The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 11, 2018, 07:22 PM   #1
BBarn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 488
Compromise

It seems gun owners are frequently asked to give up one or more of their rights at various times, especially following acts of violence where firearms are involved. When gun owners push back at attempts to take away their rights, they are often charged with refusing to compromise. Of course, as has been pointed out many times, compromises are not really being offered since only the gun owners are asked to give up something they wish to retain while the other side offers nothing they are willing to give up in return (which would be required if compromise were to occur).

Those attacking the rights of gun owners seem to have a list of things they seek, such as banning certain guns or types of guns, banning certain individuals from buying guns due to age or past actions relating to health or brushes with the law, as well as instituting waiting periods before possession of a gun. Of course all of those have been tried with essentially zero success. Sadly, they seem driven more by their hatred of guns than the success or failure of their attempts to address the crimes of evil individuals.

But the real point I would like to make concerns the typical approach to “compromise” taken by gun owners. While I don't oppose an approach that says we have the rights to our guns and aren't willing to give up anything else (just because you hate guns), I wonder if another tool would be useful as well.

The gun haters have their list of wants they trot out on cue; why don't we develop a list as well. Then when they moan about how gun owners are unwilling to compromise, we challenge them to a real compromise where they would be required to give us something we want for them to get something they want. This could serve two purposes, one being they would suddenly be faced with a situation of compromise that actually affects them as well. Secondly, if a real compromise did occur, gun owners would acquire something they didn't enjoy previously.

One such item on the gun owners list could be the already proposed National Reciprocity on Concealed Carry, but there are many other possibilities. Things like (listed in no particular order):

1) The right for gun owners to carry concealed without a permit. Such already exists in some states. And many states already have no prohibitions against open carry. If the people truly have the right to keep and bear arms, they must be able to carry them somehow, with no permit.

2) A consistent age of Adulthood. As has been discussed recently, when one becomes accountable as an adult with the accompanying rights and responsibilities, gun ownership should occur at the same time as the right to vote, serving in the military, purchasing alcohol, etc.

3) Allow non-violent offenders to purchase firearms. While the moral character of someone who has written bad checks or evaded taxes may be rather deplorable, I'm not sure that behavior should bar them from owning firearms.

4) Create a class of firearms that require little or no paperwork or background check for purchase (in addition to Antique Firearms and air rifles). Purchase/ownership would still have age restrictions, but adults would be able to easily purchase them. Not sure what form this might take, but since many have been led to believe that semiautomatic firearms (and especially those with detachable magazines) are the root of all things evil, something like this could be proposed as a “compromise” for other firearm types. Such a proposal would put their deceptions to a test.

5) Press for a relaxation of select fire/full auto restrictions. Since those type of firearms are the preferred choice of our military they are the obvious best choice for a well regulated militia. It's time to allow the militia to suitably equip itself.

6) Require firearms training to be a part of public school curriculum. Better yet require it to include hands on training.

This is not meant to be a complete list, or even a good start. Some of the suggestions might seem outrageous, but a good argument probably can be (and perhaps has been) made for all of them (though we know that sound reasoning will mean nothing to some people). It just seems it might be good to look at other approaches to fight for our gun rights. And I think bringing some of our own wants to the table when someone hollers “compromise” will serve to educate if nothing else.
BBarn is offline  
Old March 11, 2018, 07:32 PM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,759
We have a list, and we have had it for quite some time:
  • Legalize suppressors (no tax stamp)
  • Repeal the NFA registry (or at least open it up to new machine guns
  • National reciprocity (no permits would be even better)
  • No magazine capacity limits
  • Allow purchases in other than the buyer's state of residence

I've probably missed a couple, but that's a good start.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 11, 2018, 07:42 PM   #3
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
You're right there is no compmromise because remember we had to legislate our way to the restrictions already on the books.

We started out with no restrictions, the things pro gun people seek are things that have already been taken.. essentially the other side is playing with house money.

The compromise you speak of will never happen because those in a position to cut a deal don't want to alienate anyone.. they want to keep the gun vote by defending.. but don't want to alienate anyone else by pushing for more rights.

They figure if they can tow the line they can have their cake and eat it too.
Here in Ohio we are slow to swing eitherway, But even small improvements to current law often come in dribbles, Usually late in session, or when reelection is coming.

They take us for granted.

The ones who want more restrictions are just as hard lined.. but are often muted, They spike after a high profile shooting and the defendants of the 2a (most) have to at least appear they're open to discussion.. otherwise they'll be torn apart by the emotional wave.

This is why we're always on the defense, We're like a ship at sea in a storm.. wave after wave hits us.. we shrug them off, But every once in a while a BIG one comes and we sink a little bit deeper.

The gun control crowd use re-categorization, misdirection, false polls and statistics, guilt by association to demonize anyone in disagreement.

When there is a high profile shooting it's the NRA's fault, Any gun owners not on board with their agenda are accomplices, Gun's are designed for murder and mass destruction, anyone disagreeing with them is cast as a cold blooded nut job.

How can you have a discussion with someone who paints you as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger?.. you can't.
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old March 11, 2018, 07:51 PM   #4
BBarn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 488
AB,

Thanks for educating me. I was aware of National reciprocity and the suppressor efforts, but not the others. Personally, the only one that interests me is the last one, but I will support them all because I know they are important to other gun owners.
BBarn is offline  
Old March 11, 2018, 08:05 PM   #5
MagnumWill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Colorado
Posts: 910
#6 IMO is one of the major solutions to this problem.

However, the left wouldn’t DARE to let it happen or it will lift the veil that inanimate objects are exactly that, and that a utopian environment is impossible by nature.

#6 also would fit in very well with the “Well Regulated” portion of the 2A. More competency means less incompetency.
__________________
Those who hammer their swords into plow shares will plow for those who didn't...
MagnumWill is offline  
Old March 11, 2018, 08:44 PM   #6
Johny Smith
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2018
Posts: 22
@BBarn,

Some of it makes sense but compromise is 'dangerous' when you begin to understand that it's only coming from the front line, the people like Michael Bloomberg and co. who are financing all of the anti-gun movement want a Total And Complete Gun Ban in America !

And it's not about making America safer that is used to mobilized the public against guns, the wealthy elite are afraid of losing their wealth by force.

We have had over 40 years of gun violence in the inner cities and nothing was ever said or done about it until it started coming out of all progressive Liberal strongholds, from Columbine to Sandy Hook, then all of a sudden 'the special ones' got scared.

Oh yeah, the 'let it all hang out' b.s. turn mental illness into just another meal ticket for the psych industry.
The lazy career parents allowing their children to be put on the pills as early as 8 because they are afraid to let them burn off that energy by playing outside.

And of course the families and friends who hide from it or turn a blind eye to it, but then again where do we put these people, the special ones said the asylums were cruel so lets just leave them free to roam around in the communities sinking deeper and deeper into psychosis helped along by street drugs, violent video games and a society that glorifies violence in movies.

And in case you wonder what banning guns leads to, they have now ban knives in Great Britain and who knows where it goes from there.
There only real defense now is to yell obscenities.

It's a class system, even here in America. Robert DeNiro and Howard Stern have a permit in New York city to carry a gun but then they are the 'special ones'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI5XJl4-Reo

Last edited by Johny Smith; March 11, 2018 at 08:57 PM. Reason: added video
Johny Smith is offline  
Old March 11, 2018, 10:37 PM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johny Smith
We have had over 40 years of gun violence in the inner cities and nothing was ever said or done about it until it started coming out of all progressive Liberal strongholds, from Columbine to Sandy Hook, then all of a sudden 'the special ones' got scared.
I have to disagree. The NFA was in 1934. The Gun Control Act was in 1968. The Gun Free School Zone Act was originally enacted in 1990, struck down, then reenacted in 1995. The federal AWB was enacted in 1994, and expired in 2004. Columbine was in 1999.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 11:29 AM   #8
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
Here is an analogy of a cake that has been taken bit by bit by those who want to control guns.

It comprises of a man with a cake where someone comes and wants the whole cake and is compromising by giving away half, but the person who takes half of the cake eats it can comes back and wants more and then the compromise is to give away another half of what's left, and this happens repeatedly until there is but crumbs left of the cake.

I feel this is a perfect analogy of our situation on the 2a as we started out with no restrictions and slowly it has been nibbled away and if this continues we will soon be left with only crumbs of our 2a freedom.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/20...o-gun-control/
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 11:48 AM   #9
Carne Frio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: Near Fairbanks Alaska
Posts: 818
No compromise ever!
Carne Frio is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 12:06 PM   #10
BBarn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 488
In the OP, I wasn't suggesting that we give up a right or freedom with nothing in return.

While the cake analogy may fit most of what has occurred in the past, it doesn't represent true compromise, nor does it fit what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that gun owners should only give up something in return for something else (gaining something that is currently prohibited, or something that provides more freedom of gun ownership).

Using this strategy, those representing gun owners would present our wants and claim that if the other side wants to further limit or eliminate one of our rights or freedoms, we are willing to consider a compromise where we would be granted one of our wants in return. And if the other side doesn't agree, they would be charged with refusing to compromise.
BBarn is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 12:24 PM   #11
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,442
Aguila Blanca for the win!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 01:06 PM   #12
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,090
If the other side gives nothing up, it's not a compromise but a concession on our part. Which is their goal.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 01:08 PM   #13
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
@BBarn

I posted that for general consumption, It was not directed towards you in particular, It reflects my own personal feelings on how I view current situation of the 2a, It's like my "playing with house money" statement only better expressed.

P.S It might not be so bad if they brought us a glass of milk when they take half our cake
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 01:13 PM   #14
BBarn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 488
Thanks for the clarification.
BBarn is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 03:10 PM   #15
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,770
While you have many rights under the US Constitutions, in respect to gun or guns, you have one right.

All rights do come with some restrictions. Under Freedom of Speach you can't spy on your country and give that information to a foreign power without penalty. You can't yell Fire in a Public place.

There always have been restrictions on the basic right in some states.

Forcing a concealed carry or honoring other state laws is a Federal Overreach.

States do have rights, one of those is the regulation of guns.

Its more, if its something we want its good, but if its something that others want, its Federal Over reach. National Reciprocity and silencers.

I alwyas found that interesting. One tea party type who extensive farm subsidies and student loans that wanted to take that away now that he got his.

I would have no issue with moving to gun license like a car license with a test to prove you know the basics.

I keep hearing about high cap mags not being any different, but try to re-mag a gun in a shooting situation? If the rumors are right, the kid had 10 round mags and his gun jammed. Good outcome, how many others would have been shot if not?
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 03:23 PM   #16
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20
While you have many rights under the US Constitutions, in respect to gun or guns, you have one right.

All rights do come with some restrictions. Under Freedom of Speach you can't spy on your country and give that information to a foreign power without penalty. You can't yell Fire in a Public place.
Of course you can. How is your right to vote restricted? How is your right to travel within the US restricted?

You can't commit espionage, but that isn't a speech restriction just as a rule against entering an oral contract to have someone killed isn't a speech restriction. It isn't the speech that is regulated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20
Forcing a concealed carry or honoring other state laws is a Federal Overreach.
I agree. If only we took federal overreach more seriously...like when congress decides to prohibit bayonet lugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20

States do have rights, one of those is the regulation of guns.
If all rights are subject to some restriction, doesn't that state right have some restrictions too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20
I would have no issue with moving to gun license like a car license with a test to prove you know the basics.
Then you should ask to take lessons and have a license printed up; you just should not involuntarily involve everyone else in your preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20
I keep hearing about high cap mags not being any different, but try to re-mag a gun in a shooting situation? If the rumors are right, the kid had 10 round mags and his gun jammed. Good outcome, how many others would have been shot if not?
Perhaps none. I have some 10 round Pmags. They've never jammed in anything. Maybe the safest thing would be for him to have had a 100 surefire magazine with buggered feedlips.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 03:26 PM   #17
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
I'd like to address the common talking point of yelling fire (usually suggested this takes place in a theater).

It is my understanding that this is only true IF there is no fire, IF there IS a fire I don't belive there is any crime being committed.

yelling fire when there is none however causes undue panic.. and that's the crime, the intent to create panic.

If we was to draw a parallel to guns might I suggest it would be this.

Pulling your gun out for no reason.. creating a panic
Shooting your gun off without reason.. (EX: no firing in the air cause you're bored)
.. Those are "reasonable" restrictions in my opinion..

However pulling your gun out to defend your self, ok
shooting your gun in a public place for the purpose of self defense.. ok


Banning guns them selves or my ability to utilize one for defense I don't see as reasonable.
Pointing to yelling fire as proof that your fundamental rights are open to restrictions and that includes the 2a I find a tired and flawed argument when the overall discussion is about banning inanimate objects.

A more apt analogy would be to say you banned the word "fire" but that's not the case.
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 03:31 PM   #18
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joesixpack
I'd like to address the common talking point of yelling fire (usually suggested this takes place in a theater).

It is my understanding that this is only true IF there is no fire, IF there IS a fire I don't belive there is any crime being committed.

yelling fire when there is none however causes undue panic.. and that's the crime, the intent to create panic.

If we was to draw a parallel to guns might I suggest it would be this.

Pulling your gun out for no reason.. creating a panic
Emphasis added. Joe, I think you've put your finger on it. Creating a dangerous panic by any means might be prosecuted, but that doesn't mean it is a speech restriction.

Of course, one can yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there's a fire. You will not be arrested. There is no case in which someone did this and was arrested.

The phrase is drawn from a Holmes' opinion upholding a prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act. A man was prosecuted for handing out fliers opposing the draft during WWI. Holmes' reasoning on this is extra-ordinarily poor. Yelling fire in a crowded theater has the potential to create destructive panic precisely because it is a verbal fire alarm, not speech. The danger described isn't that someone will hear "Fire!" and calmly consider the likelihood of fire and the most prudent way to organise an orderly reaction. Instead the danger is that people would run like animals. His imagery was a poor fit for the case he considered and decided.

Yet, "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" has soaked into the public mind much the same way "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger", also a falsehood, has.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 12, 2018, 10:42 PM   #19
In The Ten Ring
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2018
Posts: 382
The answer to "being taken for granted" is TERM LIMITS. Either by legislation (ya right!) or by an engaged voting populace that pushes incumbents out. (ya right).
In The Ten Ring is offline  
Old March 13, 2018, 09:22 AM   #20
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,770
Term limits is a great laughy, as soon as they get in they hedge.

Politic is an ugly trade, without it nothing gets done, with it all sorts of issues. Part of life.

When I was growing up, the people who had guns were responsible people. Those who did not have guns by the most part were also responsible, but they did not go out and buy a gun because they could.

The gun owners trained their kids on gun safety and how to shoot. I know of two kids growing up that should never have been allowed a gun. Both had mental issues. A lot of others sloppy and careless.

The 2nd does say you can buy a gun and the Supreme Court ruled its a right separate from the Militia aspect (though a latter court could change that)

What I see is any yahooo can buy a gun, not responsible, not trained and we get this pop pop all over town while NDs kill and injury people around them.

Now its cool to own a gun. I often have to show people how to put their gun in a safe condition at the range (I don't approach the shaky looking types)

They have an AR almost exclusivity if not exclusive and not a clue how to safe it, how it works, but there they are wobbling them around pointing in places they are not supposed to.

The people who I do talk to at the range have a common view that they need to have a licensing system. Young, medium and older people like me.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not

Last edited by RC20; March 13, 2018 at 09:53 AM.
RC20 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10818 seconds with 10 queries