What are you willing to accept?

[Old Fuff]

When the founders of this country wrote and adopted the first 10 amendments to they're new Constitution (now called The Bill of Rights,) they made the second one to insure the people could defend the others if push came to shove.

Obviously if the entire population was to have a universal right to keep and bear arms, there would be some who probably should have been excluded. But the founders considered that to be a minor consequence when looking at the overall picture. Their wise vision has insured that throughout its subsequent history this country has not found itself living under a dictator - foreign or domestic.

Criminals and the mentally deranged have no inclination to pay any attention to laws, or what they say. Anyone who thinks something can be eliminated through legal prohibition or statutes in a lawbook should take a look at how well it has worked with alcoholic beverages and controlled(?) substances.

I for one will never compromise ANY of the rights granted to me by the Constitution. Too many others have died to protect them, and I will not sacrifice to even the smallest degree what they defended.

 

[OptimusPrime]

+1 on accepting resignations and apologies.

 

[larryh1108]

Why accept anything that has been proven to be ineffective, erodes our rights and will lead to further erosion of our rights. What is there to gain? In compromise, you give up something to gain something. Here, we give up something, get nothing in return and set ourselves up to have more taken away when they don't get the results they want. It's a lose/lose proposition. What are we willing to give up? Nothing. Period.

 

[barnbwt]

where do we draw the line? id love it if another gun never fell into the wrong hand again and id love to see harsher punishments for anyone committing a crime with a gun

The line keeps getting pushed back by those in our country who no longer believe in personal responsibility. The notion that; because a few individuals refuse to look after their own, to provide for themselves, to protect themselves, we must cease to expect any shred of decency from everyon else. That, because some guy in Connecticut lost it, I must be assumed incapable of controlling my actions.

Usually, there is some sort of transference involved in this argument (I think that's the right psych word ). People demanding restrictions on guns frequently don't trust themselves with the power carried by firearms, and therefore cannot trust them in the hands of others. If you cannot trust yourself with your own defense, you have no recourse to protect your safety other than to disarm those around you. The first step in building self-trust (confidence) is gaining experience, something too few bother themselves with when it comes to firearms.

We need to promote the importance of self-determination in this country; far too many see no need to govern their own affairs anymore, and find comfort from anyone willing to perform this task for them. Independence and self-reliance is increasingly seen as "outmoded" or worse, a sign of anti-social behavior (see the early press report of the the Conneticut shooter "not having a Facebook account" as being evidence of his mental instability ). Real men look to themselves (and God) for salvation, and real women do what is necessary to protect what is precious to them. We badly need a Henry David Thoreau in this country.

TCB

 

[ScrapMetalSlug]

Opening up the MG registry again would be a good compromise. I haven't seen that talked about by anyone.

 

[GBExpat]

how much are we willing to accept?

Willing to accept?

As I do not willingly accept the 2A restrictions that have been forced upon us over the years, I am not willing to accept more of the same.

 

[JohnnyK]

I'd accept teachers being able to carry concealed in the classroom and no more "gun free" zones.

 

[CountryUgly]

What am I willing to accept? Repeal of NFA'34 and GCA '68. That would render the other questions moot.

Beyond that, not one single thing.

^^^ What he said ^^^

 

[Landis]

I am willing to accept the arrest of all legislators claiming to want to pass more civilian disarmament laws on the basis that they are violating the constitution, and their oath they took to protect it, for they are truly enemies of the American people.

Followed by conviction of treason and the resulting firing squad.

 

[MaggiesPapaw]

What am I willing to accept?

I'm willing to accept better enforcement of laws we have and stronger punishment of those who currently posess and/or use firearms illegally.
Those with violent criminal histories SHOULD be prohibited from ownership/possession. Use a firearm in a murder/rape/robbery... you're history. Caught with a firearm with a history of violent crime... you're history.
Caught selling drugs while armed....you're history.

They are trying to attack the wrong end of the snake. Here's the 'compromise' I'm willing to accept: We've tried 'gun control' (think Chicago, Washington D.C.) and it hasn't worked, so let's try criminal control and see how that works.

If guns cause crime, then Morton Grove IL and Kennesaw Ga should have the highest crime rates in the country, but look up their crime rates!

 

[Landis]

You forgot to include the entire country of Switzerland.

 

[TCB in TN]

I will agree to universal background checks on a couple of conditions.

#1 background checks are done round the clock for free
#2 no registration
#3 since we are background checked no more class III crap, do away with
all restrictions on DD, SBR, supressors etc.
#4 national CC.

 

[Manco]

We need to promote the importance of self-determination in this country; far too many see no need to govern their own affairs anymore, and find comfort from anyone willing to perform this task for them.

Yes, self-determination, self-reliance, and strong morals for guidance are critical for a free country to exist, hence all the effort by many of those in power and the media to undermine them. Firearms are a major, major part of the equation, being both a symbol and practical tool of self-reliance, as well as a bulwark against tyranny (obviously I'm paranoid because tyranny has NEVER happened anywhere ever before ). Many politicians and the media are doing their utmost, through gatekeeping bias and terminology, to turn firearms into symbols of murder and madness exclusively; they're doing a darn good job of it, too. The only way to counter this is to reach the people as much as they have, and encouraging Americans to be real Americans is an important part of this.

 

[AlexanderA]

I will agree to universal background checks on a couple of conditions.

#1 background checks are done round the clock for free
#2 no registration
#3 since we are background checked no more class III crap, do away with
all restrictions on DD, SBR, supressors etc.
#4 national CC.

This. Now you're thinking creatively!

 

[Deanimator]

What am I willing to accept? Repeal of NFA'34 and GCA '68. That would render the other questions moot.

Beyond that, not one single thing.

+10,000,000

WE should be demanding things to see what THEY are willing to "compromise" on.

The obvious answer is "nothing", since their ultimate goal is a government monopoly on the means of armed force.

But still it would be fun, because the only thing that seems to fluster them more than outright refusal to roll over for them is demands that MORE freedoms for gun owners be recognized.

 

[Shinbone]

I will give NOTHING up.

 

[figment]

I'm willing to accept:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Chris-bob]

I'd accept teachers being able to carry concealed in the classroom and no more "gun free" zones.

I am willing to accept "free gun" zones too...

 

[Coop45]

An apology for irritating me and doing away with NFA.

 

[JFtheGR8]

Not willing to give up anything. I could see background checks on all firearm transactions but not registration. A very small, as in minute, tax for public service announcements related to firearm safety and how to recognize dangerous mentally ill individuals and how to report them. I'm sure people know who the crazies are but either won't report them (family members) or don't know the proper channels to do so. Also, a clinical psychologist in the schools that can recognize criminal behavior in students before they are unleashed on society as adults. After that just what Sam said.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[M-Cameron]

Not willing to give up anything. I could see background checks on all firearm transactions but not registration. A very small, as in minute, tax for public service announcements related to firearm safety and how to recognize dangerous mentally ill individuals and how to report them. I'm sure people know who the crazies are but either won't report them (family members) or don't know the proper channels to do so. Also, a clinical psychologist in the schools that can recognize criminal behavior in students before they are unleashed on society as adults. After that just what Sam said.

why should that tax fall upon gun owners?

why not tax pharmaceuticals?

why not tax hammers?

why not tax automobiles?


taxing firearms somehow implies the firearms is at fault, or somehow benefits from the tax.......in this case, gun owners are not benefited, so the tax seems punitive in my opinion.

also, i dont trust the govt to run PSAs on gun ownership.....i can see it now "guns are dangerous! if have reason to believe someone you know has a gun, please call this hotlineXXX-XXX-XXXX"

 

[JayPee]

I'm willing to accept the validation of the Second Amendment provided in the distinction Benjamin Franklin drew between democracy and liberty:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."

 

[ol' scratch]

What would I accept? How about they start enforcing the laws on the books. Straw purchasers should get 10 years, not three months probation. Straw purchasers should get more time than some dumb kid who is picked up for drug possession.

 

[ol' scratch]

I'm willing to accept the validation of the Second Amendment provided in the distinction Benjamin Franklin drew between democracy and liberty:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."

The wolf and lamb thing is a urban legend. Ben never said that. Lets start on a level playing field and not use propaganda to further our cause.

 

[cfullgraf]

I am not willing to accept any compromises.

Why do we not have background checks when buying alcoholic beverages?