Pro 2A vs. antis: "Compromise of the century"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Start down that slope and where do you stop... what else are you going to take from old folks. Maybe when a person outlives their usefulness according to someone else, they should be just put to sleep. After all who needs a 90 year old. Good Grief, I can't believe this is even being discussed.

Sorry for mentioning the "90 years old", I was trying to make a point.....

My NRA instructor friend he is well over 70 :cool: ...and we did discuss this issue, great person....he sees further restrictions down the road if we do not act fast...let's pretending we are giving the antis something to chow and get what we really want.....
 
No, no you wouldn't. The world that you've been describing as your preferred choice looks nothing like that; almost the opposite in fact!

The scenario I described carry less restrictions that the world we already live in my friend....;)
 
I live in WA and if we had real background checks to keep Bloomberg & Co at bay we would not have to deal with this pile of s...t dumped on us
you seriously underestimate the other side, you are flat wrong. they will not stop until we ban flintlock's. Thats only one huge problem with your idea, but it's a huge one.
 
The scenario I described carry less restrictions that the world we already live in...
You are not living in reality.

This map used to have red in it. This is reality. This is the world we already live in. We are winning in the large scheme.

all_usa_map-RI.gif
 
If we keep it this way we are going to lose..and lose badly...this is exactly what a veteran and NRA certified instructors told me...I live in WA and if we had real background checks to keep Bloomberg & Co at bay we would not have to deal with this pile of s...t dumped on us....
So having restrictive legislation in place is a good thing because it keeps the anti-gunners away?

What about NY State who already had the worst handgun laws in the country since 1911, then recently passed and now signed into law the SAFE ACT. According to this reasoning no more gun control legislation should have happened, but it did.

The reason why Washington State passed I-594 is because only 31% voted. Where was the other 69%? http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9681062&postcount=67
.
 
You are not seeking compromise, you are seeking to appease the anti-gunners by meeting their demand for universal background checks and hoping they will honor an agreement not to seek more restrictions. But, there is no way to make that "iron-clad". NONE! So they will be back seeking more restrictions because, "for some reason, background checks have not put an end to crime" or some other such nonsense. They will need registration. They will need more restrictions on who can get a permit. Can a person who habitually flaunts the traffic laws be trusted to to obey gun laws? :banghead:

I know too many antis to think they could ever be appeased. Too much difference in their philosophy. For one thing, many of them reject the idea of a right of self-defense. Or self-anything. Nope. Never work. :barf:
 
you seriously underestimate the other side, you are flat wrong. they will not stop until we ban flintlock's. Thats only one huge problem with your idea, but it's a huge one.

True....but we are not going to solve it dreaming of buying machine guns at the corner hardware store....ain't gonna happen...
 
So having restrictive legislation in place is a good thing because it keeps the anti-gunners away?

What about NY State who already had the worst handgun laws in the country since 1911, then recently passed and now signed into law the SAFE ACT. According to this reasoning no more gun control legislation should have happened, but it did.

The reason why Washington State passed I-594 is because only 31% voted. Where was the other 69%? http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....2&postcount=67
.


What makes you believe having the remaining 69% voting would have changed the outcome??

I agree that Bloomberg & Co. will never be satisfied but I can tell you that this crap would not have passed this time.
 
Last edited:
The upside is that WA is not a reflection of the rest of the country. Get off the left coast and the extreme North East and traditional America is still going strong.
 
You are not living in reality.

This map used to have red in it. This is reality. This is the world we already live in. We are winning in the large scheme.

As much as I would love for this to be the case, I believe these "victories" are temporary if anything....my NRA instructor friends agree and he sees more gun control in the future...these are blips in an unfortunate down trend.

Oregon is the next target of Bloomberg & Co...watch it....
 
True....but we are not going to solve it dreaming of buying machine guns at the corner hardware store....ain't gonna happen...
I agree, but I'd also say it most likely isn't possible to solve the problem given the current division in the country. Their are two fundamentaly opposed ideologies.
If their is a fix its many, many, decades away.......at best. To my knowledge no society has ever successfully compromised on this issue, because the issue isn't about guns.
 
Nope...sorry, I'm not for compromising my Constitutional Rights on any level. In fact, why should anyone?
Because the truth of the matter is all constitutional rights are subject to agreed upon restrictions of some kind. Thats not new or news. It is a myth that that the 2nd amendment is somehow exempt to any restrictions.

The problem is the radical antis give us no choice but to not give an inch because they will not quit until all guns are illegal. So while a lot of us are more than willing to make certain compromises, there is no compromise that will satisfy them. So therefore there is no deal.

That being said, I could compromise on a lot of things and could get close to the OPs suggestion but would have a problem with Universal Background checks although I suppose that could be a state level decision. But again, it can never happen.
 
Google the story of the scorpion and the frog. The anti-gun zealots are the scorpion and those who think they can get a promise from them are the frog. The scorpion will do what is in his nature even if it means his own death.

I know too many anti-gun morons and they will never, ever give up trying to take our guns. They will not abide by any compromise and when they do breach the compromise what consequences will they suffer? Death, prison, a tsk tsk and a slap on the wrist???

Also google "pipe dream", that is what your friends are advocating.
 
I believe the OP has far too much trust in "the system".

I have a lifelong friend, two years younger than I, who was "diagnosed" with early-onset Alzheimers about two years ago (he was 55 at the time). This was according to one "doctor" who said, unilaterally and arbitrarily, that he could no longer legally drive or own firearms.

That was it. Done.

His family members bought in, one of his daughters confiscated all of his firearms while he and his wife were out of town, and he was stuffed.

What would be going through your mind if this happened to you?

He has been fighting it "within the system" for two years. He recently was "re-evaluated", and the result was..."Ooops...sorry...you are okay." So now he can drive and own guns again. Two years later.

He has been incredibly magnanimous through all of this. His gun collection is gone--whether the daughter sold or claimed them...the end result is the same. He is starting from scratch.

There is a valuable lesson here: be very careful about any form of compromise or entrusting your "rights" to anyone with any degree of power.
 
Pro 2A vs. antis: "Compromise of the century"
What do you think and there is any technical way to reach what I call the "compromise of the century" between 2A supporters and the antis. We need to stop being worried all the time about our rights being chipped away and the antis need to deal with the fact that guns are a constitutional rights and are here to stay.

This is what my "proposal" is:

- Shall issue Concealed Permits (where is required to pass a proficiency test) as maximum level of restriction allowed for every state reciprocated in all 50 states of the union like any state issued driving license. States that do not have any CCW requirements can keep doing what they do. I know that some of the staunchest gun supporters are opposed to concealed permits because gun ownership is a constitutional right where driving around with a car is not....well, without digressing too much, personally I believe that getting around your own country (by feet, car, train, airplane) is some sort of unwritten right in itself and, frankly, we need to reach a middle ground.....someone's freedom and rights stop where my freedom and rights begin so I frankly do not want an armed citizen in public incapable to hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards...I do not want to lose my life in his/her attempts to save his/hers. In your own property you can do whatever you want exactly like you can drive a car with no license and registration in your own land.

- Background checks for every kind of sale or permanent transfer.

- If the antis wants "gun free zones", these are reasonably limited to courthouses, police stations, some federal buildings and maybe airports. No frivolous local gun legislation. When I say maybe no guns in airports I mean not on your person but I want the ability to fly let's say from Seattle to Dallas, carrying my gun...you just check it in with your luggage.

- Current federal firearms classification limits are perfectly fine (no fully automatic, .50 cal. maximum practical limit), no further limitation of capacity, type, etc...no more evil AK or AR scare.

That's it, after that get of my back and leave my guns alone. focus on something else that requires way more urgent attention.

And this must be iron clad with no possibility whatsoever to tinker with it ever again.

Agree?? If you do any practical way to reach it??
Last edited by saturno_v; Today at 06:06 PM.
saturno_v is online now Report Post
and you answer yourself with this
As much as I would love for this to be the case, I believe these "victories" are temporary if anything....my NRA instructor friends agree and he sees more gun control in the future...these are blips in an unfortunate down trend.
 
Because the truth of the matter is all constitutional rights are subject to agreed upon restrictions of some kind.


Nutts... A lot of folks are going to disagree on that one.
 
SATURNO v - " ... - Background checks for every kind of sale or permanent transfer. ..."

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!

Do you have even the faintest idea what that would involve in this gigantic country?? The incredible inconvenience and onerous restrictions it would cause for millions and millions of honest gunowners through out this country? Do you not understand that not one single criminal or wannabee criminal would go through a "background check" in order to illegally obtain a firearm?

Your desire for UBC for any private party firearms sale, transfer, loan, etc., sounds precisely as if it were taken straight from the talking points issued by Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Hillary/Billery, Hussein Obama, Levin, Franken, Brady, Giffords, ad nauseum.

UBC??? Nonsense!

L.W.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRM View Post
Nutts... A lot of folks are going to disagree on that one.


They might disagree, but they won't be able to prove it incorrect.
Yep. They may disagree with me, but they will be wrong.
 
That is yet to be proven. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. This just illustrates just how divided both sides are. You want to compromise your rights - go ahead. Leave mine to hell alone.
 
saturno_v

Way too much "compromise" and "appeasement" going on with your proposals to provide any relief or benefit to law abiding gun owners.

Not enough "restrictions" and "limitations" to ever satisfy the anti-gunners. Likewise they will never concede to any "iron clad" agreement not to modify this proposal or desist from chipping away at our rights under the Second Amendment.
 
That is yet to be proven. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. This just illustrates just how divided both sides are. You want to compromise your rights - go ahead. Leave mine to hell alone.
Assuming you are referring to me. Actually, it has been proven. It has been proven countless times over 200 years of legislation and case law. It is not a question of validity of opinion and it has nothing to do with 'compromising rights.' It is taught in week 1 of any constitutional law class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top