Trade capacity for national recognition?

This is a discussion on Trade capacity for national recognition? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; When it comes to a right there is NO compromise. If we were to agree to magazine limits do you really believe the anti-gunners agree ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47
Like Tree99Likes

Thread: Trade capacity for national recognition?

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,241
    When it comes to a right there is NO compromise. If we were to agree to magazine limits do you really believe the anti-gunners agree to more liberal carry laws for instance, I know that would never happen.
    bmcgilvray, blitzburgh and zacii like this.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array Piratesailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    206
    Here is what I'll give up - NOT ONE DAMN THING.
    blitzburgh and zacii like this.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,310
    Quote Originally Posted by mjblat View Post
    I hear every day on the news complaints about the "fiscal cliff" and how the president needs to compromise. Does that not apply to guns. Not trying to start a fight but trying to get the point of view from this forum. Would we not be better off giving in alittle to gain more. If we would be proactive we will be better off. Lets turn the tables on anti-gunners. Offer a bill restricting capacity to ten rounds, in exchange for national recognition of cc. Let the opposition vote down a bill giving them what they want.
    I got my very first firearm thru the US mail... I was underage. It was sent to my father by his brother for ME. I have lived some 49 years since that time... I have never used my gun, gotten thru the US mail, to shoot anyone. But, there are now laws that say I must not receive firearms thru the mail... and I must go to a local FFL to pick up, after the appropriate checks, a firearm I purchase on line. Those laws were a "compromise" that I never participated in.

    I did not have any firearms except for a single shot .410 during the AWB... That was a compromise that I didn't have anything to do with.

    During the AWB, there was an increase in violent crime... it did nothing to reduce crime or victims.

    All mass murders in this country save one or two, took place in gun free zones... where it was illegal, or at least not permitted by the owner to have any firearms.

    There are millions of hi capacity mags already in the field, un recorded, and no one knows where they are, except for the ones they may have...

    In Illinois, THE state with the most restrictive handgun laws in the country, and in CHICAGO, the city in that state with the most restrictive gun laws in the country, where purchasing handgun is now taxed, the homicide rate by firearm is higher that any other city in the country. The criminals pay no "violence tax" on the gats they buy from the trunks of cars in the back alleys of the Second City.

    The ONLY people who suffer regulations on firearms are the law abiding citizens of this country. It does us no good to "compromise," all it does is expose us to more (and possibly deadly) criminal activity. Period. End of sentence.

    I post frequently in the subsection "in the news." Since starting here on DC, I have seen an increase in the amount of violent crime reported in the various media across the country... some of it is the press' mentality of "if it bleeds it leads." But a majority is NOT.

    I don't care for extended (non factory) magazines...my handguns come with a capacity of 12 rounds in the mag, one in the chamber. That is sufficient for me. But if you care to purchase an after market magazine for your Glock that holds 30 rounds, go ahead... I can probably shoot 25 rounds faster (one chambered and one extra mag) than you can 25 out of your extended mag... unless you have spent some time tuning the mag to work properly (Something most with criminal intent don't bother doing. Which is why Laughner was unable to kill more and the Aurora killer was unable to kill more. Their extended, after market mags, did not function flawlessly out of the box.)

    National reciprocity is another thing all together.... There is a remote possibility of it being a good thing... but something tells me that getting the feds involved in it only gives the feds a national database of those with permits... and while I'd like to think my government would do nothing bad with that information, ever... I think I know better... On that issue I remain torn... I'd love to see it... on the one hand... but I don't trust my government not to use it against me... If for no other reason than to raise revenue through fees.

    But, if you're going to go for your compromise... I'd like to suggest this additional compromise... for you.

    Don't post on the internet any more... at least not directly. Get yourself a quill pen and a pen knife and an ink well. Draw up your post on some nice parchment. Seal it and ship it by private courier... or even the postal service, to the offices of the owners of sites such as DC for publication. If they choose to post it on their site, swell for you... if not... send it to the Brady Bunch, they might accept it and even print it.

    And if you don't think that's a fitting "compromise..."

    Really now, all I've suggested is that you don't fire off your missives as quickly as you are able under current regulations.

    And all you're proposing with your "compromise" is that I and others not be able to fire off their missiles as quickly as we are able under current regulations...


    No problemo!
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,337
    Quote Originally Posted by mjblat View Post
    I think we may be headed in that direction anyway with taxes. I for one would be willing to pay a little more for guns/ammo if that meant our children would be exposed to gun safety in school. Im sure the NRA would be more than happy to provide the instructors for a "small fee" of course.
    Using that logic, shouldn't anti-gun organizations already be paying to spew their anti-gun propaganda in our schools?
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    I would agree that reasonable regulations could be part of a national recognition agreement. For example, no extended mags or calibers beyond 10mm, and no explosive rounds.

    Unfortunately the likely limitation would be limited capacity to 10 rounds, .380 ACP / .38 Spl. or less, and I'm guessing hollow point rounds would be illegal. For the most part, I could still CC 99% of the time. In many ways, especially when traveling, I would be better off. However, I would be trading freedom for convenience, and every 2 to years know my right to carry might be swayed by national politics.

    The most likely national recognition agreement would simply be to recognise licenses issued from other states, but following limitations imposed by that state.
    Last edited by Thanis; December 14th, 2012 at 03:16 PM.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    I would agree that reasonable regulations could be part of a national recognition agreement. For example, no extended mags or calibers beyong 10mm, and no explosive rounds.

    Unfortunately the likely limitation would be limited capacity to 10 rounds, .380 ACP / .38 Spl. or less, and I'm guessing hollow point rounds would be illegal. For the most part, I could still CC 99% of the time. In many ways, especially when traveling, I would be better off. However, I would be trading freedom for convenience, and every 2 to years know my right to carry might be swayed by national politics.

    The most likely national recognition agreement would simply be to recognise licenses issued from other states, but following limitations imposed by that state.
    NOPE... Sorry... JUST SAY NO.

    How far would you be willing to let the reasonable regulations go?
    Do you think the criminals from which you are presumably protecting yourself by exercising your right, would pay heed to any of those regulations? What if the "reasonable" regulations limited you to a squirt gun... and criminals could only have paint guns? Shouldn't you be able to have in your defense anything the criminal is likely to have to use against you?

    I'm extrapolating to the far ends of absurdity here... but the bottom line is that I should be able to have, as my defensive weapon, anything as powerful or more so, than the criminal may have... Police in this country, for years, were "undergunned" and it cost them dearly.... Since we're just ordinary citizens, only, on average, 8 minutes away from the saving actions of a police force, we should at least be able to buy that time... we can't do it if the BG can lay down suppressive fire with a 22 round Glock, and all we got is a ten round FMJ .380.

    Nope.... nope nope... NO further "compromises" please... I'm compromised out, here... I'm pinned down... and there ain't no likelihood of air support.
    bmcgilvray, KBSR and zacii like this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array VBVAGUY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,172
    Since we have a oil shortage coming up soon in the next few years, we might as well limit the gas tank in new cars to just 5 gallons of gas. God Bless

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    ...The most likely national recognition agreement would simply be to recognise licenses issued from other states, but following limitations imposed by that state...
    ...well the state you are in.

    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    NOPE... Sorry... JUST SAY NO...Nope.... nope nope... NO further "compromises" please... I'm compromised out, here... I'm pinned down... and there ain't no likelihood of air support.
    I'm just a little confused. You are not willing to compromise your right to bear arms enough to agree to a national recognition so long as you follow the laws of the state you are visiting? Your shall not be infringed line of 2A and no compromise is you can carry whatever you want in any way you want or forget national recognition?
    Hopyard likes this.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array Thunder71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,537
    When they ban cars for drunk driving, I'll listen...

    Tragic events are hard to deal with, but we cannot think for a second that more gun laws/banning of guns will change it. It's as effective as the no gun signs.

    You'll end up in a society where law abiding citizens have 5 rounds and one carry gun, criminals have 30 rounds per undisclosed amount of guns/weapons.

  11. #25
    OD*
    OD* is online now
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    I would agree that reasonable regulations could be part of a national recognition agreement. For example, no extended mags or calibers beyond 10mm, and no explosive rounds.
    Now we're wanting caliber limits?
    bmcgilvray, blitzburgh and zacii like this.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  12. #26
    Distinguished Member
    Array whoppo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southern Maine
    Posts
    1,258
    Give them that inch? No Way.
    Last edited by OD*; December 17th, 2012 at 07:55 PM.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    The Second Amendment *IS* Homeland Security
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------- Μολὼν λαβέ ----------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    no!
    bmcgilvray likes this.

  14. #28
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,276
    There is nothing that I love more than total gridlock in Washington.
    What makes you think that there is something wrong with politicians not getting anything done?
    I would love to pay them all to go to Washington and sleep in a nice comfortable bed and not pass any more laws.
    We have enough doggone laws.

    Ideally...I would like them to go to Washington and do nothing but repeal asinine laws.
    OD*, msgt/ret, HotGuns and 5 others like this.

  15. #29
    MJK
    MJK is offline
    Senior Member Array MJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    825
    No. I will not surrender or have infringed my right to keep and bear arms.

    I will accept fewer restrictions but will give nothing in return.
    bmcgilvray, KBSR and zacii like this.
    [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  16. #30
    MJK
    MJK is offline
    Senior Member Array MJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    825
    BTW...we already have national recognition. It was instituted on December 15, 1791.
    [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

gun recognition software

Click on a term to search for related topics.