Would you support a suppressor compromise...?

[RetiredUSNChief]

With respect...what's there to "compromise" on?

Seems to me that there are already sufficient laws...even MORE than sufficient laws...already in place.

Which means that "compromise" is probably another code word for "more unnecessary restrictions".

 

[Midwest]

Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.

^^^^^
The best answer yet!

 

[Deanimator]

"Universal" background checks are just a stalking horse for registration.

Registration is a means to facilitate BANS and CONFISCATION.

My answer, as it has been all along:

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Kuyong_Chuin]

How about taking a play out of their book that they are using now with the debt ceiling and budget, give us everything we want then we will sit down and negotiate. Then after it is passes tell them hey we got what we wanted so why should we compromise on anything. It is wrong for they to do this but they still are doing it and bad to say but probably the only way to get them to stop is to do it back to them to see how the other half feels.

 

[bannockburn]

No, it's a bad idea because it's a very bad compromise that you're offering to the politicians whose ultimate goal is to ban all guns anyways. All your proposal does is give them a means (universal background checks and registration), to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and open the door for increased restrictions and more bureaucratic meddling with our Right to Bear Arms.

 

[jbrown50]

NO.

The anti-gun folks don't compromise. Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens is detrimental to their goal of total control. Their idea of "compromise" is that they'll do us a favor by just taking another portion of our rights for now.

Since they want UBCs so badly it must mean that the other laws aren't working.

Repeal the entire NFA or don't talk.

 

[tommy.duncan]

Registration = Confiscation
Plain and simple

 

[kimbernut]

NO

NO MORE COMPROMISES EVER!!! "The Second amendment is my concealed carry permit. Period!..." Nuge

 

[leadaddict]

NO! Trading one right away to get another back is a loosing plan. If you start offer up one right in exchange for another you cheapen everything that we consider to be rights. They are not negotiable rights they're inalienable rights.

 

[Ryanxia]

I don't think that is a good deal for RKBA unless you totally rewrite the system of background checks to do away with the underlying 1968 GCA structure they use. Suppressors are just not so useful that I would want the government to have a list of who owns every gun in the U.S.

Couldn't have said it better. A complete list cannot happen. In free states where private sales are legal it's impossible to track and that's the way it needs to stay.

 

[alsaqr]

Absolutely not!!!!

Universal background steps are one step from total gun registration.

 

[Fremmer]

Yeah, every time I hear the word "compromise", I know I'm about to get screwed.

 

[jonkit]

Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.

this. there can be no compromise. Any more compromise and we just get our rights wittled a little more each time.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Not a chance.

 

[deadin]

Originally Posted by Lucky Derby View Post
Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.

You forgot to add "and the government will issue the latest technology firearms to everyone in the nation."

 

[cerberus65]

There is _nothing_ they could offer which would cause me to consider accepting universal background checks - nothing.

UBC is a registry and history provides ample evidence that registries lead to confiscations. I'll leave as an exercise for the OP the sketching out of how a confiscation would go down in this country...

 

[yzguy87]

I personally don't believe a compromise would be wise. To me, that would be a major loss for a minor victory. Becoming a criminal because I sold some of my personal property without first notifying the government and getting permission rubs me the wrong way. Further more I believe registration leads to confiscation.

 

[herrwalther]

No. The Gun Control act of 1968 was enough of a compromise anyway. Why should we give up more ground, not necessarily rights, to appease politicians who don't know muzzle from buttstock? Supressors are not all that great anyway. Hard to find holsters for them and they are still relatively easy to acquire even with the current loopholes. Assuming one lives in a state where they are legal.

 

[Warp]

HELL no.

 

[ktmmudd]

By definition, compromise means we give up some ( less than the other side asks for ) and they give up something. I feel we have given up way too much and the anti-gunners have yet to give us anything. Like someone else said, repeal the NFA, 1968 and 1986 and we won't file a massive civil rights suit. Until then, the Brady bunch can pound sand!

 

[Godsgunman]

Duh no thanks. Tell me what good are suppressors if they eventually take away the firearms they suppress? They are "neat" gizmos that serve no real purpose except for the "cool" factor. I don't even see police or military using them unless its some kind of black-ops or something. Why have what "shall not be infringed upon" be infringed upon for something so trivial?

 

[Warp]

Duh no thanks. Tell me what good are suppressors if they eventually take away the firearms they suppress? They are "neat" gizmos that serve no real purpose except for the "cool" factor. I don't even see police or military using them unless its some kind of black-ops or something. Why have what "shall not be infringed upon" be infringed upon for something so trivial?

You are wrong.

 

[Akita1]

Duh no thanks. Tell me what good are suppressors if they eventually take away the firearms they suppress? They are "neat" gizmos that serve no real purpose except for the "cool" factor. I don't even see police or military using them unless its some kind of black-ops or something. Why have what "shall not be infringed upon" be infringed upon for something so trivial?

Maybe, but some of us use them frequently. I use one on my .300 BO to shoot hogs, and it significantly lessens the impact (with subsonic rounds) on my already partially-fried eardrums. Also use one when I hunt varmints with my kids for .22 LR.

No doubt it's a luxury as you insinuate, but the cost is commensurate with such luxury and waiting so long to take possession of something for which you have already paid (handsomely) is simply inequitable. Even if they suspend the shutdown this evening, I still won't see my three pending stamps for months (if not longer - one has been in since March). Treasury cashes the $200 check right away, and the one BATFE employee who handles my entire region of the country simply can't handle the volume. Further, it's not just suppressors - I have one in for an SBR lower that necessitates me to store any SBR uppers in separate locations until I get the stamp. Yes, I have a pistol lower for the interim but I can't store any SBR uppers the same place as other ARs because they have rifle lowers.

I like to believe that efficiency is the mother of necessity, except of course where the govt is concerned! And…no one is taking away my firearms. Look at the landscape - not happening. We like to espouse, mitigate, act, etc. on the great risk to our RKBA here, but candidly I don't see it happening.

 

[kimberkid]

Here's the compromise I would like to see.

Suppressors should be available as a cash-and carry purchase.

I'm willing to compromise on a solution that treats buying a can like buying a pistol.

In other words, you fill out a 4473 and do a background check to get a can rather than having to go through the NFA process.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4

This is the compromise I thought the o.p. was talking about ... and I'm ok with this!

I've been waiting on 2 stamps since February ... in August I called to check on them and was told it would be November but now with the shutdown and all, it'll probably be December/January

 

[rdhood]

This question supposes that the antis want one or the other (UC or suppressor), or one more than the other, and that we might gain an advantage by using this knowledge. But the premise is faulty.

Anti's want both. Period. Any "compromise" involving two things that the antis want will ultimately result in us losing both... and much more (they would also have the ability to create a defacto gun registry).

These kinds of compromises are for suckers.