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

[kayak-man]

The only compromises I'm willing to make are ones the antis probably wouldn't like.

-make it law that the issuing authority for CPL/CCW would, upon issue of a permit, offer a free and OPTIONAL training class covering things like where you can/can't carry, gun safety, maybe some op use of force laws. I understand that may not be feasible, so perhaps instead of upon issuing a permit, it the agency could hold 2-3 clinics (2 classroom, one with live fire, all 3 optional and not required to get a permit) each month, and potentially charge around $20, ensuring that stays affordable(ish)

- mandatory gun safety in the schools. I think if we approached it as an issue of "let's stop kids from having accidental shootings" it might work. Nothing too in depth, just the four rules, and the "there can be a bullet in the chamber even if the magazine is removed" talk.

-all new firearms ship from the manufacturer with a cable lock.

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....

If Bloomberg and Co were acting out of the goodness of thier hearts and wanted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I might be tempted to admit that you could have a point, but that's not the case. Until 4 months ago, I lived my whole life in western Washington, and it makes me sad to think that if I move back to my home town after paramedic school, I ill have to put up with that law. It's not about lowering crime, or "protecting the children" it's about taking something that scares them, and regulating it to the point where people won't want to be bothered with exercising their rights.

 

[carsten1911]

Compromise will satisfy gun-haters?

No way, to put it bluntly.

Here in ole Germany, where freedom is hard to find, the anti-gunners managed to regulate weak AIR-RIFLES and SOFT-AIR-stuff.
And they keep pushing, their publically admitted goal is to completely ban air-rifles, because they are "a danger to the public."

Go figure where your compromise is going to bring you and your fellow countrymen to.

Be free OR compromise...you can´t have both at the same time.

Carsten

 

[45_auto]

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

This whole thread starts off as a joke. How do you propose to do this?

Obviously can't do it by passing laws, those get changed every congressional session.

Can't do it as a constitutional amendment. Although a little more difficult than a law, those also get changed or repealed depending upon the party in power.

Can't do it by including it in a new constitution, that's also subject to change by amendments (see above) under our present system.

What else is there?

Are you proposing to form a new government with an absolute dictator or king who supports gun rights as leader? Do you expect them to live forever?

 

[Walkalong]

There is no such thing as compromise with antis. If you try to do so, you play into their hands and lose.

 

[Midwest]

The only compromises I'm willing to make are ones the antis probably wouldn't like.

-make it law that the issuing authority for CPL/CCW would, upon issue of a permit, offer a free and OPTIONAL training class covering things like where you can/can't carry, gun safety, maybe some op use of force laws. I understand that may not be feasible, so perhaps instead of upon issuing a permit, it the agency could hold 2-3 clinics (2 classroom, one with live fire, all 3 optional and not required to get a permit) each month, and potentially charge around $20, ensuring that stays affordable(ish)

- mandatory gun safety in the schools. I think if we approached it as an issue of "let's stop kids from having accidental shootings" it might work. Nothing too in depth, just the four rules, and the "there can be a bullet in the chamber even if the magazine is removed" talk.

-all new firearms ship from the manufacturer with a cable lock.

Optional training classes, I could agree with that.


I agree with gun safety education in schools.


Cable lock it could be optional by the manufacturer.


One thing I would like to see and it would be optional is a glossy pamphlet folded brochure to be given out for free at LGS or permit classes showing all 50 states, Canada and Mexico and where areas that have negative carry laws it would be in Red. Sort of like "Do Not Carry Here".

I know this information is freely available on the net, but a pamphlet or brochure is something you can grab and read while at the LGS and put in car for a quick glance when traveling across the country. We keep hearing of people getting jammed up when traveling to NY or NJ and aren't aware of the carry laws.

The NRA could produce millions of these things covered with small donations or whatever for 100 brochures at a time.
.

 

[TomJ]

My biggest concern is with the belief that any agreement can be ironclad. There's no such thing with the anti's. If you've been watching the news the past couple of days, you may have seen where one of the architects of Obamacare admitted to lying to the American people about the legislation to get it passed, talking about the "stupidity of the American voter". These people have no ethics and no respect for us, and no agreement with them will ever be ironclad. They'll lie to us to get more concessions and then continue to chip away at our rights.

 

[HexHead]

If anything, the Left needs to be reminded that we have most of the guns and they need to go sit in the corner and ****.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"This is exactly what I'm proposing..an iron clad agreement.....absolutely no possibility to tinker with it....the legal experts can weight in in how to implement it........"


Unchangable law? Back to High School Civics:


It's called an Amendment to the Constitution (which even so can be repealed).

"Good Luck" on that.





Willie

.

 

[AlexanderA]

Such a compromise presupposes at least a minimal amount of goodwill on the other side. I don't see this in evidence. On the contrary -- the antipathy goes far deeper than guns. It's a cultural divide. The antigun side (mostly urban elites) sees "gun control" as a way to beat down what to them is the "redneck" culture, of which guns are only a part. They viscerally hate those who are not like themselves. In their minds they have created, in the NRA, a monster on which to focus their invective.

The amount of polarization in this country is only analogous to the polarization in the 1850's, over the issue of slavery. It's not regional this time; it's more urban/suburban versus rural and small town (with nonconforming "pockets" scattered among the other side). That's why you have states, such as New York and Maryland, that would be pro-gun were it not for the urban areas within them that contain the bulk of the population.

For a preview of what life would be like if the gun controllers had their way, look at the UK and Australia. It's reached the point in the UK where even kitchen knives (with a blade over a certain length) are being banned. Of course, the corollary to this is that the more draconian the laws, the less compliance and the more contempt for the law in general. There's a huge gun underground in Europe despite Europe's reputation for strict gun control. These sorts of prohibitions never work as intended.

 

[Midwest]

If you want to see how "Compromise Of The Century" went, look no further.

 

[carsten1911]

Numbers for Germany

To give more details for an example for a European Country:
Germany has counted the legally owned firearms in private hands: Roughly 7 millions.
Police estimate there are 20-30 millions illegal firearms in Germany (by nature they are very hard to count).

W have an everage of FOUR death connected to legal firearms a year. There are more people who choke on bubblegum and die. And STILL the antis are pushing their agenda....do you REALLY think you could find a REASONABLE compromise with people of that intellectual stature?
I mean: REALLY?

They are out to get them all, they want you powerless and wont stop until they reached that goal.
DONT TRY TO REASON WITH FANATICS!!!

Carsten

 

[7mmstalker]

Deep South writes:
"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."-emphasis added by me

dragon813gt writes:
"The OP is living in some form of dream world. The anti side's goal isn't just about firearms. It's about controlling every aspect of your life. They won't stop until all firearms are gone. They won't stop until they tell you what you can and can't do down to the most trivial mundane thing."

While it is entertaining and a good way to waste time, a discussion of "gun rights" is actually an issue of human rights.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights has been the bedrock of the success of the United States. As our population has become accustomed to such a comfortable life and high standard of living, many have become mentally lazy and ignorant / indifferent to this basic truth.
If you need any proof consider the pathetic turnout in elections, local, state and even federal.
So many people feel disconnected and irrelevant on the subject of how they are being governed, they simply tune out completely, or worse, base their vote on popular opinion instead of critical thinking about the issues / candidates.
Leftists easily promise you some comfort or security if you are willing to give them control. Seems good at first, and many people are easily fooled into loyalty for the cause or candidate. This is happening in our country. I sincerely hope more of the younger generation coming into adulthood will recognize this and turn the trend.
Like many on this forum, I was encouraged by the latest election results. Like many on this forum, I fear the changing control of the senate may not result in significant change.
The decline that our country is suffering in personal freedoms and middle class prosperity are caused by power hungry politicians, enabled by an apathetic and poorly informed population.

To the OP's topic, no way not ever, will any amount of compromise with those in power that want to limit personal freedom be successful in the fight for freedom. Their goal is control, not compromise or peace.

 

[GoWolfpack]

My position is Liberty.


Their position (and yours too, apparently) is restriction.


Compromise is neither possible, nor desireable.

 

[oneounceload]

After reading the OP and glancing at the rest, my response is simple:

WE have compromised enough since 1934. It is THEIR turn

 

[wojownik]

This is exactly what I'm proposing..an iron clad agreement.....absolutely no possibility to tinker with it....

There is no law or regulation made by man that cannot be later be revised or overturned by men.

Particularly when it comes to Congress, there is no compromise up today that would not likely be completely revisited tomorrow.

Even when it falls upon the Supreme Court to define what is "iron clad", The Supremes are people, and people change and are replaced from time to time. There can never be "ironclad" guarantees about anything ... that's just the nature of the beast.

 

[Sam1911]

90 Replies.

Have we sufficiently pointed out the gaping flaws to everyone's satisfaction?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Just Remember...

...The real reason behind disarming We the People. It is so we can be dominated and dictated to with out fear of reprisal for being enslaved. Any "compromise" is just another movement, another gain, another Overton Window success toward closing the door on freedom. Don't believe me? Study a little history of the rise and fall of nations and see for yourself.

That is all, have a prosperous day, sleep tight tonight, and pray that you wake up in freedom.

Woody

 

[JRH6856]

- mandatory gun safety in the schools. I think if we approached it as an issue of "let's stop kids from having accidental shootings" it might work. Nothing too in depth, just the four rules, and the "there can be a bullet in the chamber even if the magazine is removed" talk.

I doubt the antis would ever retreat from one of their greatest successes--the no tolerance policies in place in most schools today. Antis do not want children to learn gun safety. They do not want children exposed to guns in any way. They want them to remain unfamiliar. The unfamiliar is easily demonized, Familiarization makes demonization all but impossible.

(It has now moved to the point that pictures on FaceBook of parents teaching their children to shoot generate calls from the antis to Child Protective Services.)

 

[Smatek1001]

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??

Given the history of the gun controllers, there is no way we could believe any such promise. They simply have ZERO credibility. Further, how could they possibly agree to tie the hands of future generations of would-be gun control folks? That is impossible. No deal.

The best realistic guarantee we could get is a constitutional amendment backed with supreme court decisions and we pretty much already have that.

What sort of guarantee of a promise are you proposing? What does an "iron clad" promise look like? Even a constitutional amendment can be gotten around. This "iron clad promise" of yours is pure fantasy. These people cannot be appeased.

Like Universal Background Checks ? Hell no

We are getting there...like it or not...we strike first with the advantage of first move.

Preemptive surrender...no thanks.

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 <removed> dumped on us....

Just last year a madman broke into a school and massacred two dozen eight year olds. Gun controllers pushed like crazy to get all the laws passed they could. Their success was very limited and we've seen their electoral failure just this week.

I like our chances.

 

[skoro]

Agree??

For the most part. I'd like to see some tweaking here and there. But mostly it looks OK to me. Particularly the universal reciprocity. The current patchwork is like a minefield.

 

[goon]

Current CCW reciprocity does leave a lot to be desired. I'd like to see a national standard that would meet the most stringent requirements for those who want 50 state CCW reciprocity. In exchange, 50 state CCW reciprocity, even in NYC and D.C., no exceptions.

Under that, let each state keep its current standards. If you want maximum reciprocity, you get the permit meeting new "national standards." If you don't, you do whatever your state currently does and keep doing what you've been doing.

 

[steelerdude99]

...
The best realistic guarantee we could get is a constitutional amendment backed with supreme court decisions and we pretty much already have that.

...

An amendment to the US Constitution is very difficult to enact. Not only does it have to pass Congress, it must be approved by a certain majority states (2/3 if I recall). In addition, the last amendment that had to do with such a polarizing behavioral issue failed so badly it had to be repealed. This county's law makers are not in a position of trust to enact such a "compromise" by those who opposed their term in office. Said differently: If Nancy Pelossi passed a bill to see what's in it, then Congress can't be can't be trusted.

On top of that... There is already an amendment, the 2nd, that says what it needs to say and within the last few years has been deemed to be an "individual right" and additionally may be applied to laws enacted by the states. Messing w/ additional amendments will just compromise the strength of the 2nd Amendment. On top of that, being in the first ten Constitutional Amendments gives the 2nd a place among the unalienable rights. Over a year ago, I saved a link on a piece on what is an "Unalienable Right" written by AWR Hawkins. The link still worked.

In a word, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them.

To protect fundamental, individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government's reach.

Further down in his article...

"Unalienable rights" are ours to keep, by virtue of our Creator. So said Thomas Jefferson through the Declaration of Independence, and he was seconded by James Madison through the Bill of Rights.

chuck

 

[CoRoMo]

Over the years there have been many, many THR members drafting threads like this one.

This is nothing profound or unique.

The OP showed his cards early on...

...this is exactly what a veteran and NRA certified instructors told me...

My NRA instructor friend he is well over 70 ...and we did discuss this issue, great person....he sees further restrictions down the road...

....my NRA instructor friends agree and he sees more gun control in the future...

So an acquaintance of his was able to persuade him of this well worn tripe and he jogged to his PC to inform us all.

Nothing more, nothing less. He shouldn't have given so much credence to the old fella's worries. I'm certain he means well and is a freedom-loving, red-blooded American who greatly enjoys this hobby of ours.

OP needs to chock this up to some weak-kneed friend(s) of his and not be so naive about our opposition.

 

[P5 Guy]

Where are the anti-gun compromises?
All that the OP listed were gun owner compromises.

 

[Midwest]

Where are the anti-gun compromises?
All that the OP listed were gun owner compromises.

I could think of one, when Diane Fienstien wanted to ban those 'certain rifles', she said all existing owners can keep them. (How nice of her). But they would have to be registered under the NFA and non transferable when the owner dies.


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/f...ein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx


"Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government."


Let me mention here about the subject of compromising. While some talk about 'compromising' with the anti's, the anti's are planning and writing more legislation to take our guns away behind the scenes.

Tin foil?

How do I know this?

I read her statement, she spilled the beans.

When Feinstein proposed her draconian legislation in late December 2012, she spent a year earlier putting it together. Please read.


"On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012."


The above is from NRA-ILA reproduction is permitted for noncommercial purposes.


© 2014 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030 1800-392-8683(VOTE)
.