View Full Version : So I have a new idea for a "compromise"
ryanek9freak
05-06-2009, 06:24
Nancy Pelosi, and the Brady campaign, have all said in no uncertain terms, that they want ALL firearms transfers to be subject to an NICS background check, so to be sure that the person obtaining it is a law abiding citizen, which to some extent, makes a little sense.
Ok hear me out now. I would agree to this on ONE condition: That NFA '34 and GCA'68 were repealed. Since they claim that by passing this law, only law abiding persons would be able to posses or transfer any gun, what would they have to fear about allowing the average person to just go down to the local gun store and buy an automatic Kalishnakov?
What do you think?
I would agree with it. But it doesn't jive with the second amendment.
I tried to think of something like this once, but I was shot down, and for good reason. The very concept of "compromise" is the exact opposite of "shall not be infringed."
I have a comprimise for them. They repeal all the gun laws ever made and appolgize for a hundred years of theft, murder and lies. And I will support their desire for abortion, gay marriage (hell I'll let them marry their hybrid if they want to) and drug use. As long as they don't hurt anyone else in doing it.
ryanek9freak
05-06-2009, 16:41
ROTFLMAO!!! Marry a hybrid....
They would have to let me own a HUMVEE with a 50 BMG mounted, unlimited ammo, and a full time driver with unlimited border protection rights.
other than that, the word compromise is non existant when it comes to my firearms. they can shove it, and repeal all existing laws with only 1 law remaining..."all new laws proposed to limit, restrict or infringe on the 2nd amendment shall be punishable by death"
[M2]
ryanek9freak
05-06-2009, 16:54
I really like that idea! I would support that law!
Pancho Villa
05-06-2009, 17:30
The idea of a compromise is premised on the idea that both sides have legitimate claims and come to the table on the same principle (for example, when you haggle with a gun dealer on price, both of you are still operating under the premise that the gun dealer, as the proper owner of the firearm, must be compensated in an amount that he, free of coercion, agrees to before you can take proper ownership of the firearm.)
The Brady Bunch and anyone who is liberty-minded has no such common ground. There is nothing to negotiate or compromise about that you can refer to a common premise that both sides will adhere to.
There is nothing to gain by a compromise of that sort. If you had the votes to rescind the NFA and other laws, you wouldn't need to compromise with the Brady Bunch.
[Help]
I think we have closet liberals,, trying to come out...
[Help]
I think we have closet liberals,, trying to come out...
I starting to think the same thing. they hear the word change and think they need to do the same...WTF is going on[Rant2]
SigsRule
05-06-2009, 19:16
I used to think we had logic on our side, but this thread disproves that if people think the other side will respond to a logical argument.
SA Friday
05-06-2009, 19:28
fuk em..
Ya, I'm in this boat...
Cool thought I was heading for the Black Pearl all alone.
Maybe we have Infil-Traitors on this board...
ryanek9freak
05-06-2009, 19:32
Of course I don't beleive in that shit, it was just a hypothetical, you know damn well no liberal would ever agree to those terms.
It was just something that I was talking about to my femi-nazi cunt of a stepmother the other day, when she made the comment about "why people would need machine guns"
I got my Mom one for mothers day, she is worried about the current admin.
ryanek9freak
05-06-2009, 19:38
LOL, I wish my mom would entertain the idea of owning ANY gun, let alone a title II weapon.
blackford76
05-08-2009, 22:14
Hell, my Mom walked into the house this afternoon and the first words out of her mouth were, "I need a bayonet, do you have a bayonet?"
theGinsue
05-08-2009, 23:03
My mom used to greet the Jehovah's Witnesses (no offense to any on this board) at the door wearing jeans (we understood women wearing pants versus dress/skirt is frowned upon), drinking a beer, smoking a cigarette, and her .38 snubbie tucked into her front waistband. They stopped coming by the 2nd time she did that.
I know the original post of this thread was hypothetical, but I think we can all agree that the effectiveness of Background Checks is questionable at best; it's more of just a nuisance to those of us who try to be law abiding citizens. The concept of the first post would require even FTF sales by individuals to be subject to BC's and, thus, would create a record of all sales/gun owners. This is something I'm very much against.
Just my $.02.
blackford76
05-08-2009, 23:10
I agree, I don't like kids being shot, but none of these laws would change that, and I think crimes like that are just used as an excuse. They want us to be subjects, not citizens.
blackford76
05-08-2009, 23:17
Wow, my last post here is kinda hanging out all by itself. I guess I was trying to make a point that we all know, and did a poor job of it. We all know gun laws don't work, we tolerate some, (background checks), knowing they are pointless, in the hope that our "compliance" will keep even dumber ones from showing up. Too bad they cant see I wont ever work.
theGinsue
05-08-2009, 23:33
It's late. There'll be responses tomorrow for sure. I agree with you. The BG's are always going to do what they want whether there are laws against it or not. Most of the laws do nothing more than put unnecessary (and often un-Constitutional) limits on the rights of the law-abiding.
ryanek9freak
05-09-2009, 08:20
Yeah, you're right, EVen if all transfers were subject to 4473's, there would still be plenty of illegally smuggled in guns from other countries.
blackford76
05-09-2009, 08:36
Less restrictions...More training.
Less restrictions...More training.
Agreed. On another board, someone suggested that students in high school should be required to take a firearms safety course. No real guns (use the wacky plastic glocks) or live ammo, just a course to explain to young people how guns work and what to do when handling one.
blackford76
05-09-2009, 09:04
As for the younger guys, the last place I worked had a large percentage of 20 something 'boys'. The sideways hats, underpants hanging out, 5 or 6 face piercings, 50 horse power hondas with 6" exhaust and wings, you get the idea. It took me almost 3 years, but almost every one of the now drive 3/4 ton turbo diesel 4x4's, know how to properly wear a hat, discovered belts, and I proudly consider them friends, and most importantly, RIFLEMEN. They now help with cleaning our local shooting areas, (even when I'm not with them) and most have even joined the NRA. I am very proud of them, but I can't/won't take all the credit. It is our responsability to 'train' these kids, because they are the ones who are going to change our future, not us. We need all the educated, responsible gun owners we can get, the younger the better.
the main thing is to start them early as your kids or you grandkids, and then they learn respect. as little ones they want to be like You.
As for High school.. in this day and age of PC'ness, I doubt it would ever fly unless you have a rural High in totally rural atmosphere.
When I went to High school we had an ROTC class for those that wanted to be apart of it. ( I wasn't)
But I and my brother and some friends did hunt with my principal and a couple teachers after school for quail, doves, rabbits etc.
Foxtrot, the problem with your suggestion (and any gun "compromise" suggestion) is made clear when you compare it to any of the other rights we are guaranteed. The most simple one for example sake is the First Amendment though. Are people required to take a class in order to use free speech, or freedom of religion? How many times have you had to go through a background check before you utilized your free speech?
My suggestion is that ALL gun laws are dropped, in exchange for anyone who wants to own a gun, must show that they have a homeowners/renters insurance policy. Unfortunately, I thought of that idea right at the same time that dick head politician had a similar idea. The only problem was, he threw in a bunch of extra bullshit that NO insurance company would ever agree to. For example, if your gun were to get stolen, you are responsible for anything that it is involved in. Not even car insurance works that way. Thank God that proposal wasn't passed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.