What are you willing to accept?

[paintballdude902]

while reading this article today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...more-controversial-than-others/#ixzz2Hlo5qyCa



it got me thinking (dangerous, i know..) how much are we willing to accept? I for one, would like to see tighter control on gun sales to keep them out of the hands of people that shouldnt own them. but who makes the decision on who can and cant? if i get diagnosed with PTSD(im active duty) is someone going to make the call that im dangerous? what if i go on antidepressants? what if i just start talking to a shrink because i need someone to talk to?

at what point do i stop letting them invade my personal life?

where do we draw the line? id love it if another gun never fell into the wrong hand again and id love to see harsher punishments for anyone committing a crime with a gun


but where do we draw the line? where do we start pushing back? this is a real possibility right now as were facing a possible executive order.




when its time to bury them, its time to dig them up.....

 

[Sam1911]

What am I willing to accept? Repeal of NFA'34 and GCA '68. That would render the other questions moot.

Beyond that, not one single thing.

 

[thunder173]

+1000 ...Just what Sam1911 said above. We have already "comprimised" too much.

 

[Greenmachin3]

I'm willing to accept apologies for creating "gun free zones" on public property and removing them immediately. Other than that, I think any concessions would be a HUGE mistake in that not only would violent crime increase, but the constitution would have effectively been ignored again.

 

[M-Cameron]

while i may be FORCED to accept new regulations......i am not WILLING to accept a damn thing.

 

[ngnrd]

What compromise? What has the anti-gun movement ever given up?

 

[jerkface11]

I'm willing to accept resignations. Nothing less.

 

[gunsandreligion]

Im willing to accept CMP m60s after the NFA and GCA are repealed.

 

[gearhead]

Laws and regulations will do little to keep weapons (let's not limit the discussion to only firearms here) out of the hands of those who are willing or even anxious to do harm to others while doing much to keep weapons out of the hands of those who will never use them against another living creature except in legitimate self-defense.

 

[yokel]

We must challenge ourselves and each other to think and act as if these fiercest and most treacherous of foes have put our Liberty -our very lives- in peril.

The time for apathy and appeasement must end and the time for serious change must start.

 

[dogrunner]

I'd vote for Sam!

 

[BSA1]

I for one, would like to see tighter control on gun sales to keep them out of the hands of people that shouldnt own them.

During Hitler's rise to power France and England beieved compromise was the best way to avoid war with Germany. It sounds like you are falling victim to the same type of thinking.

 

[tomrkba]

What Sam said.

 

[Skribs]

Sam1911 for President!

Been said in other threads but I'll say it again!

 

[Sam1911]

We seem to be stuck in a blind rut running around in circles hollering "GIVE 'EM SOMETHIN' QUICK BOYS, SO THEY'LL LEAVE US ALONE!!!" Kind of absurd.

Kind of like being in a life boat surrounded by sharks yelling, "Throw out all the food and bait...that'll make them go away!"

Sheesh.

So said I a month or so back.

 

[Manco]

Nothing that takes away from arming the general population against the crazies, and everything that promotes it. Being armed for self-defense is the only effective measure--just ask the police and Obama's security detail.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'd be fine with a complete reworking of federal gun control laws to change the stance from anti-gun to improvement in marksmanship and safety. Not that it's going to happen, but if we WERE proceeding as we were supposed to, the feds would be helping us build ranges and buy everyone a safe instead of trying to throw us in prison for decades because of a .1" variation on a barrel or a malfunctioning firing pin.

The real place to start is to restore trust, and that will not happen so long as the current legal framework is taken apart, the BATFE disbanded forever and they stop treating us like presumptive criminals. I think there is room for federal gun laws, but ones designed to encourage and improve marksmanship or provide surplus arms to citizens.

 

[paintballdude902]

During Hitler's rise to power France and England beieved compromise was the best way to avoid war with Germany. It sounds like you are falling victim to the same type of thinking.

no but i think drug addicts shouldnt own guns or people with violent felonies on the record. but i dont think any law abiding person should be limited. i think we can all agree that someone who is going to kill someone else shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. but how do we make that determination? we cant....

 

[Manco]

What compromise? What has the anti-gun movement ever given up?

Exactly, they give up nothing. Every single "compromise" is a defeat for America and a victory for the socialists who wish to "fundamentally change America" (their own stunning admission that few seem to comprehend). The more guns we have, the safer we all are from the lunatics among us, as well as tyranny from the lunatics in our increasingly socialistic government. Fewer guns is not a solution for anything, unless we want to enable mass-murderers and tyranny.

 

[M-Cameron]

no but i think drug addicts shouldnt own guns or people with violent felonies on the record. but i dont think any law abiding person should be limited. i think we can all agree that someone who is going to kill someone else shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. but how do we make that determination? we cant....

illegal drug users and people with felonies are already barred from legally buying a gun.....and murder is already illegal.

you can pass all the laws you want, it wont stop people from killing each other......and it still wont stop a criminal from buying a gun.

you mean to tell me someone who knows how to score smack cant also find a guy to sell him a gun?

 

[jerkface11]

Here's a compromise. We add all "assault weapons" to the NFA as machineguns. With a free registration for all existing guns. All new ones require a tax stamp.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

No compromise.

 

[M-Cameron]

Here's a compromise. We add all "assault weapons" to the NFA as machineguns. With a free registration for all existing guns. All new ones require a tax stamp.

how the hell is a gun registration a 'compromise'....?

 

[LeonCarr]

I would accept the Feds actually enforcing the existing gun laws, I believe there are about 20,000 of them, and repealing NFA '34 and GCA '68.

How many people were prosecuted between 1994 and 2004 for illegally building high capacity magazines or putting pre-ban features on post-ban guns? If it happened, it never made the national news.

Any new laws coming out will be only for the purpose of infringing on our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Wyndage]

I will happily transfer my privately sold firearms through an FFL (thereby helping to support my local gun shop) if the gun prohibitionists agree to remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA.