We are going to have to give up something

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Sgt.Murtaugh, Dec 19, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JFtheGR8

    JFtheGR8 Member

    Nov 22, 2006
    Central Illinois
    Agreed, I know how collective bargaining works. We just have a very different kind of strike option.

    Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
  2. David White

    David White member

    Jun 17, 2012
    Gun bans won't help...

    New laws won't help... Murder is already against the law and people do it every day.

    Banning "scary black guns" is a morons move. The retards in NY can't seem to understand it but we do.

    Who in their right mind thinks that if we ban certain weapons and magazines, the violently insane will just throw their hands up and off themselves in quite?


    If nothing more than a ban on weapons is the result of this horrible tragedy, then my friends, the idiots in charge have missed the boat completely!

    Criminals DO NOT respect the law, hence that's what makes them criminals. Again, who the frig thinks that they will respect NEW LAWS?

    Beating your head against the wall until it bleeds, then moving to a different wall expecting a different result is insane!

    I am not giving up one single thing because some lunatic decided to kill children. Period.

  3. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    SLC, Utah
    Let him try. It will ignite the biggest RKBA firestorm this country has ever seen.
  4. MachIVshooter
    • Contributing Member

    MachIVshooter Contributing Member

    Aug 11, 2005
    Elbert County, CO
    The two extremes define the middle. The hard core antis want nothing short of a complete ban, so to counter this, we must oppose any and all restrictions. If you go in having already ceded some things, they will only want more, and you'll find yourself "comprising" further and further to their end.

    His saying "they" didn't mean the kids, the teachers or anyone else at the school. "They" would be the retard legislators who decided that making shools gun free somehow made them safe.

    So far, all but two (Tuscon, AZ 2011 and Austin, TX 1966) of these mass shootings over the last half century has occurred in a gun free zone for painfully obvious reasons.
  5. grubbylabs

    grubbylabs Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Hansen Idaho
    I see no need to give up any thing. In fact I think that we should all visit all the face book pages and web sites of all the anti gunners and calmly explain that we are going to give up nothing. Guns are not the problems, people are.
  6. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 29, 2002
    Clearly you weren't paying attention during the last go-around of this deal.

    The AWB did nothing to stop or lower rates of violent crime.

    There is not one reputable study anywhere that shows magazine capacity limits reduce the number of victims of a spree shooting.

    The bottom line is that an AWB is a feel-good, do-nothing law, and one that you might be willing to concede on, but that would be a bad idea.

    What happens the next time there's a high-body count spree-killer after a ban is in place? (And there will be another one of these in the future.)

    After you've conceded an AWB and magazine ban to them, what's your plan for concession when the anti-gun activists come howling for even further restrictions on guns?
  7. Tim the student

    Tim the student Member

    Feb 1, 2009
    No, we don't have to give up something.
  8. Anger

    Anger Member

    Feb 1, 2009
    Austin, TX
    ^^^ Eggactly
  9. Philo_Beddoe

    Philo_Beddoe Member

    Feb 10, 2009
    My 2 cents. Recently the GOP went all in on stopping Obamacare, they obstructed, refused to negotiate, filibustered etc and as a result had ZERO input on the details of the final bill. Then they lost in 2012 and it is pretty much a given that Obamacare is the law of the land.

    We should not repeat this mistake, right now there is still a good deal of fear among politicians of the NRA and gun owners who vote. If gun owners appears to be uncaring extremist, we are begging to lose crucial public support. The NRA did everything in its power to defeat Obama in 2012 and he still won. Now is the time for strategic maneuvers not suicidal bayonet charges.
  10. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Jul 15, 2009
    West Chicago, IL
    So standing up for what we believe in is a mistake? I'm tired of giving in. There have been good strides for gun rights -- but I am certainly not going to give up some of my rights just to "play nice."
  11. Apachedriver

    Apachedriver Member

    Jul 24, 2007
    Central Texas
    When two parties disagree, you enter compromise:

    1. When both parties equally have something to lose by not coming to an agreement.
    2. When one party starts out in a position of weakness and is trying to save themselves.

    Anti's have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
    Pro-gunners are in a position of strength with everything to keep, unless we weaken ourselves and give it away.

    There is something to give up --->giving up.
  12. 481

    481 Member

    Feb 22, 2009
    Law-abiding gun owners have done nothing wrong. We, every last one of us, were just as horrified at the slaughter of innocents as everyone else. There is no reason that we should have to relinquish any portion of our right to keep and bear firearms simply because it'll make the anti-gun nitwits feel as if they have done something to prevent such acts even though it won't. The 1994 AWB is a proven failure. It didn't prevent the slaughter of our children at Columbine high school in 1999 and it (as duplicate CT state legislation) certainly did nothing to prevent the slaughter of 20 five- and six-year old children at Sandy Hook elementary.

    Standing up for our right to keep and bear arms is not a mistake. It is time to stand up for ourselves and say, "Enough of serving as the scape-goat for the antigun nitwits!", and stop letting the morons in DC punish us with "feel-good, do-nothing legislation" that prevents only one thing- the exercise our right as law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.
  13. Rusty Luck

    Rusty Luck Member

    Oct 6, 2011
    Houston, Texas
  14. XGibsonX

    XGibsonX Member

    May 12, 2011
    I wonder what ceding something outright does for your position?

    I sincerely hope that the NRA draws a line in the sand and says no more. Death by a thousand paper cuts is still a dirt nap

    On Monday morning I rushed over to the local gun store, a frenzy is too tame of a description. I arrived as they opened the doors and had to make a quick call; in four minutes I entered. The parking lot was full when I arrived. I observed three distinct groups: The dumbfounded, The angry, The Nam Veterans (ID by tats/hat/shirts).

    The latter group did not seem confused or upset. They had set jaws and a look that said, to me, "we are finished being pushed, that part is done".

    That ethos epitomizes my own, exactly.

    I eased over and picked up 5K primers and some 3031. Overheard the owner saying some rather ominous things. He did say that his prices were consistent and would remain so and that Saturday had been his biggest day in 30 years of existence.

    My thoughts? Conceding something leads to conceding more in a roughly linear fashion. The fact is that there will be other psychotic and/or just plain evil SOBs that commit mass murders. Sad but true. Inevitably, it will stir the great and filthy demos to knee-jerk reactions. Sadly, again, they will win another small victory, until there is nothing left to compromise on.
  15. MachIVshooter
    • Contributing Member

    MachIVshooter Contributing Member

    Aug 11, 2005
    Elbert County, CO
    That's one of the more thoughtful arguments I've seen for working with the enemy, but this is a constitutionally affirmed human right; Medical care language doesn't even exist in the constitution, so arguments for or against Obamacare on that fundamental basis have to be extensions of other parts of the constitution.

    We don't have to (or want to) come across as "uncaring extremists". Fact is, while the entire country suffered once for Newtown, we gun owners are fixin' to suffer twice, and for a whole lot longer. Is that fair? Should we accept some punishment for this lunatic's actions? No, of course not. I didn't kill the little kids at that school, and neither did any other gun owner. Lanza was a prohibited person, but it didn't stop him. Why some people seem to believe that where a bunch of laws failed one more will work is beyond me. Of course, the true anti's have no illusions that gun control will actually do anything to reduce violent crime; They don't care. For them, this is not about stopping violence. It's about gun grabbing, plain and simple, and they've been laying in wait for a tragedy bloody enough and gut wrenching enough to exploit. They knew it would come, just like it will come again, with or without more gun laws. And you can bet that when it does, they'll be on their soap box again, demanding more restrictions.

    Not compromising doesn't mean simply crossing our arms, spouting off some rhetoric and refusing to engage in meaningful discourse with the opposition or fence sitters. It means we have to stand fast and use logic and reason in conjuction with articulate and compassionate verbiage to attenuate their argument until it is too weak to convince. It's tedious, it's laborious, but it's effective. It may mean taking the time to compose your own page-long response to a regurgitated sound bite on Facebook or some other social site or bulletin board. This is the commitment we must have.

    But coming to the table with defeat on our faces and concessions in our minds? That will not help our cause. We are 100% on defense here. We stand to gain nothing and lose much, so compromise is not an appropriate noun to desrcibe the gun control debate. They seek to take what we have and give nothing in return.
  16. Dlowe167

    Dlowe167 Member

    May 25, 2012
    I totally agree on the xfer fee & registration. I'd also like to see unemplyed vets as school security. Who better to run security for children than a trained soldier! Even though its a bad idea,they probly will ban high cap mags & assault rifles.
  17. limpingbear

    limpingbear Member

    Jan 29, 2009
    Reno, NV
    We have had 4 cun controll acts simce the 1930's. None have had any real impact on crime. Gun owners lost out each time. Say no to compromise. Not giving anything else up so some congress critter can pass some "feel good" knee jerk legislation.
  18. HoosierQ

    HoosierQ Member

    Mar 27, 2008
    Central Indiana.
    What Real Compromise Could Look Like

    So some say compromise is needed. Others say it's not compromise if "we: don't get something. Here's compromise.

    1. Detachable Box Magazines. Max capacity per unit, 20. Max magazine capacity per individual firearm, 100. So if you have an AR you can have 5 20s or 4 20s and 4 5s (if you hunt). If you have a glock 17...you can have 5 17s. Glock 19...6 15s. 1911...you can have 14 GI mags. If you have 2 Glock 17s, you can own 10 17 rounders. You could only carry the limit per gun. So if you're CC your Glock 19 (or any other 15 round double stack) you can only have 5 mags with you. Enforced if you get caught. Kinda like poaching...loose the mag, loose the gun (just the gun in question), fined.
    2. Ammo. No limit on how much ammo you can own or purchase. By all you want online. No tax which would exceed the local sales tax over and above the local sales tax.

    Remember, it's compromise. No, number 1 doesn't stop the madness but it might make people "feel safer" which is where this might go.

    3. SBR. Go for it!!! No NFA. 16" bbl is still the magic number. Below that and/or the current overall length, it just becomes a handgun. Buy 'em off the shelf just like a Glock. Got an AR that'll fit in a piccollo case? No problem...call it a handgun and call it a day. Don't even have to change the forms. Check the handgun box.
    4. Long guns. No restrictions on the firearms themselves at all beyond the 4473.
    5. Suppressors. Treat 'em just like scopes and slings. NFA comes off. Sell 'em at Wall Mart, put 'em on everything.
    6. CC. National reciprocity. Permit required to carry a handgun even OC. Walk down the street with a Glock, permit. Walk down the street with a rifle, just like today. Walk down the street with an SBR, permit.
    7. Full Auto. No change.
    8. Assault Rifle. No such thing. The only thing that counts is stuff than can be counted (rounds in a mag(s)), or measured - 16" - more or less. Weatherby can start putting bayonet lugs and flash hiders on their rifles...nobody cares. Pistol grips? Nobody cares.
    9. No gun free zones except those very few where there are armed security. This is going to be limited to Court Houses, Airports, Correctional Facilities, and a few other such buildings.
    10. Soft Targets. Schools (and other soft targets at risk like malls) WILL HAVE an armed guard in the office and on patrol. This could be the pricipal and a select set of trained staff (not just CCP holders...trained specifically to counter a threat) or in lieu of that, professional guards (or trained volunteers).

    That's compromise. "They" get something, we get something.

    Yeah, yeah. Slippery slope. Yeah, yeah. Compromise. What about citizenry armed as well as their army in case of tyranny? Take your Glock or your AR with it's 20 round mag (or your Winchester) and obtain their weapons from the bad guys, whomever they might be under tyranny in the US.

    Just a picture of compromise.
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  19. Davek1977

    Davek1977 Member

    Jan 2, 2008
    I cannot bear to read many of the comments here. So many seem to have given up the fight before the first battle of whats going to likely be a long war. People advocating government sanctioned mental exams and "agents" stopping by your house unannounced to see if your guns are properly secured? Are you people SERIOUS? I know its been said time and again, but what part of "Shall not be infringed" means allowing a govt agent in your house to make sure you are storing your property in a manner he sees fit, with your right to own said property hanging on his decisions? I'm in the "no compromise" camp myself.....When they actually start offering meaningful concessions like opening up the machine gun registry again, or something along those lines, I'll take their offers of compromise seriously. When their idea of compromise means allowing me to beg for the PRIVILEGE of owning CERTAIN guns while they ban others....well, my daddy taught me to walk away from the table when its obvious a deal isn't a deal at all.
  20. Trueno

    Trueno Member

    Jun 14, 2006
    wow, just wow.

  21. Bob2222

    Bob2222 Member

    Mar 1, 2009
    "Something" will get done!

    I doubt it will ever be state-sponsored mental exams because there aren't enough psychiatrists. But if the cops ever took you to the ER because you were acting bizarrely, it might not be unreasonable to explain why that happened. I would not object to making gun safes tax deductible or to Federal standards for school security.

    I don't think the conservatives in the House will go for much more, but of course the Republicans could lose the House in 2014, and their leadership has just proven that they're stupid enough that it's a possibility.

    Feinstein's mailbox must have overflowed from outraged constituents because she felt she needed to explain that her AWB 2.0 doesn't grab guns or mags already in private hands.
  22. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Jun 18, 2011
    What is the anti giving up in any of these so-called compromise proposals? All they do is offer to surrender less if the anti will just ask for less. Any "deal" that places restrictions or extra requirements on gun owners and requires nothing of antis is not compromise.

    Please, think hard about this: compromise is both sides giving up something they want and both sides getting something in return for what they gave up. To say, for example, that if we'd just give up hi-cap mags then we could keep our semi-autos ignores the fact that we already have our semi-autos, so letting us keep them does not fit the definition of compromise.

    If Mr. and Mrs. Q decide to paint the dining room, and she wants a vivid yellow while he wants a pale blue, painting it a slightly milder yellow means Mrs. Q got most of what she wanted while Mr. Q gave up blue and got nothing. That is not compromise.

    But even more fundamental: 2A is the law of the land, and it reads "...shall not be infringed." I agree that those who are not capable of understanding the ramifications of pulling the trigger should not have guns, and people currently incarcerated or previously incarcerated for violent crimes (commission of violent crimes is essentially a voluntary surrendering of 2A rights) should not have guns. But beyond those, what part of any gun control measure is not infringement?
  23. ol' scratch

    ol' scratch Member

    Apr 16, 2009
    South of Hell....Michigan.
    First off, we will see what the NRA has to say. I say this-

    -In this case, the fool who did this was denied purchase of a firearm (the system worked).

    -He stole a firearm and killed his mother (the system failed, murder is against the law).

    -The firearm he stole was compliant to the law or it was preban (system failure)

    -Standard capacity magazines are only legal in Connecticut but only if they are preban (the system failed again).

    All the legislation in the world couldn't and HASN'T prevented these tragities. Mass killings STILL happen in other countries. No tax, restriction or law will stop things like this from happening. Listen. You have to realize that this moron was cold-blooded enough to shoot his mother while she slept. He then went and killed those people. You don't think that someone that evil and deranged doesn't have the capacity to plan something like this out? The same regulation they are trying to ram down our throats right now did NOTHING to prevent this. Connecticut already has some of the toughest gun laws on the books.

    In the 1990's, people conceded. Traditionalists said it was OK because they didn't use that firearm. Some of them backed up new legislation. Then, they wanted more. You have to understand that these people want a total ban on all firearms and will not stop until they get it. Today might be a mag restriction or a rifle restriction. Then, another killing will happen and they will want further restrictions. I even heard a spot on the radio this morning that the President said congress should be brave like the teachers at Sandy Hook and find a solution to the fiscal cliff. Talk about pushing an agenda.
  24. yokel

    yokel Member

    Apr 29, 2007
    Not unlike an insidious disease, eh?

    In a very real sense this may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in a resentful quest to marginalize the dignity of individuals and abrogate certain constitutional rights (such as domestic disarmament).
  25. otasan56

    otasan56 Member

    Oct 20, 2011
    Hartford, VT
    Arm the teachers, for they are responsible for their children's safety.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice