What if ????

[Mousegun]

I know this is sort of an "off the wall" question but I would like to get some opinions on the following question to get a feel for the thinking.

In this day of gun grabbing politics and anti-gun media (which unfortunately is a very strong factor), if we could set up some standards that could not be changed or violated like is currently being done to our original Second Amendment ideas, what would be an acceptable list.

Understand that many rights have already been violated and the states have already altered the original intent of the amendment but if we could start anew and accept the fact that some form of compromise may be in our best interest (yes I know that most would say there is no compromise needed but this is just a "what if" scenario).

For instance, if we could trade open carry to allow unrestricted national concealed carry, any time, any where, any place, would that be a tolerable compromise?

Or if we had a one day waiting period with a background check tied in with a sensible max number of guns allowed to be purchased in a time frame but no restrictions on the type of gun (eg. "military type weapons), would that be a tolerable compromise?

There are many other examples but I hope you get my drift.

I am not asking for more examples but instead how do we generally feel about allowing a degree of "feel good" legislation in order to acquire a solid foundation for gun ownership nationwide that would eliminate the need to fight on many of the issues we discuss on this board. The second is a solid foundation, I know, but it is being bastardized as we all can see.

I know the NRA stance is if you give em' and inch they will want a mile or more and I totally agree with that but again, this is just meant as a hypothetical thread.

Opinions please.

 

[PILMAN]

It's still control in my opinion. All we're doing is trading some rights for other rights. I don't find that negotiable.

 

[longeyes]

"Reasonable" compromise is precisely what the other side--unreasonable and uncompromising behind their veil of civility--wants from us. That way lies serfdom.

 

[Outlaw Man]

No compromise.

 

[pacodelahoya]

...Shall not be infringed.

Nope, nothin in there about waiting periods or sensible limitations.

 

[Werewolf]

When someone says reasonable what they really mean is it is reasonable to them and if not to you then you must be either, stupid, insane or just plain unreasonable.

Reasonable paints with a really broad brush of many different colors. Reasonable generally isn't.

 

[jlbraun]

"Notwithstanding any other law, the right of the people as individuals or as a collective to keep, bear, buy, barter for, import, export, design, research, fabricate, load, unload, construct, repair, use, shoot, possess information about, transmit information about, store, and train with arms, ammunition, and ordnance of any type, shape, caliber, power, propulsion, energy source, explosive yield, designation, origin, or form shall not be infringed, taxed, restricted, diminished, delayed, subjected to registration, or regulated. 'Arms, ammunition and ordnance' includes anything that may be reasonably considered an armament, including types, forms, and energy sources not yet in existence, named or unnamed, real or imaginary, real-world or simulated, hardware or software. Any armament not covered by the terms in this article is still considered protected by this article. This right is held inviolable. Any law contrary to this article is held null and void at the time of that law's enaction."

 

[Standing Wolf]

...would that be a tolerable compromise?

There are no tolerable compromises with the nation's civil rights. We've already "compromised" them nearly out of existence.

 

[Henry Bowman]

but if we could start anew and accept the fact that some form of compromise

Say halfway between what it says and what they wish it said? No thanks.

 

[Lupinus]

the only reasonable we should accept are those which lead us closer to no restriction. You can't always win a war in one decisive battle so you must sometimes make compromise and fight lesser engagments you can win. Then when the time is right strike the final blow. 100% total unwillingness to accept anything with some regulation won't get us anywhere.

Our rights were slowly nipped away from us and the only way to get them back is to slowly nip them back.

 

[carpediem]

In the language of politics, words like "compromise," "reasonable," "bipartisan," and "common-sense" really mean "as much as we can get away with at the present."

If you try to compromise with a "progressive" enemy, pretty soon you won't have ground enough left to stand on.

 

[rickomatic]

I've got a better idea. Let's roll all gun laws back to 1933. Nuf said...done deal.

 

[oae]

Hey rickomatic, you have got the right idea, roll back every gun law to 1933. No compromise and restore our full Second Amendment rights. Is it going to happen? I would like to think so, but with the "sensible gun control" philosophy of many politicians in both mainstream political parties, I don't see it happening too soon.

oae

 

[davhina]

No compromise.

PERIOD!
Where in the 2a of the constitution, or the constitution overall do you see the word "compromise? The constitution, is not a "living, breathing, document,
like some people would like you to believe.
Just my humble opinion.

 

[ConfuseUs]

If you wanna let the camel warm his nose, that's fine. Just don't be surprised when the camel kicks you out of your tent.

 

[glummer]

Hypothetically,

what would be a “reasonable” compromise for Jews to make with Nazis?

When the Jews compromise with Nazis - the Jews lose.
When slaves agree to compromise with their masters - the slaves lose.

We are the Jews.
We are the “uppity n*****s”.

Our enemies’ goal is to hurt us. Any compromise guarantees that we get hurt.