Preemptive Brinksmanship-Would You Support a limited AWB if

[schrodingerscat]

OK-Don't kill me this is just food for thought and hopefully inspired discourse.

It's a fact that we are approaching the border of being a minority as gun owners/second amendment proponents. The populous of the US is demographically changing with the rising contingent being overwhelmingly liberal folks that are culturally underexposed outdoor sportsmanship. Its highly likely that the vast majority will over the course of their developmental years only encounter traumatic experiences associated with illegal firearms.

Given this reality and looking forward to years of cyclic bills threatening our rights-would you be willing to make a bargain with the to secure our legacy as sportsman?

An Amendment that:

• Explictly expands upon the 2nd Enumerating (not supplanting or limiting) specfic arms that we are entitled to without question (types-leave open language for future technologies. Include centerfire rifle ammo up to .51 cal & grandfather H&H rounds)
• Tie State/Local Compliance to receipt of Federal Jag/Byrne Grant Funding (make them see the value of armed citizens)
• Require that all asset fortfitures/siezures in firearms crimes be spent on victems, youth and public firearms training, municipal ranges with youth and adult competition, and the acquistion of public game land.
• In tern offer up a ban on the manufacture and sale of new firearms that require licensing under a military patent.
• Grandfather all current weapons-allow free transfer
• Limit New Mags for military style weapons at 30, 20, 15-whatever we can get. But allow for sale old stock, verifyable imports of old stock, and replacement/exchange/repair/Tranfser of existing mags
• Delagate states to license the sale of new military weapons and mags to LEO's and ex-military & volunteers at community training centers (not paramilitary)
• Impose Language that Registry is a Violation to our right to privacy
• Create a Non-Severability Provision in the Law. If any component is deemed unconstitutional then it all is.
• Impose no restrictions on the design of purely civilian firearms provided they fire a rifle cartridge of .243 or greater (no more "its not made for hunting")
• Define all tradional Handguns as Arms Protected by the 2nd
• Limit Detachable Mags Shotguns to 9 rounds
• Allow them some concession related to aw characteristics

What do you think? Pay a little price to perfect our future?

 

[dogtown tom]

What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do you not get?

schrodingerscat OK-Don't kill me this is just food for thought and hopefully inspired discourse.

So........the current Second Amendment isn't clear enough?

What on earth makes you think any new amendment will cause the gun banners to sit back and be happy?

 

[valnar]

Give an inch, take a mile comes to mind.

The USA slips further away from liberty every day. I would not give up anything unless a gun was held to my head, which would be ironic at best.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No, I would not accept those. We already have dozens of unjustifiable restrictions that shouldn't even be law. No more!

Not to mention that several of your proposals are already elements of federal law and you can see how much weight they are given. New York prosecutes people in violation of FOPA. A registry is already prohibited so now they keep a "gun sale" daabase instead of a gun owner database. You can't negotiate with people who are not acting in good faith. Gun banners are not acting in good faith. Every restriction is just a tiny ratchet towards limiting your access to firearms. They won't ever stop... not even if they got all the guns. They would then just start badgering you about your pointy knives longer than 3".

 

[Tommygunn]

SEE POST #2 FOR DETAILS.

 

[Coltdriver]

Given this reality and looking forward to years of cyclic bills threatening our rights-would you be willing to make a bargain with the to secure our legacy as sportsman?

You really need to read the Federalist Papers and understand your heritage as a free American.

 

[JJY]

Why are some folks in a hurry to come up with some type of "compromise"? Remember that every time you compromise you loose some of your rights. The first time you meet in the middle you loose half your rights. The second time you meet in the new middle you have now lost 75%. And so on!

 

[TanklessPro]

We have been giving an inch since 1934. The line has been drawn.

This is a very simple subject. We have been on the downward side of the hill since '34. It is time to Dig in your heels and stand tall. I'm tired of all the what would you give up or compromise too.

Just a note,if you feel that you must be typing something, type and send to your elected officials.

TP is out and I'm not responding to anymore of these post.

 

[TNBilly]

too much - like most of the arguments I've seen that are anti 2nd amendment you have half a page there trying to set the parameters of the argument presented. Like the rest stated, NO.

 

[ExTank]

It's a fact that we are approaching the border of being a minority as gun owners/second amendment proponents. The populous of the US is demographically changing with the rising contingent being overwhelmingly liberal folks that are culturally underexposed outdoor sportsmanship. Its highly likely that the vast majority will over the course of their developmental years only encounter traumatic experiences associated with illegal firearms.

I disagree with this assessment. There's about 130,000,000 million American gun owners, posessing about 285,000,000 firearms. More people are leaving the economically moribund Northeast for points south and west. I see it every day here in St. Louis with the proliferation of Michigan, New York, Massachussetts, and New Jersey license plates on my daily commute.

Gun sales have been increasing explosively since 1010; I routinely encounter first-time buyers at gun shows and the LGS.

Our biggest enemy is NOT the gun-control politicians; it's the willing complicity of the mainstream media in perpetuating the gun control lies.

Our biggest weakess is ironically ourselves: if enough of those 130,000,000 gun owners vote NO to gun control politicians, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Way too many gun owners have the very "Us-and-Them" attitude towards each other that lets the Feinsteins and Schumers and McCarthys even have the nerve to propose things like AWBs. I can't count the number of times I've read, right here on THR, some gun owner condemn "Mall Ninjas" and their black rifles; read rifle shooters condemn handgun shooters, and so on.

I support the right to keep and bear arms. Period, full stop.

Want to just own a double barreled shotgun for skeet and trap? Good on you. I support that.

Want to just own a bolt-action rifle to take some deer come fall every year? Good on you. I support that.

Want to just own handguns and shoot targets at the range, or run through tactical "shoot-houses?" Good on you. I support that.

Want to just own a SBR with laser sights and scopes and forward hand-grips? Good on you. I support that.

I support the right to keep and bear arms. Period. Full stop.

If even half of the 130,000,000 gun owners in America thougth and voted as such, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[browneu]

No.

Gun ownership is up and the NRA is more popular than the president. So why do you think we're a growing minority?

Instead of new legislation we need to educate those willing to learn and try to convert as many to our sport as we can.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[schrodingerscat]

The unfortunate fact is that it is subject to judicial interpretation. The Court has historically been more often comprised of Justices that view the Constitution as Living Document Subject to Interpretation.

As our population gets denser and academia being focused in Cities your not going to have Justices with any personal firearms experience during their formative years. Was the AWB of 1994 overturned-no.

This is not going to a way. Its reality.

The Patriot Act went very close to home-something happens again, domestically with guns (OCB type/Waco) we'll have less to bargain with.

If we secure an understanding there hope-if we expose future generations to responsible gun ownership we win the future.

 

[cfullgraf]

The Second Amendment is just fine the way it is.

 

[Hoppy]

Schrod. You propose so much yet accomplish nothing. You say so much yet accomplish nothing. Hey, are you an elected servant?

 

[wojownik]

aqNo. The OP's list of bullet points seem to be merely using the Feinstein restrictions to go a slightly different direction. Here's my proposal:

The Firearms Owners Protection Act should be expanded to include provisions that mirror the SCOTUS decisions that firearms ownership is an individual right. Specify that no state or local jurisdiction may abridge that right. (exceptions in the case of violent felons, the mentally ill and institutionalized, non-citizens/non-resident aliens):

Provide for mandatory Federal penalties for any government official (Federal, state, or local) that interferes with FOPA protections. Provide for mandatory Federal penalties for any government official that attempts to create or maintain a database or registry of firearms owners (for more than 72 hours for an individual record for background check purposes, and even then, the information may be be shared or published except for the limited purposes of conducting a background check).

Specify that no LEO or Federal agent may possess any firearm or magazine not generally available to the general public.

Magazine restrictions? No (but personally I could live with a 30 round limit on rifles and 15 round limit on pistols). No serial numbers, no dating, etc. It was a confusing mess in 1994, and will be more so today.

Oh, and specify that any protective detail surrounding the Vice President is limited to double barrel shotguns.


That's my start for a Saturday morning.

 

[w9trb]

The anti's have been nibbling away on personal freedoms and replacing them with politically correct speech and hate crimes (thought police) and dare I say it, anything goes sexuality. I will never trust them to modify my rights as written in the founding documents. Not even one tiny word.

 

[skeeziks]

I don't need to compromise.... My Rights are already protected.

Why make a compromise with our freedoms when the Founding Fathers already saw to it that our God-Given Rights would forever be protected?

There is nothing the govt. can do about it and they know it....

 

[Strange Bob]

35-0 - 0- 0 so far. Seems most here don't trust politicians ... and with good reason!

 

[M-Cameron]

???!!!......that proposal sounds horrible, why the hell would anyone support that?

it literally sounds like something the Brady campaign would suggest.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I've watched the ebb and flow of government and opinions, I've watched technology produce things that our parents never even considered might exist let alone the things that were the wildest of sci-fi imaginings.

I can't imagine that it would be possible to create a "now and forever" rule and expect it to hold, the whole notion is just pure fantasy.

 

[goon]

On the focus on hunting, where does the Second Amendment mention hunting or sporting uses?

 

[psyopspec]

Under the proposal in the OP, I personally would make out quite well.

But as with all civil rights, there are principles and consequences greater than myself to be considered. On behalf of the people this fictional law would oppress now and in the future, thanks but no thanks.

 

[MachIVshooter]

 

[Doubleobuck]

NO !!

The 2A was written to protect us from the very people trying to change it..

 

[wally]

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sportsmen. Its about maintaining the means to prevent being ruled by tyrants!

The day of actually needing it is closer now than I'd ever imagined possible!