How much are we willing to give up?

[2ifbyC]

I worked in the underground command center at HQ SAC outside of Omaha in the late sixties. SAC was responsible for the USA’s nuclear missiles and bombers. During the Cuban missile crises, SAC was flying 24 hr. sorties. The message to Khrushchev was clear; the Soviet Union backed down.

Currently, we have the position of strength. If the goal of the antis is total confiscation, now is not the time for concessions or bartering; let’s die another day. More gun control; NO. More enforcement of existing laws, YES. More laws to eliminate soft targets; YES.

Areas like age limits and mental health have too many variables. I stated before that I was in favor of mandatory firearm safety training. Would a law-abiding citizen who was an idiot/imbecile/moron be more likely to commit a mass murder; I think not. Would the same person be more likely to accidentally shoot himself or others because he didn’t know how to handle a gun; I think so.

Someone asked how we can show our strength. You do it by not allowing a bill to be voted upon. Elections do have consequences. If you believe the antis will cease and desist once they get more firearms’ regulations from this tragedy, then you are on the road to perdition.

 

[danez71]

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?

The cold war negotiations was entirely different.

We didn't say we'll give up half our nukes if you don't nuke us.

That is in essence what your rape analogy was.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

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.




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?.

I understand your concerns a you make valid points. The reason I disagree is driving on public roads, medical care and welding are not constitutional rights.
Requiring training and government approval of constitutional right is a revocation of that right.
I am all for firearms training as long as it is voluntary. As supporters of the 2A it is our responsibility to encourage and teach gun safety.

Our rights guaranteed by the constitution are there to limit the power of government. Without them the country would have fallen into tyranny long ago.

As to your friend's brother, a civilized society takes care of those who can't care for themselves.

 

[danez71]

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.

Sarcasm was list despite my smilie.

I'm well aware things have changed as far as firepower goes but the principle are still the same.

The pen is mightier than the sword but we don't seem to mind the internet.


Wrestle with that for a while and get back to us.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

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.

You want more gun control so people will just get raped instead of raped and killed?

 

[Warp]

Not as much as I see the danger in letting someone walk around with a gun that's never shot a gun before.

Take a look at this case study
The state of Indiana
-Shall issue carry licenses with no training or proficiency requirement
-Cost is $50-$150, total, for a 4 year to a lifetime permit
-Minimum age for license is 18 (yes, to carry a handgun, starts at 18 in Indiana)
-Roughly top 5 nationwide in % of population licensed to carry
-Almost nothing is off limits. College and bars for example, legal for carry

Surely you can come up with a quick list of all the problems those licensed carriers have caused....right?

Look, we live in a civilized society. I don't want someone that doesn't know how to drive sharing the road with me.

Too bad, because you always have and always will

I don't want a doctor performing surgery on me that's not licensed.

Constitutionally protected Right...what is it?

I don't want a welder that's not certified building bridges.

Constitutionally protected Right...what is it?

BTW, that analogy there would be police officers who have never been trained in handling a firearm, or ASP baton, or handcuffs. There's no law saying you can't build your own bridge. You're talking obviously about public road bridges, so try to keep the analogy at least somewhat apt

Does this make sense?

No.

 

[M118LR]

I understand your concerns a you make valid points. The reason I disagree is driving on public roads, medical care and welding are not constitutional rights.
Requiring training and government approval of constitutional right is a revocation of that right.
I am all for firearms training as long as it is voluntary. As supporters of the 2A it is our responsibility to encourage and teach gun safety.

Our rights guaranteed by the constitution are there to limit the power of government. Without them the country would have fallen into tyranny long ago.

As to your friend brother, a civilized society takes care of those who can't care for themselves.

About that voluntary firearms training. Now I got a few years behind me, but their wasn't anything voluntary about training with Grandpa before Pa sat you down and witnessed your final training prior to Y'all getting your first shooting iron. So now that current children in America have a 90% ratio of single parent family unit, traditional American family experiences have passed me bye. But I'm willing to bet that more Military Volunteers nowadays that haven't had any firearms training (other than on a video game) than have prior to walking into the recruiters office. You would be hard pressed to gather a handful of millennials that have actual firearms experience, it would be even harder to gather a handful of millennials that have not gotten video game shooting experience. JMHO.

 

[Warp]

About that voluntary firearms training. Now I got a few years behind me, but their wasn't anything voluntary about training with Grandpa before Pa sat you down and witnessed your final training prior to Y'all getting your first shooting iron. So now that current children in America have a 90% ratio of single parent family unit, traditional American family experiences have passed me bye. But I'm willing to bet that more Military Volunteers nowadays that haven't had any firearms training (other than on a video game) than have prior to walking into the recruiters office. You would be hard pressed to gather a handful of millennials that have actual firearms experience, it would be even harder to gather a handful of millennials that have not gotten video game shooting experience. JMHO.

Most of the states in this country issue handgun carry licenses (or don't require a license to carry) with no training requirement

And it works.

 

[George Dickel]

Compromise to the anti-gun crowd is when they get everything they want and we get nothing. When was the last time the ant-gun crowd gave up something in regards to gun control? There is no compromising with them, you are just deluding yourself if you think that will happen.
A statement was made the US compromised with the soviets. What were those compromises? They never gave up any countries they subjugated after WWII or reduced their armed forces. They did reduce their nuclear arsenal after negotiations with the US but most of that reduction was of obsolete weapons just like we did. Both sides still had enough weapons to obliterate the world a few times over.

 

[Old Dog]

Well, here ya go:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...lt-weapons/ar-BBJD8DK?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SK2FDHP
Dems introduce a bill banning assault weapons ... Think there's any provision in this bill to give us anything we want? (Hint: No.)

 

[M118LR]

Most of the states in this country issue handgun carry licenses (or don't require a license to carry) with no training requirement

And it works.

How did it work last week in Florida? Want to guess why all of US are having this conversation? There are things that are done, and then there are things that are done which bring your loved ones "HOME" at night. Please don't confuse what can be done with the things that have proven to work. JMHO.

 

[TTv2]

I'm willing to give up bump stocks and maybe age restrictions on centerfire semi auto rifles for national reciprocity and suppressors. Beyond that, nothing. If the right side gives up bump stocks and age restrictions for nothing and we have to start all over again on reciprocity and suppressors, I'm done voting because it's clear no matter what they say during an election, they only mean it so far as they believe they can get re-elected.

Compromise is the law of the land and if the anti-gun crowd wants bump stocks and age restrictions, then they have to meet halfway. If we keep taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back, we'll lose everything in our lifetimes.

 

[AlexanderA]

Currently, we have the position of strength.

That's an iffy proposition. We have defensive strength in that no new antigun measures can be adopted (unless there are defections from our side -- something that appears to be happening at this very moment). But we don't have offensive strength. We can't get anything passed that we want (such as national reciprocity or the silencer bill). Gun policy is in a condition of stasis, at least on the federal level. I don't want stasis; I want to see some progress.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

How did it work last week in Florida? Want to guess why all of US are having this conversation? There are things that are done, and then there are things that are done which bring your loved ones "HOME" at night. Please don't confuse what can be done with the things that have proven to work. JMHO.

Last week in Florida the guys trained with guns stayed outside while those not allowed to carry got shot.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I'm willing to give up bump stocks and maybe age restrictions on centerfire semi auto rifles for national reciprocity and suppressors.

I am not.

I'm done voting because it's clear no matter what they say during an election, they only mean it so far as they believe they can get re-elected.

If you are unhappy with your choices in the general election get involved in the primaries.

 

[M118LR]

Looks like WE have already lost the Bump Stock issue, there are allot of 18 year Old Woodsmen that are going to say you sacrificed their rights because you have already passed that age, so they graduated HS and struck out to make thier own way and Y'all said that they didn't need to fill thier freezer with meat to feed thier HS Baby Momma & the child. I'm not sure I'm willing to handle that. JMHO.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Not. One. Damn. Thing

 

[Warp]

How did it work last week in Florida?

I must have missed what you are referring to.

Where did a law abiding gun owner, in particular one lawfully carrying a gun, make a mistake or have an accident, as a result of not being trained??

Seriously what the heck are you talking about?

ooooh I see, you want the psycho school shooter to be a better marksman. Interesting. Not sure I agree, though. How would that even happen? Mandatory firearms training for everybody at the age of 18? In high school?

 

[Warp]

Last week in Florida the guys trained with guns stayed outside while those not allowed to carry got shot.

Truth. This post is.

 

[Warp]

Looks like WE have already lost the Bump Stock issue, there are allot of 18 year Old Woodsmen that are going to say you sacrificed their rights because you have already passed that age, so they graduated HS and struck out to make thier own way and Y'all said that they didn't need to fill thier freezer with meat to feed thier HS Baby Momma & the child. I'm not sure I'm willing to handle that. JMHO.

WE?

Forgive me for asking, Mr joined last week, but what is your stake in this?

 

[Old Dog]

I'm willing to give up bump stocks and maybe age restrictions on centerfire semi auto rifles for national reciprocity and suppressors.

Check my last post out. Where in the bill BANNING ALL semi-auto rifles are they "giving us" anything in return for what they are taking? What are you smoking that you think we'll get ANYTHING in return for what we stand to lose?

 

[2ifbyC]

Gun policy is in a condition of stasis, at least on the federal level. I don't want stasis; I want to see some progress.

This country is deeply polarized. Obama ruled by executive fiat and Reed invoked the “nuclear option” to get democratic nominees appointed. If you abhor stasis on gun policy at the Federal level, please explain your plan for the “progress” you profoundly desire.

I lived in Virginia for 33 years. I saw it change from a red state to a blue state. Maybe you would like to discuss the “progress” there on gun rights.

 

[Robert]

This is just going around in circles. If we haven't said it by now we never will...