Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Alternative Compromise to Gun Control

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-24-2013, 08:48 AM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1764 Times on 987 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

I don't see it working. People don't take defensive driving courses, yet if they insure a car they are paying monetary damages by lost premium discounts. People don't get annual physicals, even though many insurances will cover them. Again, monetary damages through medical expenses and lost wages. Way too many people don't even bother getting car insurance or driver's licenses. Why should they? They think they'll never get caught.

You're looking at this from a law abiding citizen's viewpoint, and that is officially a good thing, but I just don't see the majority playing along. Between the many that think they won't get caught, and the conspiracy theorists that think Big Brother will find a way to get info they don't need, I can actually see people avoiding this like the plague. Besides, is it really going to affect the problem segment of gun owners? I'm talking about the career criminals and mentally ill. I doubt it.

__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
Tackleberry1 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 09:51 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hairbear1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Molong,NSW Australia
Posts: 558
Liked 336 Times on 188 Posts
Likes Given: 26

Default

Whatever you blokes do don't accept ANY compromises as this is the thin edge of the wedge. This is how the anti's start and how you lose your guns slowly.
We've been fighting these anti idiots for years in Australia and just remember crims don't register guns and they don't give a rat's a$%e about laws.

What it is is the fact that the Police just hasn't got the manpower and the judges(at least here in Australia) give the crims a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again or give them a paltry sentence.

Fight them at every chance and don't compromise.

__________________

The ability to think and speak doesn't necessarily guarantee intelligence

hairbear1 is offline  
5
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:11 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9
Liked 8 Times on 5 Posts

Default

The real problems are still not being addressed. Inner-city crime and some nut-job getting a gun and........

Inner-city crime is a an economic/drug/ENFORCEMENT issue that you and I are not going to do anything about. Keeping the nut-cases from having access to guns will solve one problem, them having a gun to use, but isn't going to stop them from killing. They WILL FIND A WAY.

__________________
rubin51 is offline  
Tackleberry1 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:16 PM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DFlynt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Festus, Missouri
Posts: 3,036
Liked 1784 Times on 1168 Posts
Likes Given: 1506

Default

I already have a piece of paper that tells me I have a right own firearms, it's called the Constitution of the United States and it's Bill of Rights.

I'm tired of 'compromising" with the anti-gunners, "compromise" indicates give and take but all I see are firearm owners giving and anti-gunners taking in every "compromise", time for firearms owner to say "Oh hell no" to the anti-gunners and their lap dogs in state government, congress and the white house.

__________________

“Somebody has to speak for these people. Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this—they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people...better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.” Mal Reynolds Serenity/Firefly


Last edited by DFlynt; 03-24-2013 at 02:25 PM.
DFlynt is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:31 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 906
Liked 350 Times on 233 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Any time I hear/read someone on the Left speak of "common sense" anything, my shields go up.
__________________
Never argue with an idiot in public. People passing by won't know which one of you is the idiot.
Donn is offline  
opaww Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:50 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 5,825
Liked 4570 Times on 2210 Posts
Likes Given: 1379

Default

Excellent post Doc... and absolutely true.

Accepting any regulation to appease gungrabbers is a wasted debate and offering them anything besides a firm NO will only encourage them to ask for more.

You can't give a mouse a cracker then be surprised when he comes back asking for a glass of milk.

Allowing the Government to pay for anything is also not just a bad idea... But a really, really, bad idea.

Once the "taxpayer" has a financial interest, the politicians have not only a right but a duty to medal in the program... FOOG of course.

"Records would be immediately deleted"... Sure they would...

Long story short, anything that fails to address the actual problem is worthy of nothing more than a firm NO.

If the "so called" safety advocates would like to discuss paying for States to enter mental health info for "Involuntarily Commited" people or if they'd like to discuss the lack of enforcement of current laws as applied to "pet" constituents then OK... those are conversations we can have.

99% of gun violence is directly related to politicians and there incompetence. I see no benefit in giving them another ounce of power until they prove to the American people that they can effectively manage the power they already have.

Tack

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
I don't see it working. People don't take defensive driving courses, yet if they insure a car they are paying monetary damages by lost premium discounts. People don't get annual physicals, even though many insurances will cover them. Again, monetary damages through medical expenses and lost wages. Way too many people don't even bother getting car insurance or driver's licenses. Why should they? They think they'll never get caught.

You're looking at this from a law abiding citizen's viewpoint, and that is officially a good thing, but I just don't see the majority playing along. Between the many that think they won't get caught, and the conspiracy theorists that think Big Brother will find a way to get info they don't need, I can actually see people avoiding this like the plague. Besides, is it really going to affect the problem segment of gun owners? I'm talking about the career criminals and mentally ill. I doubt it.
__________________
Tackleberry1 is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 03:25 PM   #17
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 2,680
Liked 1651 Times on 981 Posts
Likes Given: 810

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starving030 View Post
I have been thinking about this idea and have decided to ask for everyone’s input on this. The idea is fairly simple and should make both sides somewhat happy. The idea was sparked by Amsdorf’s video(thread link below) about common sense gun control. The video got me thinking about safety and education more so than gun control. It basically involves an anonymous firearms safety course sponsored by the government but held by private companies. I’m not gonna try to explain every detail but will give a brief review.

Here’s how it would work. Class times and locations would be posted by Company X. So I show up to one of the course locations, sit down and wait for the course to start. At the course start time a government official would show up, walk in, do a head count and sign Company X’s voucher so they can get reimbursed from the government that they taught Y amount of students that day. Then they leave. No names exchanged. So the course starts and people learn stuff and so on. After completing the course, persons attending the course will get their little safety course certificate of completion in wallet form, kind of looking like a drivers license. One by one they would go up to the table, show your current ID so they know what name to put on the certificate and be on your way. Company X doesn’t record your name at all. They just type it, hit print and delete. “next in line please”

Now, what about the ones that refuse to go? Simple. If someone was caught with a firearm of any kind that does not posses this certificate then there would be some type of monetary penalty. No jail time. No felony. No loss of gun. Just money. If they don’t pay, take it from their taxes. If they get no taxes there is always community service.

The points of this idea that I think makes both sides somewhat happy are simple.

Anti-gunners-
Feel they have regulated guns
Feel that everyone with a gun is competent.
Feel powerful because they can fine you.
Fix the “gunshow loophole”

Pro-gunners
Keep your guns, NO MATTER WHAT.
Complete Anonymity.
No infringement at all to buy/sell/own/
Encourages safe firearms practices.


Ok guys. A little long winded I know. I tried to summarize the best I could. What are your thoughts? Complete manure? Scrap it? Change it? Close but not quite? Perfect?

Amsdorf’s thread
http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/why-i-support-common-sense-gun-control-87191/
100% NO!
Do we require a mandatory class to inform a voter on how to vote, or worshipers how to worship, or organizers of those who appose the government on how to address their issues? NO we do not and would not tolerate it if we were REQUIRED to have such 'training'!
A RIGHT should NEVER require governmental permission or training to exercise it!
And the training would not be free! If we the tax payer would be footing the bill. There is no such thing as a 'free lunch', someone has to pay for it.
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
opaww Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 03:39 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 5,825
Liked 4570 Times on 2210 Posts
Likes Given: 1379

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFlynt View Post
I already have a piece of paper that tells me I have a right own firearms, it's called the Constitution of the United States and it's Bill of Rights.

I'm tired of 'compromising" with the anti-gunners, "compromise" indicates give and take but all I see are firearm owners giving and anti-gunners taking in every "compromise", time for firearms owner to say "Oh hell no" to the anti-gunners and their lap dogs in state government, congress and the white house.
Bingo...

Tell ya what OP... get your idea proposed on the same bill that re authorizes full auto ownership... Making the purchase and production of select fire rifles no more onerous and the purchase or production of semi auto rifles... And I might begin to consider it. Were talking compromise here ... Right?

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is online now  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 03:43 PM   #19
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sniper03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,012
Liked 2232 Times on 1116 Posts
Likes Given: 1146

Default

NO,

In logic to discuss this doesn't sound bad! But we do not need the Government in any additional phases of our life at this point! They already are in too much and need to get out! Also the main point being, that no safety program in the world would have prevented the sicko, mentally ill subjects (A.H's) that committed the recent horrendous past murders! Once again we are trying to pacify the liberal anti second amendment people and not realizing it offering them a loophole to grasp part of our Second Amendment. A safety course for the mentally ill is as unfruitful as banning specific guns and limiting magazine capacity! How many seven round magazines can you load and shoot through a weapon in a minute!!!!!
Don't get me wrong, I think gun safety courses for everyone would be great. But not Federally mandated nor controlled in any way by a corrupt government. *As the old saying goes, lets man up and call a spade a spade!

03

__________________

The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government!
*Patrick Henry

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy

Sniper03 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 02:59 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 733
Liked 401 Times on 219 Posts
Likes Given: 83

Default

Let me argue this from the other side.

The anti-gunners won't accept it because it doesn't give them what they want. They don't want "common sense" or "reasonable restrictions". Those are weasal words, purposeful in their ambiguity.

The goal is to limit firearms ownership, because they think guns are too dangerous for an "untrained" individual to own and thus we must get rid of them. They think we should rely on the police and that we should not worry about defending our lives and our homes because someone else should have that responsibility.

The proposal is a non-starter from the viewpoint of the anti-gunners. It gives them nothing about what they want. They really don't care about training, they want only state agents to have guns. The rest of us should be sheep.

Unless it means taking guns away or further restricting what gun owners are allowed to have, I suspect they will not back this. Not to mention the anti-gunners never go for "compromise". Everytime compromise means "Give us what we want or at least in part and get nothing in return".

__________________

"For every problem there is always a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong." - Mark Twain

My Firearm Reviews -
Beretta U22 Neos
Magnum Research Baby Eagle II .45 ACP

CrazedJava is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Alternative source for books c3shooter The Club House 5 11-26-2012 06:33 PM
mossberg 500 alternative stocks dwmiller DIY Projects 0 11-09-2012 02:16 AM
Alternative fuels dragunovsks Survival & Sustenance Living Forum 8 03-19-2012 02:34 AM
Less expensive alternative to ar-15 Dan The Man Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 29 01-06-2012 01:12 PM
The alternative? Angrypoonani 1911 Forum 14 03-14-2010 04:39 PM