So that’s it? That’s the end game? No more demands?
Surely you don’t believe that. This has been posted before, but it bears repeating.
Bwahahaha! Is this guy kidding? The pro-gun rights community is winning on over 95% of the issue. He has nothing enticing to deal with:
*At the federal level and most state levels bans on magazines and assault weapons and universal background checks are dead in the water and will remain so for quite a while.
*Having a CCW permit from just one or 2 states already covers almost the entire country and more will be included in the future.
*Open carry is a state issue. Some states have banned it. If the people of individual states want it banned they can act through their legislatures. Keep in mind that in some states open carry is considered a right under the state constitution.
*The left cannot be trusted for anything, but especially when it comes to gun rights.
…use lead-free ammunition like the M855?
…pose a serious threat to any invading force.
…pose a serious threat to any government official who tries to establish a dictatorship.
You know, the things the 2nd Amendment was written for.
That was completely unnecessary. He found an article written by an online commentator with ideas he found interesting and thought it might serve as some excellent fodder for discussion here.
Edit: I’ve asked gun control advocates what I would get in return for compromising and usually I just get blank looks and the sounds of crickets chirping in the background. But as of right now I don’t see any reason to compromise. We’re ahead right now.
Armor piercing capability is a function of velocity and bullet construction, with velocity being the overwhelming component. Even a round-nosed bullet from a lever-action rifle will penetrate body armor, for the simple reason that body armor isn’t intended to stop center-fire rifle ammunition, just low-velocity handgun rounds.
Exactly. But it SOUNDS so scary (like ‘assault gun’ :eek:), and people who don’t know much about the subject will naturally say ‘yeah, we don’t need no stinkin’ “armor piercing” bullets!’ without understanding the issues. It’s a way for people to sneak in reasonable sounding legislation, essentially relying on the ignorance and apathy of most people to get it through.
The worm always turns though, and if you take a hard line now while on top it’s going to make the other side take a harder line when that worm turns. And you can already start to see it turning, IMHO, with all of the recent news about shootings. Mark my words, there will be a shift in pubic sentiment over this and renewed energy from the gun control folks that will capitalize on it. So, IMHO, you negotiate a compromise from a position of strength, not take a ridiculous hard line when you have the upper hand. JMHO though…YMMV, and obviously so might the NRA and other gun advocacy groups.
That would be true if there was a way to negotiate a permanent and binding agreement between left and right. I’d give up a lot of rights if there was a credible binding guarantee that that would be the last ever infringement of freedom. But reality doesn’t work that way, and any compromise is just a temporary ceasefire in the low level civil war that is democracy. The best way to win a war that never ends, then, is never to concede an inch, never to compromise or admit that your opponents have legitimate concerns, and to do everything possible to villainize and extirpate your enemies.
This is what the pro-gun side is doing, and we’re winning. There’s no reason to stop until Brady Campaign and Everytown are the equivalent of the American Nazi Party.
“Assault weapon”. An “assault gun” is something just a little different.
I’m pretty sure the writers of the 2nd had only the first of those options in mind. I’m not aware of any constitutional mechanism for the violent overthrow of the government, and indeed there are a few bits discouraging same.
This is not a compromise. It’s 3 things the gun control advocates want, and in return they offer one thing that most gun owners in the country already have, plus 3 empty promises that are unenforceable anyway.
If a government official really did establish a dictatorship, as XT hypothesized, then violent overthrow would have already occurred, and the armed citizens would be enforcing and/or re-establishing the constitution, not violating it. Seems reasonable to me.
And before someone jumps in with the tired “What chance does a guy with a rifle have against an Abrams tank and F-22 Raptor?”, I point you to the past 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is true. But as I said, typically when I ask gun control proponents what compromises they’re willing to make, i.e. what benefits do I get for supporting their gun control measures, I usually just get blank stares and crickets chirping in the background as an answer. If my side is the only one that has to compromise then there’s no incentive to do anything other than fight against the opposition every step of the way.
That was the first thing that I Viewed With Alarm.
Required Open Carry if one has a license to carry, would stop carriers from being robbed or assaulted, and warn folks to get out of the way. 
This doesn’t make any sense at all, and nobody is going to get behind it. I don’t think the author realizes that in many states, citizens already enjoy everything listed under what they “get” from this compromise. Why would they give up something just to get back something that they already have?
Also, a gun enthusiast in Florida enjoying his “shall issue” carry permit doesn’t give a damn about that fact that people in Chicago don’t have that already. He/she is not going to give up something just so people in other states can have what he already has. In addition to the shall issue carry permit, that Florida gun owner also can purchase high capacity magazines, assault weapons, guns with evil features, and armor piercing ammo for rifles. There are people in some states who get all that, and can open carry as well. Why would those people feel like this is a compromise if all they get in return are things they already have? That’s ridiculous.
Elaborating on my past answer - I don’t trust the gun control lobby. It is obvious that they place absolutely zero value on private gun ownership. Given that, there is no level of gun deaths that they will ever find acceptable. In their cost/benefit analysis, there is no benefit and the costs are immense. And since there is no way to ever get the level of gun deaths to zero, they will continue to demand ever-stricter controls on private gun ownership.
Given the position from which they are approaching the debate, there is simply no logical reason for the gun control lobby to ever stop demanding stricter gun controls, until private gun ownership is completely abolished.
So, I don’t trust any compromise that offers “No more bans on XXX, not ever” as a negotiating point. That is an empty promise, with no value, that no gun control advocate will ever feel obligated to keep. In 2022, after another deranged lunatic shoots up a shopping mall, they will say “Are you insane? Lives are at stake, children’s lives! Obviously our gun control laws are not working, and you’re bringing up some bullshit political agreement from the last decade? We must do more!”
If I ever felt that the political winds were shifting and that a compromise were necessary in order to avert a more serious restriction of gun rights, I would offer the following:
- Universal background checks, in the form of a Federal Firearms Transfer Permit. This permit would be required in order to take possession of a firearm in any form: buying, borrowing, gifting, etc. The government would maintain the database of permits, but would have no knowledge of whether any specific individual holder actually owned any guns. Instead, the seller/originator would be obligated to keep a copy of the recipient’s permit for 7 years.
Obviously, receiving the permit would require a background check, perhaps a training course, etc. The permit would not be discretionary, just like current background checks: as long as you did not violate any of the conditions for receiving the permit, it would be granted.
- With completion of an approved training course, the Firearms Transfer Permit could be upgraded to a national Concealed Carry Permit.
That reminds me of an otherwise rational woman I worked with at a library, who said of the Rent-A-Cop who had a revolver, “I hope he has the safety on!”
I don’t know if this counts as a logical fallacy on my part, but when you show your ignorance in the first paragraph, I’m not going to take any of your later claims seriously.
- 100 round drums are jamtastic. I do believe this happened to Holmes. Also, “accessories,” yet he only talks about magazines.
- I have not seen a coherent explanation on how to do this. Both anti- and pro-gun groups have a poor understanding of “mental illness,” and believe that it is something that is easy to constitutionally monitor.
“Silencers” are not terribly easy to obtain, usually requiring a few months to complete the background check, and highly controlled. They do not work the way he thinks they do and I am unaware that many crimes use them. They are a non-issue in gun control happy countries and are often unregulated.
Of course all modern firearms, including revolvers, DAOs like Glocks, etc. do have multiple safeties, just not manual ones.
Gun rights supporters feel the same need for a compromise on guns that abortion rights supporters feel for a compromise on abortions, and for the same reasons.
Regards,
Shodan