This is a discussion on You're given an opportunity... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Sounds like a good compromise to me... you give up your guns and I'll keep mine. Exactly . Which is what the Feinsteins,Clintons,Kennedys,Shumers,Bradys and all ...
Exactly.Sounds like a good compromise to me... you give up your guns and I'll keep mine.
Which is what the Feinsteins,Clintons,Kennedys,Shumers,Bradys and all of the other "compromisers" have to say.
Sixto, I can see that you are smarter than the average bear. What are you left handed or something?
I would compromise on where we would both live. I'll take the USA and he can have another country.
Curious hypothetical question raised , I would only 'give' limiting gun purchases to individuals over the age of 18, no criminal history, ONLY citizens/permanent residents of the USA, and no open carry. I believe in the byline of one of the forum members, always carry- never tell.
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnít speak up because I wasnít a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnít speak up because I wasnít a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didnít speak up because I wasnít a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
When youíre wounded and left on Afghanistanís plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.
I am with Hot Guns. No compromise. What's it gotten us so far? "Reasonable Restrictions" and states like California.
You are not going to be able to compromise with someone who is truly an anti-gunner. You will get nowhere.
He believes that guns are a problem and will not recognize that good people do good things with guns. He will never grant that your desire to be a good guy who is able to have a gun to protect yourself should win out over his desire to see guns done away with.
He thinks, in a peurile way, that since violence can be done with guns, violence will be done away with if guns are eradicated. He forgets that a tremendous amount of violence is done without guns. He forgets about the disadvantage that millions of people would be at if they were reduced to fighting against stronger bad people using hands, feet, sticks, or knives (and he probably opposes carrying of knives, too).
Just by identifying him as an "anti-gunner" you are demonstrating that he is not a rational thinking person. I don't understand why you could have a hope that a compromise could ever be reached with what is, essentially, a zealot.
As soon as you state that you want the right to carry guns for protection preserved, he is not going to be able to get past that, period. You can talk about all the background checks and training requirements in the world, and he will not "compromise" to allow you to carry a concealed handgun. If he ever did, any gun that he did "compromise" to allow you to carry would be de-lethalized in some way, or he's want it to be biometrically activated (a fantasy) or capacity limited to like two rounds of a very minor caliber or something.
With respect, I say that I think this would be a pointless exercise.
You are right to condemn his "compromises." They get the gun owner nothing, unless you count "restricted areas" (just how many of those would Deacon tolerate?! What if they continued to bloom all over the place?) and registration lists that will later be used for confiscation. His willingness to "compromise" explains the situation in MD very well.
Yeah, I was getting a bit hot under the collar reading that post, especially after reading that excellent post by Bob the Great.
Thank you for dispatching his "compromises" so effectively.
In your words, "That should solve most of the firearm crime problem," and most of the crime problem in general.
I just don't see the use of enhancing penalties just because a gun was used. I'd like to see ALL rapists and robbers and killers permanently removed from our midst. Shouldn't matter whether they used a gun. And what if it was rape at knifepoint? Would you not be wanting to apply your 20 year enhancement?
I don't think he's saying that. I think he's going with the hypothetical question that was posed. In a scenario where the anti-gunner might agree to grant 50-state CCW reciprocity, he would be willing to suffer without .50 cal.
I suspect that would be a compromise that a lot of CCWers who are not interested in .50 cal. would be willing to accept. With apologies, I would have to admit I'm one of them. 50-state-CCW would mean a hell of a lot to me. For one thing, it would mean I could consider moving back to my original home state of NY (provided they dropped their AWB, too). But it's got to be recognized that it's all hypothetical, anyway because when they come forth with their bans, they don't offer to "buy us out" by offering anything!!
I don't think he's saying that he was one who simply stood by and didn't mind when CA banned the .50. That was not a case where complicit gun owners offered .50 cal. up as a sacrifice. That was a case where despite gun owners fighting for them, they antis managed to steal that right away. There were no traitorous gun owners who were bought by the anti-gunners for the price of some other privilege: the anti-gunners offered nothing. So your final objection,
does not really apply.Now that the .50 has been banned in California, just what exactly have they gained ?
I nominate you, HotGuns, as King of This Thread.
Don't you worry about what I said about the .50 cal., because that's strictly a fantasy scenario anyway. I wouldn't sell certain guns out for other guns; I'd just tell them our rights are not up for compromise, period. And I feel we really don't have to worry about which or how many gun owners would take the bait of such a compromise, since when anti-gunners come to collect, they never offer anything in return.
The closest the anti-crowd has ever come to "compromise" with us is to say, "We are here to take away these guns, and if you agree, we won't come after those guns. (YET.)"
Can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
Thanks for noting my location. When I speak of a compromise here in Maryland, like required training, testing, "Gun Free" zones, etc... I am speaking as a person that is not allowed to carry at all in my home state (Thank God for FL). Am I willing to accept Bars as a no carry zone, your durn right I am, I can't cerry there now anyway.
You have a long hard battle ahead of you. But never give up. I remember years ago when we we had so many people in office that were against anyone but cops carrying guns that is seemed like we were swimming upstream all of the time. The process took years to get, but we finally got it. Just don't be willing to compromise so much. Once they figure that out, they'll begin to expect it.
Good luck in with getting some sensible laws passed in your state,one of the highest ranking anti-gun states there is. You'll need it...along with lots of prayer and Divine Intervention.
I get very frustrated here because it seems like we can't even get our foot in the door. The "Shall Issue" law has to get past a committee, and we have the votes needed to get it past the committee, and the votes to have a good debate on the floor, but the Charmian of will not call a vote. At the hearing last year, we have 150 citizens in the state house to testify. We flew in Suzanna Hupp, we went all out. It was huge. The chairmen called for the testimony, then left the room. Hell I would be more than happy to compromise. There is no way that this guy is going anyplace anytime soon, he's from PG county (Borders Washington DC). Our only hope is to get enough support to call the bill out of committee (not going to happen). I don't guess it doesn't really matter, even if it did pass the Governor will veto it, and there is no chance to override that.
But one of the main hold ups here is that the Pro-Gun groups are split. The NRA has given up. The hunters don't care. One of the grass roots groups decided a anti-gun Republican was a better bet than a pro-gun dem. It's bad.
On a brighter note, wile the press still is in favor of any gun control, the letters to the editor and the message broads are very pro-gun. Even on the left wing boards, there is a vocal pro-gun movement.
But yes, from the position of not having anything to lose, I would strongly support a compromise.
so one of the grass roots groups compromised and went with an antigun Republican?One of the grass roots groups decided a anti-gun Republican was a better bet than a pro-gun dem. It's bad.
Look at it like this...you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Why compromise ?
Go for broke. Go after exactly what you want, no less.IF everyone had that attitude the anti-gunners would be peeing in their boots because they no longer would have the same amount of CONTROL that they had before...and there is NOTHING that a politician fears more than losing control.
Its time to go on the OFFENSIVE and quit playing defense. No one ever gained any ground by being staying on defense .
and FWIW...I've BTDT with our efforts many moons ago.