"Gun control deserves serious action.... "

[chasfm11]

I have found in my personal dealings with my liberal friends that acknowledging their concerns (not AGREEING, just ACKNOWLEDGING) and approaching the discussion in a calm reasonable fashion works wonders. I had a conversation with a friend who started out rabidly anti-gun and ended up moving my way quite a bit to where they said an AWB makes no sense. All I had to do was lay out a calm reasonable case that showed movement his direction.

This is just my view, but I believe "stricter gun laws" are ok as long as they are the right laws. MY guiding principle is that there are people that we can agree are NOT a danger and people we agree ARE a danger. Let's focus our efforts on keeping guns out of criminal hands, but keep them in the hands of the good guys. If we can do that then the color of the gun, the number of rounds, etc.. doesn't matter. A 30-round mag in MY hands won't be involved in a crime. By that point, they're nodding and agreeing with me. So, how do we come together to make things safer in ways that really work, while still allowing me to have whatever I feel I need/want to have to defend myself or hunt or do 3-gun or have for whatever other lawful purpose I have in my head? If you want to improve NICS to improve the odds of someone with a disqualifying mental condition being denied, I can support that. If you want to talk about ways to "close the gun show loophole" , then lets talk about the ideas and see if we can find one that you feel makes people "safer" and I feel keeps my rights intact. Maybe there isn't one, but we don't know until we talk about it calmly. After that is when I add in things like what a handguard is and why an adjustable shoulder stock does not make my AR-15 into a death ray.

But I don't go in expecting either of us to feel 100% happy. For example: I wish I could own a noise reduction attachment for my guns. I want it to be easy. They want it to be impossible. We compromise and make it a mountain of paperwork and more expensive. This makes it harder from my perspective and safer from theirs. But you know what, if trading a mountain of paperwork gets me the ability to own them *AT ALL* then that's a compromise I can take. Neither side got what they wanted, but both sides can live with the outcome. If the issues are *process* issues, then there's some room to negotiate.

I can not support confiscation because I believe it's unconstitutional and immoral. I can not support blaming a mag size or black paint for the world's evils because it fails the test of logic at all. There's a lot of things that I can't support at all for various reasons. But if there are things I can accept without giving up my fundamental rights, then yes, I'm open to compromise.

The problem is in who determines what is "right". In denying voting to blacks, illiteracy tests were applied that were all but impossible to pass. Gun restrictions are the same way. Let me give you a few examples.

Go to New Jersey. Try to buy or own a handgun. Don't even think about carrying that handgun for personal protection - unless you are the buddy of one of the union bosses. Get caught with a handgun in NJ and you will go to jail for a very long time - except for the hoods who constantly shoot one another in Newark and Camden. Per capita, Camden is one of the most dangerous places to live in the US and it has all of the "may issue" controls that NJ has selected for a safer environment. According to the powers in NJ, including Gov Christie, they have the right laws in place. Try living there.

There is plenty of room to negotiate. The problem is that the gun controls advocates want none of it. How many times has Chicago's gun lows been overturned - and they keep creating more unconstitutional ones. Where is the compromise? SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land? Not in Chicago - they know better. They already have the strictest gun controls laws in the land. Where is the compromise? And they also have the highest gun mortality rates, including the war theater of Afghanistan. Where is the compromise? Iowa has reasonable gun control laws but one of the Iowa representatives want complete confiscation of semi-automatic hand guns. Where is the compromise?

[jimlongley]

So, they want compromise? OK, let's give them a compromise. They want to eliminate the "Gun Show Loophole"? OK, I'll give it to them. All transfers to be made through a FFL. Here's what I want in return...

1) I want an absolute guarantee that all records are destroyed upon passing the check. Since this is as it is supposed to be anyway, I get this one "for free". I absolutely don't want the background check to be used as a backdoor registry.

2) I want both the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed. That's right, I want access to full-auto military weaponry. Shouldn't be a problem since everybody is background checked anyway, right?

What do 'y'all think? A fair compromise?

Seems like you read my mind on #2 there...sounds quite REASONABLE to me.

Neither NFA '34 or GCA '68 can be shown to have had any effect, so they (the other side of the compromise) should be quite willing to give them up in order to accomplish the closure of that "loophole" they have cried so long and hard over.

Here's another compromise I could support. Licensing and registration of guns and gun owners, those that will be used "in public" (as opposed to remaining on private property or during transport to and from private property) but in exchange, public ranges will be built for the convenience of those licensees and their registered guns and those licenses and registrations will be valid and recognized throughout the US and all of its territories just like driver's licenses and auto registrations. That's a fair compromise to me, it's just like cars and drivers, just like the anti-gun nuts keep pleading for. Of course, just as there is no restriction on horsepower, there will be no restriction on "horsepower" and so on and so on.

Compromise is a give and take, right?

[DEB]

I generally dislike making generalizations, but here I go...

After 24 years in the Military (both Marines and Army) I have not yet changed my opinion that the majority of Career Officers (Field Grade and above) are very liberal. The General is simply another example of that. They are simply a part of the overall elitist attitude that the unwashed masses are not worthy of the same "privileges" that they enjoy.

I am sure that there are exceptions, but I never came across them.

You took the words right out of my mouth. It seems that the more guns someone has protecting them, they don't want anyone else to enjoy any protection that they can afford. Which is self-protection. It is these same officers that are willing to engage in social experimentation, they don't have to live with any of their decisions. They have their Protective Detachments, live in seclusion, and are always treated like royalty. Bah!! Usually their time in the mud was months not decades like their led.

[57Coastie]

So Jim what do you propose? We find a different way to engage or learn to live with more restrictions on gun ownership? Something else perhaps?

Yes. Please tell us what you think a reasonable approach looks like.

I have not the foggiest idea, HP. I can only hope that there is one out there which is reached before my imaginary horribles might happen. For anyone to draw a line in the sand at this point demolishes any leverage he might have in a negotiation. To imagine the outcome in advance before closely studying the other side's proposals is not the way negotiations are done.

BTW, I have very carefully avoided accusing either you or any other individual of having violated 18 USC, Ch. 115 or any other criminal statute. It wold be both professionally unwise and stupid of me to do so. I may have been unwise about many other things, but I will not admit to being stupid. I have no recollection of your ever having even come close, but I must admit that once I see from whom certain posts originate I automatically know what they will be saying about the particular subject-matter and I give them little attention. I have no doubt but that the same is true of others when they see a posting by "57Coastie" appear.

I have likewise been very careful to only advise readers of the existence of those provisions, in the interest of their own well-being, and I have made no threats, veiled or otherwise. What authority might this old man have to make threats?

PS: My compliments to new texan. While I am sure that I do not share all his views, I do respect his understanding of what the problem is and how it may be resolved to the mutual satisfaction, or, I must say, to the mutueal dissatisfaction, of both sides.

Jim

[baldeagle]

In my opinon compromise is what keeps a democratic constitutional republic functioning.

Jim

I can't let this pass. It has stuck in my craw ever since I read it. America is NOT a "democratic" Constitutional republic. It is a Constitutional republic. There is nothing "democratic" about it. Our founders specifically designed our system to avoid democracy, because it is a flawed form of government. Anyone who describes our government as "democratic" in any form is misrepresenting our form of government. (I'm referring to the form of government passed down to us from the Founding fathers, not the perversion we presently suffer under.) If you doubt me, read the Federalist Papers, specifically numbers 9 through 23. It's time for Americans to stand up for the truth and stop accepting half-backed lies about who we are and what our rights are.

John Adams wrote, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

Our founding fathers were not shy about stating what is required to retain liberty. Democracy destroys liberty as surely as the sun destroys the night.

[DEB]

So Jim what do you propose? We find a different way to engage or learn to live with more restrictions on gun ownership? Something else perhaps?

I was afraid someone would pop up and ask me this.

I think we first need to change our attitude to one of being reasonable. The attitude, in general, of this forum has been a mirror of that of the NRA, and that is no accident. This forum is generally a mouthpiece of the NRA. Combative aggressiveness, not even tipping its hat to the general public's perceived good. Win or lose; there is no compromise. "Compromise is a loss."

In my opinon compromise is what keeps a democratic constitutional republic functioning. A successful compromise results in both opposing parties ending up equally dissatisfied. Witness the temporary resolution of the "fiscal cliff." Liberal Democrat extremists are screaming, "the Dems gave away the farm!" Conservative Republican extremists are screaming, "the Reps gave away the farm!" As hard as it may be to believe, if one is one of the above, the temporary fix appears to be an acceptable compromise to the majority of the public for the time being.

Don't get me wrong. Compromise is not available in all cases. One may think this is one of them. I certainly could not convince him otherwise.

I will, uninvited, give an example of what I consider the wrong approach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... _ref=media" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "no compromise" folks can be expected to come back with "But the 2nd Amendment is clear. There are no exceptions permitted."

This is just not true. The Second Amendment means just exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States says it means, at the time and in the final analysis, and it could not be more clear than that it has recognized exceptions.

The "no compromise" folks have only one reply left: "Then insurrection or revolution so as to change the government, part of which is the Supreme Court, by force is the only alternative." This is really well-calculated to convince certain elements of our government to relent in attempting to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, along with well-regulating our "militia." This could have elements of humor here if it we not so true.

The same folks will criticize the Yankee media which printed, sourced in public records, the locations of persons with handgun permits, blind to the fact that they are arguing that there should be an exception made to our otherwise constitutionally enshrined freedom of the press, that is, there may be exceptions to the broad language of the First Amendment, but not to the broad language of the Second Amendment.

Taking bizarre positions like this on our Constitution and its amendments, Geek, has caused the generation of a class known by many as "gun nuts."

I plead with you and others to recognize the truth; recognize that there may be a difference between what one thinks the law is, what one would like the law to be, and what, in reality, the law is. Until we start talking to each other, rather than over each other's heads, there will be no resolution of this issue making both sides equally unhappy.

Jim

Jim, I read what you write and I know you are an intelligent person. But since my earliest memories I have had to atone for others. As a Christian white male, I must accept credit and atone for the Crusades, for the persecution of Jews throughout European history, for the inquisition, for the imposition of slavery and etc. I must accept credit and atone for Black slavery in the Americas, for the theft of Native American lands, for their massacres and etc. I must accept credit and atone for any evil done to any female throughout time. It doesn't matter that I did not not participate in any of this. I am a rural American, served in the Military for over 21 years. I am threatened/ridiculed by all the intelligentsia in America today. And it is perfectly okay? I and others of my kind must give up our prayers, our guns, our very freedoms? While I see everyone else on the other side of the aisle doing what we cannot? They have made the word Redneck to be something stupidly evil, when in fact it was just a word meaning Farmer. I worked for the State when I first retired, most of the evil I seen was in the cities not in the rural areas, but where are the jokes centered? When I first entered the Army, it was post-Vietnam and I was just lumped in with everyone else, even if I was just a bewildered 17 year old kid. In the Military I was required to attend equal opportunity courses, required to. During these so called courses, I found out about the rich white man's club. I was kind of confused as I and my family weren't rich. But I had to nod my head and just tone it out and accept my inner evil as it were. Or I would have been castigated. And you know what? It has always been called compromise. Compromise with the communists, compromise with affirmative action, compromise with those belittling you and your family/religion, compromise with gun control. I for one am tired of compromise, as it always has meant to me; well something else is going to be taken away. Our self-announced betters don't give up anything, but we always must? When/how does it stop? Do we openly threaten the Government? How many cities has a conservative gun owners burned down while protesting? How many conservative gun owners have occupied anything? How many of us wear Che Guevara shirts, Malcolm X shirts, carry around Mao's book? How many of our leaders have killed 80 some kids to protect them? We can't openly claim our heroes if they don't meet the intelligentsia's mold, such as old South Generals. But the other aisle is able to openly claim those who's stated goal is my and my family's deaths? No, now my stated goal is no political compromise. I promised myself after I left the Army I would no longer just bend my will to another's. I might and probably will lose, but at least I can say I fought against this way that is glorified by the world. I do and will not accept this way that is totally in antithesis to how I was raised and how my ancestors lived. My Grandfather, who was born in 1882 and probably didn't complete the 6th grade, understood what the 2nd Amendment meant, my father who didn't complete the 8th grade understood what the 2nd Amendment meant, I can do no less.

[JALLEN]

A week or so ago, I posted links to articles which included the following, which I re-post here:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY ***** CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

[ryouiki]

In return for "your side" being reasonable in its demands, the "other side" would give up doing its best to take away all your firearms. If your question assumes that "we" will have to give up all our semiautomatic firearms in order to attain a compromise, you are also assuming that there is no basis for a negotiation -- or 'discussion," if you prefer.

So, the lesson here is that by giving up one freedom, we will retain still retain some freedom... otherwise the alternative being all freedom is taken away? Ultimately this is self defeating... applying this ideology over a long span of time, eventually the other side will have taken everything, because there is always another time/place for "compromise".

I am suggesting that both sides sit down in private and have a nonpublic discussion if only to test the waters -- to see if there is a realistic chance of a reasonable compromise. If that means Wayne LaPierre sits down with Senator Feinstein, so be it.

What happened to the "transparency" the administration promised the people? What good are closed door discussions, when one side is so terribly misinformed about the facts that nothing can be said that will convince them? But... lets not left the facts get in the way... just today I read a quote by John Tierney (D-Mass):

“While it is important to act in a thoughtful manner, we must not allow a timely and empathetic response to be side-tracked yet again by studies or reports.”

Those provisions I have cited here and elsewhere have led to successful prosecutions, convictions and sentencing. It may be surprising to you, HP, to learn that those successful prosecutions have been, to the best of my very poor recollection, limited to members of the left wing. It is not without the realm of realistic possibility that our government, regardless of political party, decides that it has had enough of this, and people are starting to take this macho talk seriously, creating a clear and present danger to our nation.

Great, back to compromise, "agree with ideology, or all your freedoms shall be taken away"?

The "other" side doesn't seem to have a rational thought left... I'm not sure if that is because they aren't really up to the challenge of solving the "hard problems", or they past the point of return when it comes to moral/ethical decay. I know one thing for certain, when I read headlines about "minting a 1 trillion dollar coin to advert the debt ceiling" or "repealing the 22nd amendment" or "use the 14th amendment to bypass congressional approval", I just have to shake my head and hope I might wake up and it will all be just a twisted dream.

[LTUME1978]

57Coastie,

If you are serious about wanting to know what our Founding Fathers intended concerning the Second Amendment, then I would encourage you to purchase and read a book by the title "Second Amendment" by David Barton. David is a historian that has been called on by the US Supreme Court as an expert witness for his knowledge of the history of our country so they think he is very knowledgeable. You can find this book at his web site "Wall Builders". I think you will learn that our founding fathers were very clear on this matter and that we have already given up more of the rights than they would have wanted concerning the Second Amendment. Once you have read that book, please come back and lets have further discussion.

I am with DEB on this, I have had enough of this "compromise" business. It is nothing more than a way for the progressives to slowly erode our rights that our founding father fought and died for us to have (and yes, my ancestors were part of that fight). There is another book I would recommend to you that is written by Dr. David C. Gibbs titled "One Nation Under God, Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Founding of America". You will learn a lot about our founding fathers and our nation. You will also learn where the progressives started turning the direction of our country in the late 1800's and their slow but steady move to erode our freedoms and rights since that time. Kind of like the story of the frog in the pot of water. The temperature in our pot of water has been slowly raised to the point that we are about to be boiled by the progressives if we don't put their fire out very soon. Our founding fathers were also very clear about how that should be done if required to preserve our nation.

[JALLEN]

Further to my last, compromise works when the issues are not fundamental. The Congress wants to spend $500 billion on new Federal office buildings next year. Obviously not every Congressional district will get a new building, a new courthouse. They compromise; some will get new buildings this year in places where they are needed most, others will wait until next year or the following year.

Most compromises work out to be hopeless muddling of what would otherwise be simple, straight forward and just. Read some statutory language that makes no sense. Chances are it was worked out between lobbyists for the various sides to sound bold, accomplish nothing and let everybody do what they want. They chip away slowly, one unsatisfactory bargain after another, until the whole scheme is mired in uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity and pointlessness.

Compromise on fundamental values accomplishes nothing. The various compromises over slavery, worked out between the statesmen of the day, instead of facing the issue straight on only postponed the eventual ultimate resolution. We have that same fundamental difference over abortion rights, now in a bit of a lull, but which will eventually come to an ugly resolution. It is beyond irony that most of those who now advocate in the strongest terms the rigid control, even banning of guns, sparked by the deaths of those precious children, would think nothing had those children been killed 6 or 7 years earlier in an abortion clinic, and would demand the government pay for it!

Suggesting that there be some limitations on First Amendment Rights results in a howling firestorm of protest, unconstitutional! but the same voices, usually, are ready to neuter the 2nd Amendment entirely. Compromise on the 1st Amendment is out of the question!

It will come down if we are lucky, to Professor Lyndon Johnson's simple philosophy.... "When you have the votes, they do things your way. When they have the votes, you do things their way."

Let's make sure we have the votes!

[Abraham]

I can hear Jim cackling at all the buzzing hornets he's stirred up...

Tongue not in cheek, but firmly stuck straight out.

Maybe that's better than the now customary banal flattery after the insult - or the manifestly disingenuous "what did I do, I'm just old man" verbal shrug when the temperature rises beyond merely tropical...

[JALLEN]

I also don't see why we have to go to General Quarters just because some retired General pops off about something he knows nothing about. He knows nothing to speak of about criminal violence, self defense outside war zones, etc.

It's almost as absurd as Barbara Streisand, or Paul McCarthy, or any of hundreds of other entertainers, mouthing off about some of the political and social issues. It gets a lot of attention by the fawning media, but really isn't worth knowing, or knowing about; it just sells papers and attract eyeballs.

[mr surveyor]

I also don't see why we have to go to General Quarters just because some retired General pops off about something he knows nothing about. He knows nothing to speak of about criminal violence, self defense outside war zones, etc.

It's almost as absurd as Barbara Streisand, or Paul McCarthy, or any of hundreds of other entertainers, mouthing off about some of the political and social issues. It gets a lot of attention by the fawning media, but really isn't worth knowing, or knowing about; it just sells papers and attract eyeballs.

that is exactly what I have been thinking for the length of this thread. I don't care any more about a single "decorated" military officer's opinions than I do about the hollywood or media elite. I just don't understand the desire to elevate these individuals into discussions they are ill prepared for.

[Poldark]

Wake up !

This is an all out assault on the 2nd amendment and the Administration is feeding the LSM with their daily news sheets to pressure and form public opinion. The left detests the 2nd amendment because it's all that stands in their way to go after the other amendments. Rose tinted glasses are not the order of the day. It's wake up and smell the coffee time. Does any one really think the Republican Congress is going to stand in the way of Obama's steam roller propaganda machine and his dictates ? The Republicans will fold like a cheap suit and remember the left has been nibbling away at the real America for a very long time and they can now smell total victory in the air.

Living in America today is like being in a washing machine stuck on the spin cycle

http://www.therightscoop.com/must-liste ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;