs in the pack but i believe most are probably clever enough to not voluntarily go to a place where they have to register their illegally owned guns.
 
I'll just us a medical disease analogy. Compromising is like trading one type of cancer for another (quid pro quo politics, with no net gain). Why not just cure the whole disease? (Shall not be infringed).

It's not complicated, and it's not rocket science, so being an ex-astronaut means nothing at all anyway...
 
No compromise.

Our best COA is to force the federal government to read and heed the darn document, the one that says "shall not be infringed," and remind them that it's the one they all swore to support and defend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
compromises in gun laws
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Big_E
B
M
  • Locked
CT proposal: toughest gun laws in the country
2 3
Replies
73
Views
4K
kayakersteve
K
MachIVshooter
  • Locked
Here's OUR compromise
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
arizona_cards_11
A
DMK
  • Locked
Any History of Weapons Confiscation or Registration in the U.S.?
Replies
22
Views
1K
SkunkApe
S
Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
Proposed Illinois FOID change (alert from ISRA)
Replies
3
Views
703
223_AR
2
Back
Top