I would trade the lessening the restrictions at the federal level and complete removal at the state level for NFA weapons, for closing the gunshow loophole, as long as the definition if a “gunshow” was agreeable.
I would trade a national shall issue concealed carry permit for a national finger print and ballistics database for said ccw holders.
I would trade a one dollar tax for every new gun sold to improve the instant background check system, never to rise above a dollar, for the ability to buy handguns out of state and not go through an intermediate FFL holder.
There is room for compromise. But it has to be win win. Otherwise, it aint compromise.
You want to meet in the middle? Fine. I’ll agree to register every single weapon in existence as originally sold if you’ll agree that the registry will not be used for confiscation. I’ll agree to the idea that every single transfer of firearms should be subject to NICS approval if you’ll agree that you will not place any onerous “waiting periods” on the transfer.
On the subject of handguns we will have to agree to disagree. You want to know who has guns, I’ll tell you who has guns. But in return you will not deny them to people that pass the checks. How’s that for a compromise.
It wont happen. There is absolutely no benefit to be gained by the gun community, nor do I believe that anything could be offered that would even be worth it. I am listening though.
Just be clear on this: Are you saying that a reasonable waiting period is OK, as long as it’s not onerous? Or are you saying that all waiting periods are onerous, and therefore no waiting period is acceptable? Because it’s going to take some amount of time to hear back from NICS to see if the transfer is approved, and that’s going to inevitably result in some amount of wait.
And I presume that if someone obtains a firearm without going through the legal process, that confiscation of the weapon would be acceptable as part of the penalty for “Unlawful acquisition of a firearm”, or whatever the charge would be.
I think the Second Amendment is clear - people have the right to own guns. It’s the law and so any general banning or confiscation of guns is illegal.
But I also believe that gun ownership and use should be regulated. Individuals have the right to own guns but society has a need to know who owns which guns. There should be a central registry that records the sale, purchase, and ownership of all guns. I also feel that there should be some method of tagging guns and ammunition so that when a gun is used, it’s possible to identify what gun it was.
And I also believe that while gun ownership is a general right and every individual should have a presumed right to own a gun, it’s not an inalienable right. I feel there should be a due process procedure where some specific individuals should forfeit their right to own a gun. It should only be used for specific individuals and for specific reasons and it should be a public hearing where the person would have the opportunity to argue his or her case. But if you have a guy who’s held up a liquor store or pointed a gun at his wife during an argument or shotgunned a bunch of stop signs when he got drunk, there should be a means to take his gun away.
You’re missing the big picture. You don’t gain anything from limiting any of your rights. But you might gain something from somebody else having their rights limited. For example, a gun control law might take a gun away from the guy who was going to shoot you in the back next week so he could steal your car.
We’re talking about you, not your brother. Sound familiar during childhood? Same thing applies. That’s not the question that we’re debating here, is it?
It’s not even an equivalent question to ask.
But seeing as how you’re trying to ask a question that I’d never answer: strict licensing, strict control, background checks, and possibly taxes (like a 5% tax of the price of the weapon/ammo towards local police/education).
Yes, it will take 5 minutes for the check. That’s why it’s called the National Instant Check System. And yes, I think that any waiting period is onerous. 5 minutes from now or 5 days from now your eligibility is not going to change.
OK, I wasn’t familiar with the acronym, and I hadn’t realized that the process was so streamlined. I was picturing something more like one government office requesting paperwork from another office, and we all know how fast things like that go.
My quote was from asking if I would support a ban on handguns. The big picture is that nobody would own them after ban, except for the guy who is going to shoot me to steal my car. See, he doesn’t give two shits about the rules, so a ban does not affect him at all.
Least Original User Name Ever, If somebody comes up to me and demands that I give him one hundred dollars and I say “no,” it is not a “compromise” for him to then ask for fifty dollars instead, and he has no right to call me unreasonable if I still refuse his much more generous offer, especially if I already gave him fifty dollars last week.
That is how I feel about “compromise” on gun control – we’ve already given up just about everything that is even remotely reasonable, and more besides. The entire history of gun rights over the last several decades has been a gradual erosion of the right to keep and bear arms, and you want us to give up more?
No dice. The right to own a handgun is specifically protected under the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in both U.S. v. Miller and D.C. v. Heller. If you want to talk about things like easing NFA restrictions in exchange for some other concession, that’s one thing. But a ban on handguns isn’t even on the table.
You are being equally inflexible with your insistence of both banning handguns and disregarding the several posters who have objected to the idea. No, there is nothing I could receive that would allow me to make banning handguns a win win.
I posted several items where I am flexible. You have chosen to ignore them or disregard them.
There is no win-win in this. There is only losing for the pro-gun side. Anything you give up now to appease the anti’s is gone forever. You have only to look at their history to know that they’ll be back soon wanting you to give up something else…all the while whining about “compromise.”
We don’t need to give them anything. The legal climate has gradually been shifting in our favor. The Heller decision is only the most recent development. Shall-issue carry has become a reality in many states. The 94 AWB is gone. Both of these things happened, and despite their whinging and hand-wringing, the streets did not run with blood.
Compromise? Shit. We should be working on taking back more of what we already lost to them.
Really, I’m doing backflips over here. That’s just how you feel? Great. Your feelings can change, then we can have a logical discussion and meet in the middle and get this worked out.
Listen, I get it. The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution. You have the right to have access to weapons. I get it. However, unlike abortion, that was something that the Founding Fathers were able to include. Now, in this day and age, do you think that the Constitution would be written the same way? I don’t think that it would be. I do not want to get rid of the Second Amendment. It’s there, and it’s there for a reason, even though I personally don’t jive with the reason, but I’ll accept it anyways.
Lastly, I’m afraid that a handgun ban IS on the table, at least for our little discussion’s sake. What I want is a handgun ban. You haven’t told me what you want, other than for all guns to be legalized no matter what.