The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

View Poll Results: Would you trade 1994-style mag restrictions for more rights?
No, I would not accept any new restriction for repealing any existing restriction. 47 94.00%
I would trade a 20-round limit for repealing all NFA registration & trade restrictions (excl DDs). 1 2.00%
I would trade a 20-round limit for removing silencers, SBRs, SBSs from registration. 1 2.00%
I would trade a 15-round limit for removing silencers, SBRs, SBSs from registration. 0 0%
I would trade a 10-round limit for removing silencers, SBRs, SBSs from registration. 1 2.00%
I would trade a 10-round limit for removing silencers alone from registration. 0 0%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 22, 2012, 11:25 AM   #51
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Not on your list either but I would be willing to trade doubling the punishment of all gun related crimes with NO chance of the criminal plea bargaining a lessor sentence in exchange for all my gun rights that have been trampled on over the years given back to me.

IMO, in a civilized society, to ask the non-criminal, decent citizens to compromise their rights away in any kind of fashion to appease the fact that some liberal/ignorant minded group thinks restriction on guns is going to somehow drop the crime rate is just absurd.

Here's a novel idea :

Attack the rights of the criminals with tougher compromise's on their lives and NOT the rights of the decent members of society...
...again, erase all gun restrictions for a non-criminal and start enforcing the laws we already have.
shortwave is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 11:33 AM   #52
dbooksta
Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2009
Posts: 44
OK guys, I give up.

I appreciate those few who were willing and able to participate in the exercise as proposed.

I am somewhat bewildered by the number of replies that either refuse to admit that we have lost our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms, or that admit it but then insist that we pretend we have not.

For the record, I am a vehement, libertarian-style RKBA advocate, and I started this thread out of my own curiosity and with no hidden agenda.


P.S. @shortwave: The "actually punish criminals not citizens" is another good proposal -- thank you for that. I'd add that to the poll if I could.

Last edited by dbooksta; November 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM. Reason: Acknowledging shortwave's simul-post
dbooksta is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 11:45 AM   #53
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
I am somewhat bewildered by the number of replies that either refuse to admit that we have lost our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms, or that admit it but then insist that we pretend we have not.
Nowhere did I see anyone suggest that we have NOT lost "our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms", and no one I can see is 'pretending' that we have not...

What I do see is someone who seems to have accepted that we have, and is now wanting to 'trade' one infringement for a different infringement that makes them happier in their 'acceptance'...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 11:58 AM   #54
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Quote:
OK guys, I give up.

I appreciate those few who were willing and able to participate in the exercise as proposed.

I am somewhat bewildered by the number of replies that either refuse to admit that we have lost our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms, or that admit it but then insist that we pretend we have not.

For the record, I am a vehement, libertarian-style RKBA advocate, and I started this thread out of my own curiosity and with no hidden agenda.
dbooksta your "closing" comments are as condescending and factually flawed as your original premise. We all understand that we have lost some of our 2A rights for a variety of reasons. We don't find this acceptable and many of us work actively to do what we can to change the culture that does accept the limiting of of our Constitutional rights. Many of us are willing and able to intelligently discuss these issues. What we are not willing to do is play your game.

I am a supporter of Libertarian RKBA advocates. Happy Thanksgiving.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 12:11 PM   #55
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,017
Quote:
The watchwords for the anti-RKBA crowd have long been things like "compromise" and "common sense regulation."
No, that's actually pretty recent. "Compromise" wasn't in their vocabulary when they were winning. We were shut out of the process, something that was readily apparent when Attorney General Janet Reno was able to say on prime-time television "tell the NRA to get lost."

It was only when they started losing that we started hearing phrases like "common sense" and "reasonable." I have a long memory on this, and that's why I'm not inclined to give an inch.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 12:36 PM   #56
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Like you Tom, as well as many others here, I too can remember the era you're talking about. I also didn't forget that the ridiculous restrictions of that era(as well as others) did not work for their 'supposed' intended purposes.

Crime rate did not fall. And, if anyone has statistics that by the results of these ridiculous gun restrictions, there were less guns in the hands of criminals, I'd sure like to see them.

Today, there are many states, cities with drastic gun restrictions and it comes to no surprise that these areas have very high crime rates. Washington DC, Chicago, NJ, NYC. to name a few.
Course, when I used to visit NYC, I could at least defend myself against a gun wielding attacker by throwing my 32oz. 'big gulp' drink at them but gov't there has even taken that away from me.

I digress.

Last edited by shortwave; November 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 01:31 PM   #57
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Many of us are willing and able to intelligently discuss these issues. What we are not willing to do is play your game.
+1 to this, particularly when the OP has not stated their own reasoning for any trade being acceptable.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 03:25 PM   #58
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by geetarman
Rights given up for "the better good" are usually just gone for good.
And the people clamoring for "the better good" or "the children" often can't explain in meaningful detail how it will be achieved by giving up rights. And when they do try to explain, they're generally wrong. There is much handwaving, innuendo, and there are many assumptions, but there are very few facts and or pieces of empirical evidence.

In post #13, Aguila linked to and quoted Lawdog's astute comments on this issue of compromising or trading for gun rights.

An attempt to compromise or trade assumes that there's a rational discussion that will converge on an equitable solution that's tolerable for everyone.

That is not the case in much of politics. It is predominantly driven by propaganda, and people consciously or unconsciously parroting propaganda. Any trading or compromising of rights in that environment is toxic.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...”
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...”
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.”

Last edited by tyme; November 22, 2012 at 03:33 PM.
tyme is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 04:49 PM   #59
TAKtical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2012
Location: ohio
Posts: 145
There can be no compromise when it comes to RKBA. If we allow more restrictions on 2A, it wont be long before some group tries to restrict 1A. We have too many restrictions as it is and I personally will not be happy until 2A becomes less restricted than it is right now.
__________________
Due to several differences of opinion with staff, I am choosing to no longer do business on this forum. Everyone that has a pending order will need to contact me via email at TakticalHolsters@aol.com Thanks,
-Tom&Tricia

Last edited by Tom Servo; November 22, 2012 at 05:26 PM. Reason: Removed reference to deleted material
TAKtical is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 05:02 PM   #60
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
The watchwords for the anti-RKBA crowd have long been things like "compromise" and "common sense regulation."
No, that's actually pretty recent. "Compromise" wasn't in their vocabulary when they were winning. We were shut out of the process, something that was readily apparent when Attorney General Janet Reno was able to say on prime-time television "tell the NRA to get lost."
You may be right on "compromise," and perhaps it depends on how we define "long." On "common sense regulation," I seem to recall that one being bandied about in the late 1980s & early 1990s.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 05:26 PM   #61
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,017
Quote:
On "common sense regulation," I seem to recall that one being bandied about in the late 1980s & early 1990s.
Could be. Most of what I remember is "buzz off, gun nuts--the ball's in our court." Those same people now claim to want to sit down at the table with us, but we don't owe them that. Nor do we lose anything by refusing to do so.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 07:04 PM   #62
Southern Rebel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2009
Posts: 160
I learned long ago that a poker player does NOT lend the other players his money for them to play on. I certainly don't intend to lend the ANTI's my rights in order that they can gamble to obtain more of my rights!
Southern Rebel is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 09:17 PM   #63
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,510
The words defining platform issues are carefully chosen for propaganda value.
If the issue is defined as "common sense gun legislation" it follows that any opposition is lacking common sense.If it is described as "reasonable compromise" standing ground is automatically unreasonable.

Perhaps you have noticed this principle applied in the labeling or branding of other polar political positions.(No,I do not think it appropriate to bring these issues into this thread)

What I do when this trap is set up,I insist we back up and redefine the arguement.Example"I understand you wish to compromise one of our Civil Rights granted by our Creator and enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.I absolutely will not accept your premise that such compromise is reasonable.Perhaps we can come to an agreement on some non-predjudicial terms to define our differences,as I may just as easily define your position as "Anti-Civil Rights"
HiBC is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 09:36 PM   #64
seeker_two
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 1,687
In exchange for the complete & total repeal of NFA '34 & GCA '68, I would be willing to let all the employees of the BATFE resign without pursuing civil rights or criminal charges.....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......
seeker_two is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 09:52 PM   #65
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,017
Quote:
I would be willing to let all the employees of the BATFE resign without pursuing civil rights or criminal charges.
The vast majority of those people aren't doing anything wrong or illegal. They're upholding the law as written, and they're doing the job to the best of their abilities.

The fact that a few guys went rogue with terrible consequences is not enough to paint every employee of that organization with the same brush.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 09:57 PM   #66
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I think his point was that while ATF agents may only be doing their jobs, the regulations they enforce should never have been allowed in the first place. Public opinion has been far less kind with other groups who did their jobs and followed orders...
MLeake is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 09:59 PM   #67
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,379
Mr. Servo, as much as I agree with you on just about everything else, I can't abide the thought of my tax dollars supporting an agency that willfully and malicously destroyed people's homes, lives, livelihood, and thier cats.

Not that I'm advocating we all go Henry Bowman, but I can barely contain my sneer and crude comments when I walk past the BATFe boys at a gun show.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 10:24 PM   #68
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,510
IMO,its a better plan to just excercise what I might call "professional civility" at the minimum.

I do not see what can be served by helping to create an "us against them"relationship.We might reap what we sow.

I can say"Hello,please,thank you,etc and represent myself as a civil,responsible gentleman without in any way compromising my support for RTKBA.

Last edited by HiBC; November 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 11:50 PM   #69
dbooksta
Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2009
Posts: 44
Quote:
[W]hile ATF agents may only be doing their jobs, the regulations they enforce should never have been allowed in the first place. Public opinion has been far less kind with other groups who did their jobs and followed orders...
Now that we're off topic, this happens to be one I've wondered about. When I was a military officer I considered myself an "Oath Keeper," but few people in the military have been confronted with an order to violate their oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

I like to think that I would refuse under any circumstances to take a job with the BATFE or other law enforcement agency where my duties involved enforcing unconstitutional laws and regulations. But I wonder if some of those people are "just trying to put bread on the table," and reason that if not them somebody else would be in the same position, "enforcing the laws, not making them." Heck, think of the NFA branch: In a way they're actually doing us a favor by (one hopes) trying to process our transfers and registrations as expeditiously as possible so we can all comply with those laws and stay out of jail. If they didn't handle that paperwork we'd be worse off in practice, even though we're all going through a process with plainly unconstitutional elements.

Of course we have seen that there are plenty of thoughtless and even malicious law enforcement officers, and I think its outrageous that they stand behind such a fortress of law and bureaucracy protecting them from personal liability. In an absolute reckoning they would be treated like the criminals they are. But the typical officer takes an oath he can't or doesn't understand, and the rest probably say, "Gees, even politicians and scholars can't agree on whether this is constitutional. Making this call is above my pay grade."

In an ideal world we'd hold people to their oaths and say, "If you don't understand the plain meaning of the Constitution don't take this oath and don't do this job." But the government shields them from consequences in even some of the most egregious cases for "just carrying out orders." As with RKBA restrictions in general the status quo is an outrage, but the governments have built such a barrier to challenging it that I don't see any civil response that would move the needle of liberty.

[Update: I knew I had read something pertaining to this before and just found it: This is an interesting discussion of the problem as well as possible solutions.]

Last edited by dbooksta; November 23, 2012 at 12:02 AM. Reason: Found link
dbooksta is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 12:46 AM   #70
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,017
Quote:
I can barely contain my sneer and crude comments when I walk past the BATFe boys at a gun show.
The FBI has done some awful things over the years, as has the LAPD, but I'm not blaming every officer for those abuses.

We consider many of the laws the ATF enforces to run counter to the Constitution, but let's remember that the courts, the legislatures, and the general public accept the legitimacy of those laws. I'm well aware of the ATF's bad behavior, but I can't see the point in projecting my resentment about it to every agent in the field.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 10:44 AM   #71
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,501
The problem with the restrictions discussion is that those who promote restrictions come from a starting point that does not acknowledge the RKBA in any useful form.

Do they support concealed carry? No.

Do they see armed self-defense as legit? No.

Do they think that there is a need to defend against tyranny? No.

They might say you could own a ducky-wucky shotgun or bolt action gun - that has been proposed as the RKBA before.

It is misguided to believe that restrictions are a legit compromise position that starts from strong RKBA basics. They do not.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; November 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM.
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 10:57 AM   #72
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
I'm well aware of the ATF's bad behavior, but I can't see the point in projecting my resentment about it to every agent in the field.
Agree with this statement 100%.

Casting a net of negative thoughts towards many organizations as well as all the members of same org. is usually a mistake. It may surprise some that there ARE good mechanics, lawyers, LEO's and yes, Fed. Agents.

I'm gonna go out on a 'BIG' limb here and even say politicians.

We just have to search a little harder to find them.
shortwave is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 11:43 AM   #73
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,735
^^^^ True dat.
__________________
Geetarman

Carpe Cerveza
geetarman is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 04:33 PM   #74
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Shortwave your positive attitude even encourages me, and I had my credit and debit cards stolen from a locked locker today while at the gym. It is good to be reminded that there are many good guys out there in all walks of life. With that said I would like to apply some Old Testament justice to the dirt bags who took my stuff...
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 05:49 PM   #75
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
With that said I would like to apply some Old Testament justice to the dirt bags who took my stuff...
Nothing like sitting back fantasizing about what we would do had we caught these low-life dregs of society in the act. A severe thrashing with a nice piece of bamboo till their clothes are shredded away comes to mind.

Can appreciate your state of mind.... Been there.

Very sorry for your loss and hope you reported/canceled everything in time.

Last edited by shortwave; November 23, 2012 at 06:08 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14093 seconds with 8 queries