Is it practical (or even possible) to compromise on gun control vs. gun rights?

[Ford8N]

IF YOU COMPROMISE THEY WILL COME BACK FOR MORE LATER!

Starting with the NFA in 1934 it's been one compromise after another. Look down the road about 50 years and you'll see where more compromises will get us.

We should be ROLLING BACK the gun control laws, not compromising on new ones. This is where the NRA really fails to promote our common interests. Doesn't help we're infested with leftists and petards at all levels of government on both seaboards and at an ever increasing rate in between.

^^^^^^this

[Gryff]

Funny how these "compromises" work. Someone comes to you and says that he'll take 100% of your rights, but might settle for 50%. Then later on he comes back and says that he'd take 100% of your remaining rights, but might settle for 50%. Another compromise (and now you have 25% left). And so it continues.

That's it. I support the concept of background checks without registration, but I agree with the NRA when they toe the line against the compromise. Every time we give something up in compromise, all that we are doing is buying time unti the Antis come after us again. In their compromises, we never get anything back. So I am all for a big ****ing line in the sand. No more compromises.

[the-right-way]

First gut instinct is no. This is more pronounced if you know history. I am not jewish, but many friends of mine inform me the disarming of jews helped lead to the holocaust.

Also you cant compromise with the left for the most part. You give an inch they will push for a mile. Dont want to derail the thread but gay marriage is an example. It starts out just wanting to be able to have civil unions. Now its a demand that EVERYONE consider gay marriage the same as traditional marriage. Eventually it will be that clergy will be forced to perform it over their objections of faith.

Before anyone says "It will never happen" lets not forget that I am sure 60 years ago no one thought we would ever have a half-black, all socialist president. Never say never.

[bsg]

the right to keep and bear arms should not be compromised or otherwise diluted.

[ChuckDizzle]

I didn't read your entire long winded reply. Your opinion is your right. But it's also misguided and you should not present yourself as a gun rights advocate. That's my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Translation "I would rather talk than listen and form my opinion on a basis of limited data."

[ChuckDizzle]

Sad and pitiful. You'd be willing to turn your back on your fellow gun owners and give up yours and their rights to further your own agenda. Since you clearly don't like handguns, you'd be willing throw your buddies under the bus and hand their right to keep them over to the anti's so you could keep your rifles. You're as much a traitor to the 2nd Amendment as Obama and all his gun grabbing minions.

NO COMPROMISE

You sound like one of those folks who buys the argument that gun rights were put in place to protect the populace from a tyrannical government right? Which tool is more effective and necessary in such a role? A rifle of common military usage and caliber, or a subcompact 9mm?

First thing is first we have to stop using the premise that your gun rights are absolute. They aren't, they never were. None of the Constitutional limits upon the government found in the Constitution have ever been absolute. It doesn't matter what you think about that, the reality is that under the police powers granted in the Constitution to state and local governments they have the power to restrict firearms. The validity of that restriction is given judicial scrutiny due to the second amendment, and as such may or may not be valid.

For example, the state has a compelling interest under the goal of public safety to reduce crime. Given the prevalence and use of firearms in crimes by previously convicted felons the state serves this interest by placing background checks on the purchase of firearms. The regulations are narrowly tailored enough that it does not impact the lawful purchase and possession of firearms. Sorry to break it to you, but the majority of gun owners support the idea of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, criminals using guns provides the anti-gun crowd with their major premise for the restriction of private firearms ownership.

[ijustdontknow]

You sound like one of those folks who buys the argument that gun rights were put in place to protect the populace from a tyrannical government right? Which tool is more effective and necessary in such a role? A rifle of common military usage and caliber, or a subcompact 9mm?



First thing is first we have to stop using the premise that your gun rights are absolute. They aren't, they never were. None of the Constitutional limits upon the government found in the Constitution have ever been absolute. It doesn't matter what you think about that, the reality is that under the police powers granted in the Constitution to state and local governments they have the power to restrict firearms. The validity of that restriction is given judicial scrutiny due to the second amendment, and as such may or may not be valid.



For example, the state has a compelling interest under the goal of public safety to reduce crime. Given the prevalence and use of firearms in crimes by previously convicted felons the state serves this interest by placing background checks on the purchase of firearms. The regulations are narrowly tailored enough that it does not impact the lawful purchase and possession of firearms. Sorry to break it to you, but the majority of gun owners support the idea of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, criminals using guns provides the anti-gun crowd with their major premise for the restriction of private firearms ownership.

Oh good grief. You sound like all the other anti gunners who claim don't want to infringe on 2A protected rights and then argues exactly that with a lot of words that don't say anything meaningful.

The majority of gun owners certainly do not agree with anything you said.

You may as well start chirping about militia since you have exposed your true colors to this community.

Who are you to tell me my lawful purchase, ownership, and use of guns has not been impacted by regulations that have done nothing to prevent criminals from exhibiting criminal behavior?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChuckDizzle]

Oh good grief. You sound like all the other anti gunners who claim don't want to infringe on 2A protected rights and then argues exactly that with a lot of words that don't say anything meaningful.

The majority of gun owners certainly do not agree with anything you said.

You may as well start chirping about militia since you have exposed your true colors to this community.

Who are you to tell me my lawful purchase, ownership, and use of guns has not been impacted by regulations that have done nothing to prevent criminals from exhibiting criminal behavior?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said they haven't been impacted. That impact is valid under a strict scrutiny judicial test for constitutionality. Just stop. It has been proven time and time again that gun owners support the restriction on felons possessing firearms.

Done nothing to prevent criminals from exhibiting criminal behavior? The fact that a felon can't walk into a Bass Pro or Big 5 and purchase a firearm without questions being asked makes access to weapons for them more difficult. It raises the economic cost for obtaining a weapon.

Saying a law is worthless because some people will break it or find a way to circumvent it is an inherently flawed argument. We might as well do away with all laws and embrace anarchy if that's the case because pretty much every law is broken.

[TeddyBallgame]

IF YOU COMPROMISE THEY WILL COME BACK FOR MORE LATER!

Starting with the NFA in 1934 it's been one compromise after another. Look down the road about 50 years and you'll see where more compromises will get us.

^THIS x1000

they have proven it over and over and over again

and, they always preach more compromise on the heels of some tragedy that had nothing to do with law abiding gun owners

it's almost as if they look forward to the next mass casualty shooting, so they can bee line it to the lectern and restart the babble

[strongpoint]

Cool, you learned how to quote someone out of context.

"OMG he said the word REGISTRY, can't let the gubment know I have mah guns!"

*gets on social media site dedicated to guns, buys guns, ammo, and accessories from legitimate businesses with ATM card*

INFOWARS

And your supposition that my reaction to your earlier post is predicated on one single word is based on ... what exactly?

FYI: It's not. It's your entire attitude. Simply deploying the man's surname as a pejorative would have been entirely apropos; I just felt like being more indirect.

[radioburning]

No. It will never end.

[tophatjones]

For example, the state has a compelling interest under the goal of public safety to reduce crime. Given the prevalence and use of firearms in crimes by previously convicted felons the state serves this interest by placing background checks on the purchase of firearms.

They're doing it wrong.

Law Abiding Citizen's Gun =/= Criminal's Gun 99% of the time

Law Abiding Citizen's background check does jack in preventing a criminal from getting a gun. What criminal is dumb enough to apply for a gun if they have a history of crime? Criminals can get guns through illegal avenues, law abiding citizens become criminals if they do the same.

The regulations are narrowly tailored enough that it does not impact the lawful purchase and possession of firearms.

I completely disagree. The regulations are egregious and only stand legal scrutiny because the government writes their own rules. Checks and balances between the three branches of govt are meaningless because the populace has no check of their own. And before you say voting is the ultimate check, our voting power has been diluted through constant attacks by smart politicians. Redistricting, zero attempt to address voter fraud, unchecked immigration, etc.

Sorry to break it to you, but the majority of gun owners support the idea of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, criminals using guns provides the anti-gun crowd with their major premise for the restriction of private firearms ownership.

Can't speak for the majority, but I disagree with you. It is inherently impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, after all, guns are just simple machines made of metal/wood/plastic. Any criminal worth their salt can make/steal/buy guns even if all citizens are banned from gun ownership. Gun control laws operate under the veneer of controlling crime but instead create criminals out of law abiding citizens. Barrel too short? Go to jail. Mag too big, go to jail. Gun too scary looking, go to jail. Want to carry a gun? Too bad, go back to your basement before you scare someone not used to seeing guns.