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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-18-2014, 02:25 PM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Daoust_Nat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando,Florida
Posts: 2,153
Liked 1284 Times on 624 Posts
Likes Given: 75

Default Gun Control Compromise

A friend sent this to me, it was in what I believe is AR-15.com forum. I cannot say who wrote it, but it is pretty good.

Came across this reading the comments on a CNN article written by some woman who runs moms hate guns or whatever it's called. Something struck me about how accurate and spot on it was. A perfect response next time one of your Facebook "friends" talks about compromise.

"I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control
camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

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.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my
cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "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 compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of
1968 -- and this time 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 DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have
already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act
(nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement
(nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM).
Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act
(sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I
lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- 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"
as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic
Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel
of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I
owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy
a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without
.Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose
in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms
anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no
restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've
got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving
firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and
how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY
DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the
importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968
"compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly
deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or
convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your
side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter
is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give
up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and
giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now
wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake
now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always
will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise".

__________________

A bad day at the range is better then a good day on the job!

Daoust_Nat is offline  
9
People Like This 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 04-19-2014, 12:08 AM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 614
Liked 325 Times on 194 Posts
Likes Given: 517

Default

This illustrated what I, and many others, have been saying for decades.....YOU CAN'T COMPROMISE WITH THE ANTIS. When you do they just keep coming back with more demands. The above is a perfect example of just that very thing!!!

__________________
Warrior1256 is offline  
therukh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 12:14 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Shoobee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Commiefornia USA
Posts: 1,552
Liked 205 Times on 155 Posts
Likes Given: 109

Default

They are going to want some kind of compromise over AK's and also over large magazines.

I don't particularly like AK's myself, and the Russians don't use the 47's anymore anyway.

And I am perfectly happy with 10 round mags.

If you posit that no gun laws should exist at all, then you are opening the door to Thompson submachine guns again. Most people don't want to see that again.

If that is enough to get you to agree that some laws would be legit, then the question becomes where to draw the line.

The far far right will always argue for the return of Thompsons.

And the far far left will always argue for complete gun bans.

The SCOTUS in Heller has already ruled that guns other than sawed off shotguns are here to stay. But at the same time they gave the various States regulatory power.

__________________
Shoobee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 12:22 AM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,577
Liked 2385 Times on 1393 Posts
Likes Given: 533

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
They are going to want some kind of compromise over AK's and also over large magazines.

I don't particularly like AK's myself, and the Russians don't use the 47's anymore anyway.

And I am perfectly happy with 10 round mags.

If you posit that no gun laws should exist at all, then you are opening the door to Thompson submachine guns again. Most people don't want to see that again.

If that is enough to get you to agree that some laws would be legit, then the question becomes where to draw the line.

The far far right will always argue for the return of Thompsons.

And the far far left will always argue for complete gun bans.

The SCOTUS in Heller has already ruled that guns other than sawed off shotguns are here to stay. But at the same time they gave the various States regulatory power.
I like AKs and I'm not happy with 10 round mags and the Antis can shove it where the sun don't shine. People who like restrictions have states they can move to.
__________________
SSGN_Doc is offline  
8
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 12:31 AM   #5
Still learning
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Airborne1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockton, Ca
Posts: 939
Liked 565 Times on 340 Posts
Likes Given: 2864

Default

@ Doc's post.
Amen Brother!

__________________
Airborne1 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 01:13 AM   #6
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21988 Times on 12398 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne1 View Post
@ Doc's post.
Amen Brother!
and let me second that Amen Brother!

anyone who thinks that any compromise should be reached, clearly doesn't support the 2nd amendment as it was written.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 02:27 AM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,100
Liked 2024 Times on 1199 Posts
Likes Given: 990

Default

You can't compromise gun control or you will miss what you are shooting at!

__________________

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  
therukh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 02:56 AM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MrGlock45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central PA
Posts: 44
Liked 26 Times on 13 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

I do not own an AK nor an AR, but I believe any citizen who isn't a felon, should have the right to own one if they so desire. The 2A was meant for citizens to own, the common guns/weapons of the time. That doesn't mean muskets anymore than the 1A means ink and quill pens and hand cranked printing presses.
There should be no round limits either. Being a law abiding citizen doesn't mean we need to give up our rights, so the antis, libs, and progressives can feel good about themselves. I don't give a crap how good they feel, I want to be able to defend myself and my family.
Rant off.

As always, stay safe.

__________________

NRA
GT (Member of Bull Dawgs Club/Big Dawgs Club)
GSSF
USCCA
DC
PAFOA
DEF. HANDGUNS
AMERICAN GUN OWNERS
CONCEALED CARRY
*Concealed means...Concealed!

MrGlock45 is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 03:14 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,039
Liked 2697 Times on 1217 Posts
Likes Given: 2595

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
They are going to want some kind of compromise over AK's and also over large magazines.

I don't particularly like AK's myself, and the Russians don't use the 47's anymore anyway.

And I am perfectly happy with 10 round mags.

If you posit that no gun laws should exist at all, then you are opening the door to Thompson submachine guns again. Most people don't want to see that again.

If that is enough to get you to agree that some laws would be legit, then the question becomes where to draw the line.

The far far right will always argue for the return of Thompsons.

And the far far left will always argue for complete gun bans.

The SCOTUS in Heller has already ruled that guns other than sawed off shotguns are here to stay. But at the same time they gave the various States regulatory power.
So what if your state has regulatory powers over the rest of the bill of rights? Do you think you could live with that? Will that be an OK compromise for you? Now they can search your house without a warrant, that ok with you? Do you really think about the things you say?
__________________
rjd3282 is offline  
6
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2014, 03:30 AM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,577
Liked 2385 Times on 1393 Posts
Likes Given: 533

Default

I wasn't meaning to attack Shoobee, but the post really sounded exactly like an illustration of the problem of gun owners of one mindset selling out everyone else. Maybe it just gets under my skin that without the laws restricting everyone across the board, those folks who don't like AKs or standard capacity mags have every right to restrict themselves without any law.

If I don't like alcohol, I can not drink it. If I don't like porn I don't watch it. If I feel that getting a big gulp is too much soda, I don't buy it.

After 20 years of being under an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic, my biggest fear is that there may be more domestic enemies than when I first signed on.

__________________
SSGN_Doc is offline  
8
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Senate 'Gun Control' Compromise Likely this week chloeshooter Legal and Activism 123 04-13-2013 01:37 AM
Alternative Compromise to Gun Control starving030 Legal and Activism 41 03-26-2013 02:54 PM
Just say no to a magazine capacity "compromise" CrazedJava Legal and Activism 4 01-15-2013 12:27 AM
How will the "Fiscal Cliff" and the Compromise Bill really effect you... Shade Politics, Religion and Controversy 13 01-06-2013 01:47 AM
"Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years opaww Legal and Activism 4 07-01-2007 12:45 AM