A reasonable compromise?

[Clint45]

A REASONABLE COMPROMISE?


As it seems that the current administration is determined to place rather extreme restrictions on firearm ownership in the immediate future, I recently posted about the Draconian and Byzantine nature of the New York gun control laws which apparently are being utilized as the template for new legislation. It seems rather asinine to attempt to force NYC gun laws on the residents of rural Kentucky, Arizona, and Alaska, yet that is what has been proposed . . . and there is a very real possibility President Obama may approve that proposal and even bypass Congressional oversight to sign it into law via Executive Order without fully considering the fact that any citizen who failed to comply in full with such a decree could have their Rights of citizenship stripped from them and face the threat of imprisonment. Never before in the history of our nation has the power of Executive Order been abused in such a punitive and ill-considered manner, and I truly hope that does not occur in this instance.

The gun control proponents stated that they were willing to take under consideration opposing viewpoints, but from what I have heard that does not seem to be the case at all. They seem convinced that they are 100% correct in their position that guns are the problem, and other issues leading to social violence can be addressed only after so called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines are outlawed and confiscated. It appears as if they have already fully committed to this decision, as mass civilian disarmament has been a top priority of their agenda for well over 20 years.

If the gun control proponents actually were serious about considering opposing viewpoints, and actually wished to stop social violence with minimal impact on our Freedoms, I would propose implementation of the following policies:

1. EDUCATION: I propose that Ethics become a mandatory aspect of the public school curriculum, starting with basic concepts in elementary school and being a 2 year course in high school. This coursework should be nondenominational and nonpolitical, focusing primarily on courtesy, conflict resolution, and respecting the rights and property of others. It should be a practical and useful course of study where differences of opinion would be recognized and explored, rather than some namby-pamby politically correct attempt to homogenize students into inoffensive lockstepping automatons. While it is important to understand and appreciate that some individuals may be inordinately sensitive about their “feelings” and “self esteem,” that is not the focus of an Ethics lesson. The core concepts should be values such as, “Don’t beat, rob, rape, defraud, steal, or lie.” Learning about anti-social, predatory, and sociopathic personality types should be a part of coursework at the high school level. Basic concepts should include: “Don’t bully,” “don’t date rape,” “keep your word,” and “apologize if you accidentally offend or injure someone.” Unfortunately, these simple concepts are rarely addressed in any meaningful way in the public schools.

2. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS: I propose that a campaign be undertaken to promote firearm safety and non violence. Public service announcements on television and the internet can address: what to do if you discover an unsecured firearm, de-escalation of conflict, and the dangers of aggressive driving. These should be limited to simple, easily remembered, common sense bits of advice which can be viewed and absorbed in under 180 seconds to accommodate limited attention spans. Public service announcements should be non-denominational, non-political, and appeal primarily to teenaged viewers and young adults.

3. AGGRESSIVELY PROSECUTE VIOLENT CRIME: Some major cities have severe problems with recidivist predatory criminals. Because the jails are filled beyond capacity and the courts are overwhelmed, many receive undeserved leniency and early release, leaving them free to reoffend and victimize innocent citizens. The reason our jails are overcrowded is because they are filled with non-violent petty criminals, usually there due to theft or drugs. I propose attempting treatment and reintegration with the sad sacks and focusing on locking up the hard cases who present a clear danger to society. No rapist or armed robber should ever be allowed to plea bargain to a misdemeanor and be released on probation simply because the jails were too full . . . and the answer is clearly not “build more jails” because we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other nation, often for long stretches far out of proportion to the offense due to mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines and strict “zero tolerance” policies, which seem to be causing many more problems than they solve. Every case needs to be judged on its own merit, and unduly harsh sentences for petty offenses are a drain on resources and a waste of tax dollars. Anyone who uses a weapon to victimize innocent civilians needs to be removed from society for the duration, as every study clearly shows that very few are capable of rehabilitation and most will reoffend shortly after release.

4. RETHINK MENTAL HEALTH POLICY: Obviously, closing all the mental institutions and overprescribing anti-depressants to healthy school children was not the answer. It is true that mental institutions have a rather despicable history with many severe abuses which can never be permitted to occur again: lobotomies, electroconvulsive therapy, ice baths, physical and sexual abuse by staff, and involuntary commitment of political dissidents or disagreeable relatives. We are painfully aware of these past abuses. The new facilities will be much safer and there will be oversight and transparency. We need a place to warehouse the millions of schizophrenics and psychotics currently wandering the streets and overflowing homeless shelters, as in many cases they clearly present a danger to themselves and others, and the shelters and jails are not equipped to deal with their specific needs. In the case of most mass shooters, it was glaringly obvious to nearly everyone who came into contact with them that something was seriously wrong, and many teachers or co-workers later stated that they had been afraid the shooter was capable of such an act and had even spoken to supervisors about the potential threat, but nothing was done. In the future, if there is a valid and credible concern that an individual might present an immediate threat to others, there needs to be a fast track to evaluation and possibly therapy or even in-patient treatment, if deemed warranted. Of course, there will need to be significant and appreciable oversight regarding involuntary commitment, as it is certain to be misapplied at times.

5. NATIONWIDE LICENSING: Due to the extreme variance in laws between states, where what is perfectly legal in one jurisdiction becomes a felony with zero tolerance and mandatory minimums the instant one crosses a border, it is clearly necessary to implement a fair and reasonable licensing program at the federal level. A national license implementing a background check prior to issuance would both protect society from violent criminals seeking to purchase guns and protect the rights of all citizens, but it must not be mandated simply to possess a firearm in one’s home. A firearm license could be required to purchase any firearm from a FFL dealer, which includes all retail stores, gun shows, and internet sales. This license would also serve as a concealed carry permit valid in all 50 states, excepting federal property and public schools. As a fair and reasonable compromise, the license may also be required to lawfully possess semi-automatic firearms fitted with high capacity magazines in densely populated metropolitan areas, and failure to comply could result in forfeiture and fine. However, semi-automatic firearms securely locked in a gun safe or similar contrivance would never be subject to forfeiture, absent any other complaint. NFA firearms would require additional licensing, and current laws regarding them could remain intact, although the new license would be valid in all 50 states. Background checks could still be implemented at the seller’s discretion. Purchasing firearms to be resold to individuals lacking a license would be prosecuted if there was reasonable suspicion they were intended to be used in a crime or facilitate a criminal enterprise, and additional felony charges could apply if the firearm in question was recovered from a crime scene within a year of the date of purchase. A license would be revoked upon arrest for any crime or involuntary commitment to either a mental hospital or an addiction treatment center. Concealed carry without a valid permit could be prosecuted as a misdemeanor offense with a fine and forfeiture of the weapon in question, unless the jurisdiction in question permits concealed carry without a permit. Major metropolitan areas may choose to restrict open carry if they wish, but in rural areas it must be permitted. Concealed carry by a violent felony offender, or a person under the influence of drugs or publically intoxicated, would be prosecuted as a felony. Simple possession of a handgun in one’s vehicle, or a semi-automatic rifle in one’s home, should be permitted as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, unless the possessor is under court supervision due to criminal or mental health proceedings and specifically barred from possessing firearms. Any misuse of a firearm, including brandishing and reckless endangerment, would be prosecuted aggressively as a serious felony offense.

I believe this simple 5-step plan for: education, public service announcements, aggressively prosecuting violent crime, rethinking mental health policy, and nationwide licensing is a reasonable compromise and a far more optimistic and positive change than criminalizing a significant percentage of responsible and law-abiding gun owners, thereby infringing the Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of all citizens..


Permission granted to repost provided the original text remains unaltered.


edited to add the following clarification:

I feel that a 50 state license would be a reasonable compromise. A license would not be mandatory to own, sell, transfer, or possess a firearm. There would be NO REGISTRATION nor would there be an expiry date. Any database would simply verify whether a license was valid or suspended or revoked. The license would be evidence that the holder had already passed a background check and could then be entitled to instantly purchase any firearm at a retail outlet or gun show, and would be permitted to conceal carry in all 50 states.

[Bailey Guns]

Scanned it, saw "Licensing", by the Feds, and figured I'd read far enough.

No.

[alxone]

Scanned it, saw "Licensing", by the Feds, and figured I'd read far enough.

No.how would you feel about a buyers card like nebraska . basically you fill out the 4473 once with the sheriff and they mail a card . once you have a card you present it to anyone who wishes to sell a firearm to insure that the seller is covered . granted this system does not stop criminals from breaking the law but it does eliminate the need to run a 4473 every time you want to purchase at a store.

[Bailey Guns]

I'd rather the process be changed to allow for filling out a 4473 and walking out with your gun after you've shown a valid carry permit...along the lines of how it's done in UT and some other states.

The above licensing proposal is nothing more than a registration scheme and allows for too many restrictions on ownership of certain magazines or gun types. It's punishment for the law-abiding.

[alxone]

It's punishment for the law-abiding.yep . i have yet to hear a reasonable proposal from ether side .

[Byte Stryke]

5. NATIONWIDE LICENSING: Due to the extreme variance in laws between states, where what is perfectly legal in one jurisdiction becomes a felony with zero tolerance and mandatory minimums the instant one crosses a border, it is clearly necessary to implement a fair and reasonable licensing program at the federal level. A national license implementing a background check prior to issuance would both protect society from violent criminals seeking to purchase guns and protect the rights of all citizens, but it must not be mandated simply to possess a firearm in one’s home. A firearm license could be required to purchase any firearm from a FFL dealer, which includes all retail stores, gun shows, and internet sales. This license would also serve as a concealed carry permit valid in all 50 states, (1) excepting federal property and public schools. As a fair and reasonable compromise, the license may also be required to lawfully possess semi-automatic firearms fitted with high capacity magazines in densely populated metropolitan areas, and failure to comply could result in forfeiture and fine. However, semi-automatic firearms securely locked in a gun safe or similar contrivance would never be subject to forfeiture, absent any other complaint. NFA firearms would require additional licensing, and current laws regarding them could remain intact, although the new license would be valid in all 50 states. Background checks could still be implemented at the seller’s discretion. (2)Purchasing firearms to be resold to individuals lacking a license would be prosecuted if there was reasonable suspicion they were intended to be used in a crime or facilitate a criminal enterprise, and additional felony charges could apply if the firearm in question was recovered from a crime scene within a year of the date of purchase. A license would be revoked upon arrest for any crime or involuntary commitment to either a mental hospital or an addiction treatment center. Concealed carry without a valid permit could be prosecuted as a misdemeanor offense with a fine and forfeiture of the weapon in question, unless the jurisdiction in question permits concealed carry without a permit. (3)Major metropolitan areas may choose to restrict open carry if they wish, but in rural areas it must be permitted. Concealed carry by a violent felony offender, or a person under the influence of drugs or publicly intoxicated, would be prosecuted as a felony. Simple possession of a handgun in one’s vehicle, or a semi-automatic rifle in one’s home, should be permitted as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, unless the possessor is under court supervision due to criminal or mental health proceedings and specifically barred from possessing firearms. (4)Any misuse of a firearm, including brandishing and reckless endangerment, would be prosecuted aggressively as a serious felony offense.



sounded good until we got here.
(1) This is one of the problems, we have created unguarded soft targets of our most precious possessions. This plan was flawed at least, Criminal at best.
(2) Reasonable to whom? Who is to determine who the original seller(s) were, what will be registered and who is paying for this database. How soon after the national registration is total confiscation?
(3) More invisible lines with ambiguous terminology, Please define "major metropolitan area" and "rural area", include quantification for each and manner of communication of these facts for travelers.
(4) brandishing like defending your property from warrant-less searches? Ambiguous and repetitive. these things are already criminal acts and often abused by police with no fear of repercussion.




how would you feel about a buyers card like nebraska . basically you fill out the 4473 once with the sheriff and they mail a card . once you have a card you present it to anyone who wishes to sell a firearm to insure that the seller is covered . granted this system does not stop criminals from breaking the law but it does eliminate the need to run a 4473 every time you want to purchase at a store.


I'd rather the process be changed to allow for filling out a 4473 and walking out with your gun after you've shown a valid carry permit...along the lines of how it's done in UT and some other states.

The above licensing proposal is nothing more than a registration scheme and allows for too many restrictions on ownership of certain magazines or gun types. It's punishment for the law-abiding.

Georgia has a "Georgia Weapons License" good for open carry, concealed carry and bypassing the BCI by proving eligibility.
While I am not crazy about being 'required to have a license', It saves taxpayers millions in repetitive investigations.

[T-Jet]

Scanned it, saw "Licensing", by the Feds, and figured I'd read far enough.

No.

+1

[Goodburbon]

Not 1 more inch. These "compromises" always entail us giving something up in return for them feeling better

[GlockDog47]

yep . i have yet to hear a reasonable proposal from ether side .

+1
All B.S. too me.

[hatidua]

Not 1 more inch.

-works for me.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Not 1 more inch. These "compromises" always entail us giving something up in return for them feeling better

If anything the guns laws should be reduced. When we do that implement accountability.

[jim02]

No such thing as reasonable restrictions on the 2nd or any other of out rights.

why do we discount the founders warnings so much, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF

[hammer03]

how would you feel about a buyers card like nebraska . basically you fill out the 4473 once with the sheriff and they mail a card . once you have a card you present it to anyone who wishes to sell a firearm to insure that the seller is covered . granted this system does not stop criminals from breaking the law but it does eliminate the need to run a 4473 every time you want to purchase at a store.
This. I just sent an idea similar to this to Rep Stephens. And remove make/model/SN from a 4473, and bingo! Gun grabbers get their background checks, and nobody gets their 2A (more) stepped on. This card should be available at every sporting goods store, SO/PD HQ, Walmart, etc, just like a fishing or hunting license. And it should be limited to 24 hour turn around. If they can't do an "instant" background check under 24 hours, the liability is on them (current CCW also counts, to avoid having to reprocess all those folks).

[Troublco]

I liked it right up to #5. Drop #5 and I think it's fine. Otherwise, I agree with those who say there is NO more compromise when it comes to our rights. There's already been too much, and the only people who have gotten anything out of it is them. (Yeah, I know, the amorphous "them"...)

[Gman]

“...Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrendered their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”
― John Adams (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1480.John_Adams)

[00tec]

The National Firearms Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) was a COMPROMISE
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Crime_Control_and_Safe_Streets_Act_of_1968 ) was a COMPROMISE
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) was a COMPROMISE
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act) was a COMPROMISE
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) was a COMPROMISE
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) was a COMPROMISE

What have the anti's given up? It seems that we keep "compromising" and giving up bits and pieces of our RIGHTS, a little bit at a time. Soon there will be nothing left.

FUCK COMPROMISE



Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

[SA Friday]

I never got past "law by executive order". Uh, no... executive order is not and cannot be law. This retarded president and vice president think if they say something in executive order, it will apply to everyone. Short of directing employees within the executive branch, they mean NOTHING.

[UrbanWolf]

We have compromised enough, time to stand up.

[00tec]

Ever been around a begging dog? So I got my plate and this mutt keeps hounding, whining, and giving puppy dog eyes because he wants a piece of my tasty steak. So to shut him up, I toss him a piece... Guess what happens right after he's done devouring that piece?

America's dog is begging folks.

[DOC]

How about removing the Hughes Amendment from the mostly FOPA. Then he can bitch about assault weapons because they will actually be legal and cheap to own again.

Than the compromise will be a 2 parter. Obama is homo and Fienstein can go fuck herself.

[Zundfolge]

How about this for a compromise?

You (liberals, not the OP) stop trying to restrict my constitutional rights (ALL OF THEM) and stop trying to destroy free market capitalism and we don't have to go to war.

Because that's where its going to end up eventually.



EVERY "reasonable compromise" with the left has been used to incrementally push us into their totalitarian vision for America. We compromise, they don't.

The only "reasonable compromise" that has EVER worked in our favor was the sunset provision in the '94 ban. And a lot of good that's doing us now, we're right back where we were in '93-'94 arguing for the same rights, preparing to offer up EVEN MORE compromises.

[Bailey Guns]

^^ Hater...

[Ridge]

how would you feel about a buyers card like nebraska . basically you fill out the 4473 once with the sheriff and they mail a card . once you have a card you present it to anyone who wishes to sell a firearm to insure that the seller is covered . granted this system does not stop criminals from breaking the law but it does eliminate the need to run a 4473 every time you want to purchase at a store.

Seems like the people on this forum would rather lose everything than submit to a minor inconvenience.

[NMB2]

Seems like the people on this forum would rather lose everything than submit to a minor inconvenience.

I'm not going to lose shit.... and I'm not going to submit to anything.

Think about that.

[Ridge]

I'm not going to lose shit.... and I'm not going to submit to anything.

Think about that.

You'll have plenty of time to think about it yourself in jail. Unless you're dead.

[Bailey Guns]

Seems like the people on this forum would rather lose everything than submit to a minor inconvenience.

I'm already subjected to many minor inconveniences:

Fill out a federal form to buy a gun
Submit to a background check
Wait, possibly several days, for the "InstaCheck" to be completed
Which might entail an additional trip to the gun store
I'm told by the government where I can take my gun
I'm restricted by the government as to how I can carry my gun
I'm charged a fee by the government if I want to carry my gun in a certain way
I can't have certain guns because the government doesn't trust me
I have to pay an astronomically, artificially inflated price to own certain guns or accessories
I have to pay taxes non gun owners don't have to pay
I'm vilified by the media because I like guns
etc, etc, etc...


So you can take your additional "minor inconveniences"...somewhere else.

Besides...it's not like we're going to have any say on whether or not any particular anti-gun law is passed. Well, I guess we'll have a say...it's just nobody's listening or cares.

[sroz]

You'll have plenty of time to think about it yourself in jail. Unless you're dead.

Good point. Yea, we all know about making flat statements. They sometimes leave us few options with none of them being very pleasant.

[sroz]

Besides...it's not like we're going to have any say on whether or not any particular anti-gun law is passed. Well, I guess we'll have a say...it's just nobody's listening or cares.

You hit the nail on the head. We may all have some tough decisions coming up. We'll all individually just have to consider ALL consequences before deciding.

[Bailey Guns]

All of this talk about compromise reminds me of Winston Churchill:

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

[Zundfolge]

Seems like the people on this forum would rather lose everything than submit to a minor inconvenience.
I would be perfectly happy to compromise to a couple minor inconveniences if I knew it would stop there, but it doesn't.

Liberal's "allow" us to compromise so that they can come back a year later and ask for ANOTHER compromise and then ANOTHER and then ANOTHER until they eventually get us to compromise everything away piecemeal and they get the extreme situation they wanted in the first place.

EVENTUALLY all these compromises will end up with us losing everything.

So again, screw compromise, screw the Democrats and their media, screw all of it. I'd rather be dead than give another fucking inch.

[Bailey Guns]

You hit the nail on the head.

At least it wasn't my thumb this time...

[theGinsue]

I quit reading after the first paragraph because even that has FAIL written all over it.


A REASONABLE COMPROMISE?

As it seems that the current administration is determined to place rather extreme restrictions on firearm ownership in the immediate future, I recently posted about the Draconian and Byzantine nature of the New York gun control laws which apparently are being utilized as the template for new legislation. It seems rather asinine to attempt to force NYC gun laws on the residents of rural Kentucky, Arizona, and Alaska, yet that is what has been proposed . . . and there is a very real possibility President Obama may approve that proposal and even bypass Congressional oversight to sign it into law via Executive Order without fully considering the fact that any citizen who failed to comply in full with such a decree could have their Rights of citizenship stripped from them and face the threat of imprisonment. Never before in the history of our nation has the power of Executive Order been abused in such a punitive and ill-considered manner, and I truly hope that does not occur in this instance.

First, the red NON-Bold text: Whether our government wishes to treat them as such or not, an EO is NOT a law. Only the Legislative Branch (ie. Congress) can make laws.

Next, the bold text: To say that they've failed to consider the ramifications of such a decree, causing citizens to be stripped of their Rights is naive. They have absolutely considered the potential for those who fail to comply - and they're counting on it. Look at all of the realistically misdemeanor offenses that are now classified as felonies for proof of this intent. The ultimate goal is control and disarmament of the citizenry by any means possible. To demonized a citizen by permanently classifying them as felons they effectively neutralize them for life. Our "leaders" know precisely what they're doing.


As far as much of the remainder of the post, I quickly scanned it and I am not impressed. Licensing either firearms or firearms owners (FOID cards in IL is an example of this) is another means of both control and setting up a database to know who to target for confiscation & or imprisonment later. What's to stop the authorities from making unannounced visits to verify full compliance of the laws - under the auspices of "public safety" at any point in time? NOTHING! I you want the people to maintain any power over the government you need to maintain the anonymity of firearms owners.

The only compromise that should be occurring is the .gov stepping away from the Rights infringement they seem so hell-bent on performing.

ETA: It's not a compromise when only 1 side has something to lose.

ETA2:

I never got past "law by executive order". Uh, no... executive order is not and cannot be law. This retarded president and vice president think if they say something in executive order, it will apply to everyone. Short of directing employees within the executive branch, they mean NOTHING.
Glad I'm not the only one who caught that.

[sroz]

At least it wasn't my thumb this time...

None of us want compromise. I think we just want our current laws enforced & individuals held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately we most likely will see some changes. Btw, glad your thumb is ok.

[Bailey Guns]

I'd rather be dead than give another fucking inch.

Furthermore, I'm getting to the age where the inevitable actually does seem inevitable. More so than if was still in my 30s. So the thought of that doesn't bother me as much as it might have at one time.

[NMB2]

You'll have plenty of time to think about it yourself in jail. Unless you're dead.

I very well may die, but I will never spend a day in jail.


Good point. Yea, we all know about making flat statements. They sometimes leave us few options with none of them being very pleasant.


None of us want compromise. I think we just want our current laws enforced & individuals held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately we most likely will see some changes. Btw, glad your thumb is ok.

You have already submitted, you don't deserve any of our freedoms.

[MOD: Let's not take this to personal attacks]

[DOC]

None of the proposed laws would have prevented any of the shootings. How am I suppose to compromise with that?

[NMB2]

It is VERY important for us like-minded to understand that the Liberals/Progressives are not the only dangerous people to the 2A. You equally need to worry about people that mascaraed around as Constitutionalists, 2A supporters. Really, they are nothing but limp wristers that will take what uncle sam will give them.

... they will try to convince you that more compromise is the answer, and that there is no other choice. They are blue falcons, and they are cowards. FMedges said it yesterday.... cowardice spreads like a disease. You need to distance yourself from these types of people. They will sell you out, and they will get you killed.

[sroz]

You have already submitted, you don't deserve any of our freedoms.

I haven't submitted to shit. Careful, you're starting to sound like the libs. Remember that our rights are GOD-given. They not granted by the gov AND not by you (sorry to be the one to break that to you). So, you do not get to determine who deserves our freedoms. You would have much less success attempting to do so than the gov. Just chill and carry on with your debate without all the drama.

[NMB2]

I haven't submitted to shit. Careful, you're starting to sound like the libs. Remember that our rights are GOD-given. They not granted by the gov AND not by you (sorry to be the one to break that to you). So, you do not get to determine who deserves our freedoms. You would have much less success attempting to do so than the gov. Just chill and carry on with your debate without all the drama.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

hahahahahaha.... you're such a blue falcon its not even funny. Anybody that reads your posts can see that, don't try to backpedal now.

[Ridge]

I'm already subjected to many minor inconveniences:

Fill out a federal form to buy a gun
Submit to a background check

I didn't really think any of us had a problem with making sure criminals can't buy guns.


Wait, possibly several days, for the "InstaCheck" to be completed
Which might entail an additional trip to the gun store

That is because of the market, not the government.


I'm told by the government where I can take my gun
I'm restricted by the government as to how I can carry my gun
I'm charged a fee by the government if I want to carry my gun in a certain way

I can understand annoyance with those.


I can't have certain guns because the government doesn't trust me

Again, I agree. It's an illegal law, and needs to be rectified.


I have to pay an astronomically, artificially inflated price to own certain guns or accessories

Again, that is free market, not because of the law.


I have to pay taxes non gun owners don't have to pay

Such as?


I'm vilified by the media because I like guns
etc, etc, etc...

Sticks and stones


So you can take your additional "minor inconveniences"...somewhere else.

Besides...it's not like we're going to have any say on whether or not any particular anti-gun law is passed. Well, I guess we'll have a say...it's just nobody's listening or cares.

I'm suggesting that by going on the offensive and volunteering to regulate ourselves, we can have laws passed by people who will be affected by it, people who know what they are talking about, versus some jackass half way across the country who is talking out of their ass and making laws over things they don't understand.

There WILL be anti gun legislation passed this year. I'm trying to limit it's negative effects on the law abiding.

[NMB2]

There WILL be anti gun legislation passed this year. I'm trying to limit it's negative effects on the law abiding.

and Patriots will become criminals overnight. [MOD Edit]

Its a pretty easy concept. It only has teeth if you allow it to.

[MOD: This member deleted this post after I edited it. His delete comment: "Don't fuck with my posts". He's forgotten he doesn't make the rules. Don't want a post edited? Don't post something that needs to be edited. He's earned a 2 week vacation for acting all "badass" with site staff. I've earned the title "Rogers's Revenge" for a reason. - Ginsue]

[Clint45]

I feel that a 50 state license would be a reasonable compromise. A license would not be mandatory to own, sell, transfer, or possess a firearm. There would be NO REGISTRATION nor would there be an expiry date. Any database would simply verify whether a license was valid or suspended or revoked. The license would be evidence that the holder had already passed a background check and could then be entitled to instantly purchase any firearm at a retail outlet or gun show, and would be permitted to conceal carry in all 50 states.

[Bailey Guns]

I didn't really think any of us had a problem with making sure criminals can't buy guns.

This doesn't stop a criminal that wants a gun. It stops a criminal from buying from a dealer. Unless the feds say it's OK for the criminal to buy from the dealer (F&F anyone?).

That is because of the market, not the government.

The market is in the state it's in because of the government. This crisis was created by politicians threatening further "reasonable" restrictions on what people can own.

I can understand annoyance with those.

But we've accepted it and deal with it.

Again, I agree. It's an illegal law, and needs to be rectified.

I won't be holding my breath.

Again, that is free market, not because of the law.

I'm referring to NFA items...specifically guns. Artificially high price, $200 tax on top of that.

Such as?

Firearm and ammunition manufacturers pay 10 or 11 percent FET on everything they make. Who do you think REALLY pays that tax? And it's basically a tax on a Constitutional right.

Sticks and stones

Maybe. But when it comes from elected public servants it's annoying.

I'm suggesting that by going on the offensive and volunteering to regulate ourselves, we can have laws passed by people who will be affected by it, people who know what they are talking about, versus some jackass half way across the country who is talking out of their ass and making laws over things they don't understand.

There WILL be anti gun legislation passed this year. I'm trying to limit it's negative effects on the law abiding.

I understand what you're trying to accomplish in principle. But I think many of the responses have been pretty clear as to why it's a bad idea and it's unnecessary.

[Gman]

“Always stand on principle....even if you stand alone.”
― John Adams (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1480.John_Adams)

If you think you can finesse a right into meaning something less than that, then you've already lost. Rights are absolute. There is no compromise. You either have them or you don't.

[Zundfolge]

I'm suggesting that by going on the offensive and volunteering to regulate ourselves, we can have laws passed by people who will be affected by it, people who know what they are talking about, versus some jackass half way across the country who is talking out of their ass and making laws over things they don't understand.
Its a fools errand (and that kind of thinking is a trick).
If we give an inch they'll still take the whole mile.

Like I said before, I'd be willing to make a couple small compromises as long as it would be carved in stone that that's it, that's the end, there will NEVER be an attempt to move a single step toward gun control ever again. THAT will never happen. They'll just use our compromise this time as yet another step toward total disarmament.


There WILL be anti gun legislation passed this year. I'm trying to limit it's negative effects on the law abiding.
On the state level you're probably right. In which case we don't have enough pull to stop anything. All we can hope for is that their over reach pisses off enough Coloradoans that we vote all the bastards out and reverse it later. Giving them a few token compromises now won't stop anything ... they'll just say "thank you, we'll take that and still shove the rest of this up your ass". They (liberals, Democrats, anti-gun folk) HATE US AND WANT US DEAD THEY DON'T WANT TO SEEK SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS WITH US.

On the Federal level I'm not convinced that any new gun laws is guaranteed. One of the benefits of partisan gridlock.

[Dalendenver]

You lost me with your first point. You are not going to get anything positive from our schools. The libs took control of the schools years ago. They don't want to teach integrity because they don't believe in it. The libs subscribe to the Saul Alinsky premise the honesty is a weakness not affordable by the radical left.

[sniper7]

there is no need to talk about it. If they want compromise, that means giving something up.

well, I want to buy machine guns and suppressors from my FFL, over the counter, and unrestricted with a tax stamp. they want me to do background checks on all purchases. sounds like a good trade. I have nothing to hide, I'm not a criminal.

Whenever you hear the word compromise, or discussion from a liberal/democrat...that means they want to take something away and give nothing back. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

[sniper7]

You lost me with your first point. You are not going to get anything positive from our schools. The libs took control of the schools years ago. They don't want to teach integrity because they don't believe in it. The libs subscribe to the Saul Alinsky premise the honesty is a weakness not affordable by the radical left.

not necessarily a lot of service members are coming back and being hired as teachers now. a lot of them also woke up to the fact they are defenseless against criminals with guns. RMGO is offering a free CCW class to teachers, I bet the response will be overwhelming.

[Clint45]

I never got past "law by executive order". Uh, no... executive order is not and cannot be law. This retarded president and vice president think if they say something in executive order, it will apply to everyone. Short of directing employees within the executive branch, they mean NOTHING.

Thanks for pointing that out. With all the bullshit on the news and in the forums, apparently I was under the mistaken impression that he did have that power with an Executive Order, and it could only be overturned by Congress or SCOTUS.

What, then, are the LIMITS of Executive Order, should he wish to have a total ban and universal registration? What is the WORST CASE SCENARIO here?

[DOC]

The 89 import ban of guns was an EO. And we still have it. IIRC.

[hatidua]

I didn't really think any of us had a problem with making sure criminals can't buy guns.

What law, EXACTLY, would prevent criminals from buying guns?

In every country in which they outright forbid civilians from owning firearms, the criminals still manage to acquire guns. Pray tell, how on earth does that occur?

There seems to be this delusional attempt to enact feel-good laws, as if to say "look, we've done something". I'm just really saddened that these proposals are coming from members here whom I assumed should have known better than to toss out hollow proposals that accomplish absolutely nothing.

If I wanted to be surrounded by Brady Campaign members, I would not have signed up for membership on a gun forum.

[Ronin13]

I'm kind of confused here... someone please explain to me, in the context presented, why a national license to speed up the purchase process (again not a requirement) and valid, 50-state concealed carry permit, is a bad thing? Here's a little personal experience for you all- When stationed in NY, I received a legal in-brief when I first arrived. The JAG officer (NY Bar certified as well) stated nothing about being prohibited from owning/possessing a pistol without a permit in the state of NY. I did my DITY household goods move, Glock in case, in the truck. As advised by Ft. Drum JAG, I arrived on post and registered my Glock with the MPs (DA policy) to prepare for it to be stored in our unit arms room (on-post/barracks resident- again, DA policy). Upon registration, the Desk SGT (civilian LEO, not MP) informed me that by crossing into NYS with my Glock, without a permit, I was in commission of a felony. Thank whatever God above I was not arrested and charged right there on the spot, as he said "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." The conversation that followed was his wide eyed look and disbelief that in CO it's perfectly legal to walk into a gun store, and within an hour walk out with a gun (this was in 2007), no license, no permit, no questions asked. My life, career, everything would have been over right there and then. Now, if we had a 50-state legal permit for carry, issued at the Federal level, I would see this as nothing but a good thing- like the OP originally stated, lack thereof in terms of a national license does not equal registration, is not required to own or possess, and is quite similar to a "buyers card" or UT's CCW in place of BGC. [2cents] Again, if I'm wrong on this, please present a sound, reasonable, and logical argument why this is that bad...

[Ridge]

The argument is that some states won't have standards set high enough as others. Considering that in AZ any bozo can go buy a Desert Eagle and conceal carry it without any training or understanding of how firearms act can be cause for concern to some.

[Ronin13]

The argument is that some states won't have standards set high enough as others. Considering that in AZ any bozo can go buy a Desert Eagle and conceal carry it without any training or understanding of how firearms act can be cause for concern to some.
If it's a federal license, wouldn't it be to federal standards regardless of state? I would think, and I suspect I'm pretty far off considering who we're talking about, that legislators or whoever would be in charge of the licensing would be smart enough to go with a high enough standard to satisfy, or include LEOs in the process of deciding standards. Immaterial regardless, that argument doesn't hold much water because it would be a federal license.

[Irving]

Just wanted to add my own "no" to the list.

[alxone]

The argument is that some states won't have standards set high enough as others. Considering that in AZ any bozo can go buy a Desert Eagle and conceal carry it without any training or understanding of how firearms act can be cause for concern to some.but one could argue that the 2nd is a right not a privilege so then training is up to the person not the gov .

[Bailey Guns]

The argument is that some states won't have standards set high enough as others. Considering that in AZ any bozo can go buy a Desert Eagle and conceal carry it without any training or understanding of how firearms act can be cause for concern to some.

Not just any "bozo" can buy a gun in AZ. The "bozo" must still comply with federal and state law to be legal. No different than buying anywhere else in the country in terms of complying with federal/state purchase requirements. Purchasing a gun illegally can be done anywhere in the country as well, despite what the law says.

And just how do firearms "act"? Because mine don't do anything unless I'm operating them. Maybe mine are just lazy.

The minimal requirements for concealed carry in AK, AZ, VT and WY don't seem to be causing any problems...at least not that I've heard about. That whole freedom thing is scary to some people, though, because with it comes a lot of responsibility.

[Byte Stryke]

Wait, possibly several days, for the "InstaCheck" to be completed
Which might entail an additional trip to the gun store



That is because of the market, not the government.
That is a choke point implemented by government regulation.
All free men should have the right to bear arms. Should a Free man not be trusted, why have you released them back into society?




I'm suggesting that by going on the offensive and volunteering to regulate ourselves

SEE!!! SEE!!! Even GUN OWNERS think we need more regulation!
and that is how easy that is.

[DOC]

Regulations have always help prevent deaths. The government knows what they are doing. Just look at how regulated cars are and how that has some how reduced deaths. And we all know what fun it is to register, insure, plate, emission test and keep our license update is, because its more fun then going to court, getting your car out of impound, loosing your license, having no car. I'm sure it will just as great when we start regulating guns. /now that's sarcasm.

[Troublco]

Its a fools errand (and that kind of thinking is a trick).
If we give an inch they'll still take the whole mile.


Not only will they take the mile, they'll claim that we SUPPORTED the whole thing, so we have no reason to complain. See Byte's example above.

[Ridge]

And just how do firearms "act"? Because mine don't do anything unless I'm operating them. Maybe mine are just lazy.

I'm talking about recoil and muzzle control, not sentience. [MOD Edit], then whatever.

[rockhound]

Furthermore, I'm getting to the age where the inevitable actually does seem inevitable. More so than if was still in my 30s. So the thought of that doesn't bother me as much as it might have at one time.

I am with you Carl, I once thought that my children would be fighting the battle that is coming. I have come to realize that it will be our fight, The govt, is coming, hide and watch or prepare and live a free man.

Whether it is in the streets or in the courts the fight is at your doorstep. If we let this one slide it is a matter of time before your rights are completely eroded.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm talking about recoil and muzzle control, not sentience. [MOD Edit], then whatever.

When it comes to my liberties, yeah..[MOD Edit]. And words have meaning.

[Gman]

The argument is that some states won't have standards set high enough as others. Considering that in AZ any bozo can go buy a Desert Eagle and conceal carry it without any training or understanding of how firearms act can be cause for concern to some.
Who are these that are concerned? Maybe they should mind their own business.

You don't need the government's blessing to CCW in Vermont and Alaska. That doesn't concern me a bit. Personally, I believe that's what the Founders meant by the 2nd Amendment.

[theGinsue]

​Let's remember to keep the personal attacks in check so this thread doesn't have to get closed &/or removed.

[blacklabel]

You don't need the government's blessing to CCW in Vermont and Alaska.

Don't forget about Wyoming.