Pro 2A vs. antis: "Compromise of the century"

[saturno_v]

What do you think and there is any technical way to reach what I call the "compromise of the century" between 2A supporters and the antis. We need to stop being worried all the time about our rights being chipped away and the antis need to deal with the fact that guns are a constitutional rights and are here to stay.

This is what my "proposal" is:

- Shall issue Concealed Permits (where is required to pass a proficiency test) as maximum level of restriction allowed for every state reciprocated in all 50 states of the union like any state issued driving license. States that do not have any CCW requirements can keep doing what they do. I know that some of the staunchest gun supporters are opposed to concealed permits because gun ownership is a constitutional right where driving around with a car is not....well, without digressing too much, personally I believe that getting around your own country (by feet, car, train, airplane) is some sort of unwritten right in itself and, frankly, we need to reach a middle ground.....someone's freedom and rights stop where my freedom and rights begin so I frankly do not want an armed citizen in public incapable to hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards...I do not want to lose my life in his/her attempts to save his/hers. In your own property you can do whatever you want exactly like you can drive a car with no license and registration in your own land.

- Background checks for every kind of sale or permanent transfer.

- If the antis wants "gun free zones", these are reasonably limited to courthouses, police stations, some federal buildings and maybe airports. No frivolous local gun legislation. When I say maybe no guns in airports I mean not on your person but I want the ability to fly let's say from Seattle to Dallas, carrying my gun...you just check it in with your luggage.

- Current federal firearms classification limits are perfectly fine (no fully automatic, .50 cal. maximum practical limit), no further limitation of capacity, type, etc...no more evil AK or AR scare.

That's it, after that get of my back and leave my guns alone. focus on something else that requires way more urgent attention.

And this must be iron clad with no possibility whatsoever to tinker with it ever again.

Agree?? If you do any practical way to reach it??

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

So, we are adding more requirements to CCW to get nationwide reciprocity and in return there will be a promise of no more legislation?

No only aren't we getting something worthwhile, we would be asking for something no one would ever agree to.

 

[saturno_v]

Reciprocity, less gun zones is huge. A bounding iron clad promise to get off our backs for ever is huge. The possibility to fly with my pistol in tow all around the country is huge...IMHO.
For some of our fellow pro 2A, would you rather have current no CCW or "Who you know" CCW or a shall issue CCW with a simple proficiency test to pass (like hitting a large target at 10 yards, we are not talking about competitive shooting).
We may propose that the shall issue test-linked CCW is the maximum level of restriction possible, preserving the rights of no CCW required states like Alaska and Vermont.

 

[AlexanderA]

A "compromise" means that both sides get something they want out of the bargain. I don't see anything in the OP's proposal that would substantially improve the gun owners' position. For example, nothing in there about repealing the Hughes Amendment and opening the machine gun registry. Quite the opposite, actually. The OP is comfortable outlawing all machine guns.

But the fatal flaw in this proposal is the assumption that once such a "compromise" was reached, it could never be altered. History has shown that the antigunners can never be satisfied. Their ultimate goal is the complete elimination of all guns. They'll keep trying, again and again, until they achieve that goal.

 

[saturno_v]

A "compromise" means that both sides get something they want out of the bargain. I don't see anything in the OP's proposal that would substantially improve the gun owners' position. For example, nothing in there about repealing the Hughes Amendment and opening the machine gun registry. Quite the opposite, actually. The OP is comfortable outlawing all machine guns.

Machine guns, for all practical purpose are already out of reach of gun owners...let's not kid ourselves.

"But the fatal flaw in this proposal is the assumption that once such a compromise" was reached, it could never be altered. History has shown that the antigunners can never be satisfied. Their ultimate goal is the complete elimination of all guns. They'll keep trying, again and again, until they achieve that goal.

This is exactly what I'm proposing..an iron clad agreement.....absolutely no possibility to tinker with it....the legal experts can weight in in how to implement it........we say NO MAS in block letter after this...and we get quite a bit out of this.

 

[Midwest]

I'm sorry I cannot agree with this.

- Shall issue Concealed Permits (where is required to pass a proficiency test) in every state

So now people in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming would now need a permit to carry? That is a HUGE step backward.

WHO makes the determination for this 'proficiency test'? Moms Demand Gun Sense? Bloomberg? Dianne Feinstein? New Jersey?

What about people who open carry? I can open carry legally without a permit in Kentucky. Are you suggesting that under your proposal I would now need a permit to Open Carry? No thanks

Background checks for every kind of sale or permanent transfer.

Like Universal Background Checks ? Hell no

Reasonable gun free zones

WHO determines 'reasonable'....Bloomberg?

Current federal firearms classification limits are perfectly fine (no fully automatic, .50 cal. maximum practical limit), no further limitation of capacity, type, etc...no more evil AK or AR scare.

No fully automatic? What about people who have legally registered machine guns under the NFA? If anything, The Hughes amendment needs to be repealed..not strengthened.

And this must be iron clad with no possibility whatsoever to tinker with it ever again.

Like our Second Amendment which is always under attack by the anti-gunners?
.

 

[Downeast]

I vote for no more compromising. We've already done that in the past and the Anti's still always want more.

 

[zorro45]

I would not have a problem with these points, would also add no paperwork or hassle with intergenerational or family transfers as long as the recipient is not a prohibited person. There needs to be a way for those folks in NY and NJ who are not "connected" to get a permit, and minimal restrictions on where it is good. Also, I feel dropping schools from the prohibited places would be helpful in allowing qualified teachers/administrators to carry concealed. I doubt this would fly, but with control of House and Senate, who knows? States that allow Constitutional Carry could have even less stringent rules for their state only if they so wish. (((I think that this would be basically what the concealed carry laws would be like in heaven)))

 

[maxxhavoc]

I disagree.

Put full autos back on the table and I might buy in. Heck, I don't even care if the full autos need to be registered still. Just make it so we can buy newly manufactured full autos and I can be convinced.

 

[CoRoMo]

I frankly do not want an armed citizen in public incapable to hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards

You're don't believe a legally blind person has the inherent right to keep and bear arms, do you.

 

[saturno_v]

So now people in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming would need now a permit to carry? That is a HUGE step backward.

As I said, we can set that as a maximum level of restriction allowed, preserving rights of states that do not have CCW requirements.

WHO makes the determination for this 'proficiency test'? Moms Demand Gun Sense? Bloomberg? Dianne Feinstein? New Jersey?

Definitely not....hitting a human figure at 7-10 yards seems reasonable.

What about people who open carry? I can open carry legally without a permit in Kentucky. Are you suggesting that under your proposal I would now need a permit to Open Carry? No thanks

Open carry stays the same..it is such a trivial percentage of gun owners anyway.

Like Universal Background Checks ? Hell no

We are getting there...like it or not...we strike first with the advantage of first move.

WHO determines 'reasonable'....Bloomberg?

No, police stations, courthouses, maybe airports..that's it....schools, movie theaters and shopping malls lose any restrictions.

No fully automatic? What about people who have legally registered machine guns under the NFA? If anything, The Hughes amendment needs to be repealed..not strengthened.

Granfathered weapons stay the same....fully auto are already out of reach for pretty much everybody.

Like our Second Amendment which is always under attack by the anti-gunners?

This is exactly what this proposal is....call it a clarification of 2A rights, "last station", whatever.....not giving up one inch after that.

 

[saturno_v]

You're don't believe a legally blind person has the inherent right to keep and bear arms, do you.

I do believe in preserving my life when someone else try to defend his....would you let a blind person drive a car??

 

[DeepSouth]

We need to stop being worried all the time about our rights being chipped away

I disagree, and frankly that line of thought scares me.

 

[PRM]

Nope...sorry, I'm not for compromising my Constitutional Rights on any level. In fact, why should anyone?

Background checks on sales and transfers.That's pure B/S !!! It's none of the government's business if I want to give a gun to one of my kids or trade with a hunting buddy. It's my personal property.

I've spent over 4 decades of my life in the military (active duty 8 years and another 34 in the Reserves and National Guard with multiple deployment since 9/11). I don't have a problem standing up for the Constitution, but I'll never be for caving to a bunch of liberal anti-gunners.

 

[CoRoMo]

That's it, after that get off my back and leave my guns alone....

That is... of course... until your capabilities, your eye sight, or what have you, declines to the point where 'they' have to take your guns away... by your own request:

I frankly do not want an armed citizen in public incapable to hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards...

 

[CoRoMo]

...would you let a blind person drive a car??

As though that were at all a parallel analogy to inalienable rights. Fail again.

We get it, you either don't know what intrinsic human rights are, or you know what they are but you don't believe they should be.

Let's move on.

 

[Midwest]

Like Universal Background Checks ? Hell no

We are getting there...like it or not...we strike first with the advantage of first move.

We should fight any and all universal background checks and try to have existing ones repealed. Did you see that steaming pile of legislation that just passed in Washington State? Do I want that to come to Kentucky? No Way

Any gun owner worth his or her salt should fight any attempts for Universal Background Checks as they are a step away from Registration.
.

 

[saturno_v]

That is... of course... until your capabilities, your eye sight, or what have you, declines to the point where 'they' have to take your guns away... by your own request:

I do not want a 90 years old shaking uncontrollably and not capable to see a thing to drive a car on public roads and so I do not want an individual with a similar conditions being able to kill me accidentally...you would not lose your guns...at your house you can do whatever you want....

 

[CoRoMo]

I do not want an individual with a similar conditions being able to kill me accidentally.

All of them currently can do that today. Any 90 year old person (quite the arbitrary line in the sand there) can accidentally kill you today without the use of a vehicle or a firearm. You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that you cannot legislate that truth away.

 

[Kyle M.]

No compromises, get rid of the NFA if you want a machine gun you should be able to run down to the corner store and get one. We need to get rid of all the restrictions we currently have no background checks for anything. We also need nationwide open carry with no permits required.

 

[saturno_v]

We should fight any and all universal background checks and try to have existing ones repealed. Did you see that steaming pile of legislation that just passed in Washington State? Do I want that to come to Kentucky? No Way

Any gun owner worth his or her salt should fight any attempts for Universal Background Checks as they are a step away from Registration.

If we keep it this way we are going to lose..and lose badly...this is exactly what a veteran and NRA certified instructors told me...I live in WA and if we had real background checks to keep Bloomberg & Co at bay we would not have to deal with this pile of <removed> dumped on us....

 

[AlexanderA]

saturno_v wrote:

Machine guns, for all practical purpose are already out of reach of gun owners...let's not kid ourselves.

I strongly dispute this. I happen to own a bunch of machine guns myself. Under your proposal, would I have to turn them in? No thanks. But anyway, if the Hughes Amendment were repealed, they would come within reach of many more owners.

I'm not happy at all with throwing this segment of the gun community under the bus.

This is exactly what I'm proposing..an iron clad agreement.....absolutely no possibility to tinker with it....the legal experts can weigh in in how to implement it........we say NO MAS in block letter after this...and we get quite a bit out of this.

What could be more "ironclad" than a constitutional amendment (which we already have)? Yet the antis are constantly finding ways around this. And they absolutely won't stop until all guns are outlawed. To think that they would is the height of naivete.

 

[CoRoMo]

...we are going to lose..and lose badly...

We've been winning... and winning greatly... without your anti-2A type of concessions too.

...this is exactly what a veteran and NRA certified instructors told me...

Oh, I guess those sources are infallible! No way they could be wrong. [rolls eyes]

 

[PRM]

Start down that slope and where do you stop... what else are you going to take from old folks. Maybe when a person outlives their usefulness according to someone else, they should be just put to sleep. After all who needs a 90 year old. Good Grief, I can't believe this is even being discussed.

 

[saturno_v]

No compromises, get rid of the NFA if you want a machine gun you should be able to run down to the corner store and get one. We need to get rid of all the restrictions we currently have no background checks for anything. We also need nationwide open carry with no permits required.

As much as i would love to live in a world you described, unfortunately we live in a different universe and we have to deal with this reality....I do not find myself to end up like a citizen in New York or Chicago if I can strike first.