I would compromise if in return there was a constitutional amendment making gun ownership, posssession, and carry a suspect class subject to strict scrutiny.
That you post that without a hint of irony really puts the “nut” in “gun nuts”.
So you ask specifically ‘what are all these gun rights you once had but have now lost?’ and when you get a response that is on point you offer derision. Bravo.
Why should there be any hint of irony? Gun control has never been a “compromise”. A compromise is not “Give us this, and in return you get nothing. And we’ll be back for more, again with the same conditions.”
We don’t owe you anything and you won’t give us anything, so the very notion of a compromise is a joke.
This is right. Gun banners like me know that momentum is not on our side and would accept a lopsided deal to look like something’s being done, but there’s no reason for the other side because they negotiate from a position of strength. For someone like me, the only recourse is to wait for the SCOTUS to change and try it again
It is absolutely astounding that someone could type this sincerely, yet I believe you really feel that way. It explains so much…
[QUOTE=Shodan]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Do gun rights supporters believe that losing a gun right is murder or something? I’m not following.
…
I believe that, with occasional exceptions, most everyone believes in some form of “arms” control (arms being the operative 2nd amendment word). How many of you think it is acceptable for a private individual to own a grenade launcher? Should nuclear weapons be available at the local armory?
Like any constitutional right, the right to bear arms is subject to regulation (i.e. Freedom of speech? Not by blaring you car radio at 2 am on a residential street). I struggle to understand anybody who rejects that notion.
You can paint me as a gun grabber all you want, but that’s just poisoning the well. Stockpile as many as you like…it’s your own life you are putting at risk. I think regulation of constitutional rights should be reasonable, and on this issue, all I’m interested in is improved background checks.
On point? It could hardly be more off point!
Reading it one would comes away with the impression that Airman Doors, USAF would barely be able to buy a cap gun in the US. The cartoon suggests all that is left of guns in the US are the crumbs of a once whole cake.
Of course this could hardly be further from the truth. There are over 300 million guns in the US and this past May and June were both records for gun sales in history.
I cited upthread that gun laws in Tombstone, Arizona are considerably less restrictive today than they were in 1880’s Tombstone (famous for the gun fight at the O.K. Corral and the heyday of the Wild West).
I cited upthread a gun store owner saying buying a gun was pretty easy.
There is also no indication gun owners have ever willingly compromised on gun rights at all. They consistently fight tooth and nail over any of it.
In short that whole cartoon is a gross mischaracterization and a lousy analogy to boot (as someone noted in the comments section, “This would be a perfect metaphor if cake were being used to kill people.”). It only succeeds in displaying a jaw dropping persecution delusion.
Why do you think you are supposed to get something?
You do owe us.
We are all members of the same society. As a society we compromise on all manner of things. That’s how societies work at a fundamental level. Taking a position refusing to bend at all flies in the face of that.
Some people want no guns at all. Some people want any gun under any circumstance. Finding a blending of the two is a compromise.
Because that is what a compromise is.
If your side isn’t prepared to offer something the other side doesn’t already have, or something on which your side can’t deliver, then the other side doesn’t get anything and you aren’t going to get a compromise, and thus your side doesn’t get anything either.
That’s why the cartoon offered above is very much on point. “Compromise” doesn’t mean “you give up something, and in return you get to keep what’s left”.
Regards,
Shodan
Sigh
verb
verb: compromise; 3rd person present: compromises; past tense: compromised; past participle: compromised; gerund or present participle: compromising
settle a dispute by mutual concession.
Note it says nothing about mutual giving things.
Do you think other groups should compromise? If some people don’t want any gays or foreigners in society, should gays and foreigners seek compromise with those individuals? Would you expect them to try and settle for “a blending of” both positions? Maybe gays can live in San Francisco but not Texas?
False equivalency.
Not being a gun aficionado, I looked up informationon the National Firearms Act (1934), the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owner Protection Act (1986), and I don’t see the restrictions that you are describing.
The National Firearms Act “imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury.”
Now, it is true that the tax that was imposed ($200.00) was prohibitive in the 1930’s, and was intended to reduce the trade in certain weapons. But the ATF website points out that the $200 tax has not changed since 1934.
Gun Control Act of 1968 corrected a constitutional dilemma arising from the National Firearms Act; namely, that a person could not be forced to register a gun if, by virtue of registration, they would be breaking the law and thus confessing to a crime.
"First, the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register was removed. Indeed, under the amended law, there is no mechanism for a possessor to register an unregistered NFA firearm already possessed by the person. Second, a provision was added to the law prohibiting the use of any information from an NFA application or registration as evidence against the person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration. In 1971, the Supreme Court reexamined the NFA in the Freed case and found that the 1968 amendments cured the constitutional defect in the original NFA.
Title II also amended the NFA definitions of “firearm” by adding “destructive devices” and expanding the definition of “machinegun.”
The 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act is more severe than these, in that it banned the transfer or possession of machine guns, while also expanding the definition of silencer.
Ultimately, the only ban in 50+ years of federal regulation that I see applies to machine guns. To be comprehensive, you also didn’t mention that Federal Assault Weapons Ban, passed in 1994, which also banned certain semi-automatic weapons. It has since expired.
So, except for machine guns, no weapons have been banned (that I can see). I can’t attest to how difficult it is to purchase your desired weapons, how onerous the paperwork is, or what individual state laws may be doing. But I don’t see a draconian stripping of rights at the federal level.
:shrugs:
Thanks for showing that Construct was right, at least when dealing with some gun-control types.
Regards,
Shodan
Abracadabra!
What do you think a concession is?
He said “banned or made more difficult”. Those laws have certainly done that. I’m not sure where you live, but in most of the country, you can walk into a gun store and leave that afternoon with an AR-15 with a 16" barrel. If you want to get one with an 11" barrel though, you’re in for a significant amount of additional paperwork, some additional fees, months of waiting, etc. If, after a while, you grow bored with both weapons, you can easily sell the 16" AR or gift it to a friend or family member, wrapping up the transaction within a few minutes. If you want to transfer the 11" AR, you’re in for additional paperwork, length, and fees again. They NFA, GCA and FOPA have burdened the right to keep and bear arms, rather substantially in my opinion.
I dunno…maybe:
Interesting synonyms.
Very good. Now, what do you think a “mutual concession” is?
But, he should have said “made more difficult”. The use of “banned” appears to be unsupported by fact.
As I said earlier, I am not a gun enthusiast (although I would like to visit a shooting range), and my own belief is that having a gun in my house is not a safe decision (especially with a 2 1/2 year old).
But, if I was going to propose gun legislation, it would be to improve the background check process. Is that too extreme?
You mean people who understand words mean things rather than mean whatever they’d like them to mean.
Gun control advocates would like all guns banned outright so yeah…settling for improved background checks while keeping gun ownership is a concession.
This isn’t rocket science. Everyone here knows full well what a concession is and how it works in negotiations. Dancing around this is just smoke and mirrors.