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; What you are talking about could be seen as rational on the surface, but that is exactly why the other side will never go for ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47
Like Tree99Likes

Thread: Trade capacity for national recognition?

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    What you are talking about could be seen as rational on the surface, but that is exactly why the other side will never go for it. Their goal is total and outright ban. They run so much on emotion that they could not swallow any laws granting more "rights" to gun owners. I will not make deals with those who would lie, decieve and steal our rights, heritage, self-reliance, and ability to protect ourselves and our families.
    bmcgilvray likes this.
    Walk softly ...

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,354

    Re: Trade capacity for national recognition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    ...well the state you are in.



    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?
    So, you would be okay with national recognition of your state's permit by another state, while obeying the restrictions of the state you are visiting?

    In Illinois, currently, with your scheme, you might be able to carry, unloaded, in a fanny pack, mag in a separate container in the fanny pack, as an Illinois resident currently can (with FOID). But, that's okay, cause you can carry your gun and legal 10 round mag most anywhere else.

    Nope, still not buying. Sorry.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,250
    If you let the camel's nose into the tent, the rest is sure to follow. Disassembly of rights, piece by piece.
    bmcgilvray likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #34
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,894
    Quote Originally Posted by mjblat View Post
    Just a thought I had. With the current gridlock in washington I was just wondering what if anything gun owners in general would be willing to give up. Im not saying we should or will. For example, Maybe give in on magazine capacity and recieve national recognition on ccdw. Another idea is paying a tax on ammo or firearms, paying for a safety program in all public schools and having a federal permit. Just some thought's but not endorsing any.
    Not only NO, but HELL NO.


    How are the target rich environments working for us now?

    How about allowing those that would to arm themselves? We already entrust the lives of our children with teachers.

    When was the last time there was a school shooting in Israel?






    Putting more restictions on law abiding people is about as stupid as it gets.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,767
    Quote Originally Posted by mjblat View Post
    I was just wondering what if anything gun owners in general would be willing to give up.
    It's not some petty zero-sum game. It's a fight for the lives of upstanding people, whether they're going to be held hostage to crime or cease being criminalized for standing on their own two feet.

    Willing to cease shooting down unlawful restrictions, or trade them away? Not a chance.
    bmcgilvray and zacii like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #36
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,894
    I dont need delusional people making decisions for me.

    They want to give up their rights and abilitys...let em do it. Leave mine alone.

    As for me, Id rather just keep doing what I'm doing,free from the interference of idiots that think they need to make decisions for me.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #37
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Eyes narrowed.... Blood pressure rising...I have seen one too many threads recommending or talking about giving up some of our rights.

  9. #38
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,079
    "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."

    No that does not apply to guns. 75 years of compromise on government legislated gun control has taught us that we will be ever compelled to "compromise more." Despite the dreadful news out of Connecticut we need to roll back firearms restrictions, not tighten them. We need to compel our government to protect us through fixing our broken justice system and by promoting morals, a concept that can be defined. If we as a nation are no longer capable of effectively defining morals then the United States will not survive and that would be a tragedy far deeper and of greater consequence than the profoundly immoral tragedy just visited on an elementary school in Connecticut.

    "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."

    So we're going to ban all .41, .44, .45, and .50 caliber handguns? No! Such a caliber ban would snag 14 handguns around here. I don't appreciate someone else volunteering to sacrifice my handguns for some ill-considered and unreasonable compromise of rights.

    We're going to ban extended magazines? No! Not when one may just as easily run amok with magazines holding the "government approved" number of cartridges.

    We're going to ban explosive rounds? What in the world is meant by an "explosive round" and where may these be currently acquired? If by explosive this means expanding then, no! American citizens should not be required to trade away projectile technology for false security.

    The last thing I want to see on a firearms forum is talk of compromise or acceptance of additional restrictions!

    Apparently our Constitution is much like the British monarchy. Folks get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing it's there but it's effectively been rendered toothless. We see a generation of Americans who are ignorant in the extreme.
    msgt/ret, gasmitty, OD* and 3 others like this.
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,767
    Quote Originally Posted by mjblat View Post
    Maybe give in on magazine capacity and recieve national recognition on ccdw.
    Compromise the pre-existing, God-given right of all people to defend themselves, to be armed and remain so, which was guaranteed inviolate in our Constitution? Seems to me that compromising our morals and values is what's got us here in the first place.

    And, in the end, restricting capacity simply restricts those who would mind being criminalized for it. In other words, ONLY upstanding citizens are going to follow that one. And it's not upstanding citizens who are the threat; it's the criminals who wouldn't give two shakes about any such limits, just as they didn't give two shakes during the 1994-2004 AWB malarkey.


    Another idea is paying a tax on ammo or firearms
    Taxation of the tool, because some criminals misuse the tool. Smarter still would be "tool tax" on everything from flatware to screwdrivers, rope to rocks. It would bring in lots of revenue ... that is, until people began to opt out of the visible/formal economy in the market for "tools." Wouldn't work, if the goal were to penalize criminals and leave upstanding citizens alone. Beyond which, criminals are already "taxed" (penalized) for their crimes, via the legal (nee "justice") system.


    paying for a safety program in all public schools
    Paying is already done, by everyone, funding schooling. And practically no "safety" programs end up being about practical and effective safety measures beyond duck/hide/run type procedures that help administrations feel good about being seen doing something. Paying more won't solve anything, until an effective plan based on practical measures is taken to heart. And even then, implementing it as a "program" on public funds isn't likely to yield demonstrable benefits, anymore than any of the other such "gravy train" endeavors we've embarked on in this century.


    having a federal permit
    Which would allow the feds into our lives even more deeply. Viewed from a certain perspective, the Second Amendment is exactly that, all the "permit" lawfully required to justify a person choosing to be armed. And then there's the states rights question, of the feds taking over a controlling mechanism from the states as if they didn't matter.

    IMO, the only real "scheme" that will work, in the end, is to drop the schemes, recognizing the full and complete meaning and intent of the Shall Be Armed / Shall Not Be Infringed perspective of the 2A.

    Until then, it's all compromise from the founding principle that life matters, that people have every right to defend themselves, and they have every right to do so armed to the teeth if they so choose, anywhere/everywhere without restriction. Anything else is something less ... and in the face of violent criminal attack, it's our very lives that are on the line. Compromise, with that?

    IMHO

    YMMV
    Last edited by ccw9mm; December 15th, 2012 at 09:54 AM. Reason: spelling ... yet again
    OD*, bmcgilvray, msgt/ret and 3 others like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,082
    I don't support any type of gun-related activity by the federal government short of outright repeal of any types of prohibitions currently on the books. CCW is better left as a state matter, and ridiculous ideas like this illustrate exactly why. Just look at how far Florida has gotten with getting other states to recognize their permits, and not long ago it all would have been unthinkable. Ask anyone on this forum a couple years ago how likely it is that the people of WI will be able to carry weapons. Federal involvement in trying to guarantee anyone's rights seems to almost universally end up undermining them, so just don't go inviting them into the fold.
    bmcgilvray, zacii and OD* like this.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,018
    The "best" deal is already written in the 2A......never give an inch

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array KBSR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast, MS
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I dont need delusional people making decisions for me.

    They want to give up their rights and abilitys...let em do it. Leave mine alone.

    As for me, Id rather just keep doing what I'm doing,free from the interference of idiots that think they need to make decisions for me.
    What he said!!! NO compromise, period!
    msgt/ret likes this.
    " But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array Geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    515
    NO - to any form of 'gun control". The klinton bans accomplished nothing at all, so why even consider bringing the bans back. There is no question in my mind that our "leaders in washington" will be re-defining the word infringed, so as to play games with the 2nd. Any talk or consideration of a tax on guns will require some form of registration - that will pave the way for eventual gun confiscation. Best leave everything alone, and start a new plan - enforcing the current laws.
    bmcgilvray and zacii like this.

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,059
    To OP..

    Quit smoking so much hop.

    It appears to be clouding you're rational thought.
    No more restrictive BS...Period.

    Here is an account of the firearms laws there are, and how many.
    Do we really need more?
    gunlaws.com - FAQ
    There is a section on this webpage which adresses how many gun laws there are.

    Federal gun law in 2005:
    93,354 words in 271 numbered statutes

    Arizona gun law in 2006:
    36,645 words in 183 numbered statutes

    Virginia gun law in 2006:
    45,494 words in 191 numbered statutes

    Texas gun law in 2005:
    49,442 words in 226 numbered statutes

    California gun law in 1998:
    158,643 words in 541 numbered statutes

    Florida gun law in 1998:
    46,585 words in 229 numbered statutes



    As far as I'm concerned, these are the only words we need on "GUN CONTROL"

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    BigStick likes this.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,356
    Well, don't know how anyone can view national reciprocity with the caveat of having to follow the laws of the state you are visiting, as some horrible compromise. I agree with the NRA on this one.
    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

Page 3 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.