Gun Control Compromise

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Daoust_Nat, Apr 18, 2014.

  1. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,423
    76
    48
    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".
     
  2. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    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!!!
     

  3. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    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.
     
  4. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,925
    52
    48
    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.
     
  5. Airborne1

    Airborne1 Member

    989
    0
    16
    @ Doc's post.
    Amen Brother!
     
  6. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    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.
     
  7. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    73
    48
    You can't compromise gun control or you will miss what you are shooting at!;)
     
  8. MrGlock45

    MrGlock45 New Member

    45
    0
    0
    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.
     
  9. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    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?
     
  10. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,925
    52
    48
    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.
     
  11. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    My definition of a domestic enemy is anyone who wants to subvert the US Constitution.

    Agreeing with the SCOTUS is NOT subverting the Constitution.

    I agree with the SCOTUS that the States should be able to make their own gun regulations that they want. The California Legislature presently hates large magazines, and has set the limit at 10 rounds.

    I can live with that completely, because it does not affect me at all. I have a dozen 10 round mags for my Ruger Mini which all fit nicely into a vintage M1 Garand clip bandoleer. Thus at any given time, I am armed with 110 rounds of 5.56x45mm. Do I care if other Californians want 20 round or 30 round mags? I definitely do not.

    Do I care if the Fed's also set a nationwide 10 round mag limit? I definitely do not. But it would surprise me if the CURRENT SCOTUS allows the Feds to set a limit like that. IF you read Heller you can see that the present SCOTUS favors state's rights on the regulation of guns -- so long as the states do not limit the right of gun owners to own guns.

    What part of that viewpoint and philosophy do you not understand?
     
  12. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    Ok, good, so what about a Thompson submachine gun? Do they also have the Constitutional right to own one of those? And what about a sawed off shotgun too?

    If you say "yes" then you are definitely NOT mainstream -- you are far right.

    If you say "no" then you definitely agree that a line MAY be drawn anywhere.

    So, which is it???

    :D
     
  13. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    If you are far right, then you cannot compromise anything, until you completely ruin the GOP.
     
  14. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,925
    52
    48
    The other enemy of the constitution is complacency and a failure to recognize how "compromise" can lead to the complete loss of a right, and individual
    Liberty. The dangerous part of it is that many people don't realize how dangerous it is. The other dangerous thing is that complacency takes absolutely no action, so it is easy.

    I don't think your agreeing with the current SCOTUS ruling makes you an enemy of the constitution. The people trying to continue to push an agenda after the SCOTUS ruling are the active enemies.

    Just to be clear, I also consider it important to exhaust every peaceful means that the republic affords to defend the constitution. Reading and understanding the precedents of new laws, their reach and intent is important before voting. The original post is indeed illustrative of how it is easy for any group to be continually asked to give up more and more, just a little at a time.

    I do not want to direct any if this at you, but these are trends I have seen in today's society and generations.
     
  15. MrGlock45

    MrGlock45 New Member

    45
    0
    0
    I am not far right, nor do I believe that the Govt. has the right to tell us what we can and can't own.
    Take the 2A literally as it was written, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    What part of that do you not understand? Never mind, the Govt. obviously doesn't understand that either.
    Not going to argue with you or anyone else, I already said, I don't own, nor do I want to own an AK nor an AR, but if you want to, then you should be able to without the Govt. telling you that you can't.

    As always, stay safe.
     
  16. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    On my reading of your history, the only people who used Thompson submachine guns for murder and mayhem were gangsters who sometimes shot each other with them; e.g., the Valentine's Day Massacre.

    What was the public safety problem that particular gun ban was intended to solve, exactly?

    Shouldn't that law have been more correctly called the Preservation of Gangsters Act of 1934?

    Does it make sense to you that rational people would sincerely believe that the way to deal with people who disregard laws is for the rest of us to pass more (gun control) laws?
     
  17. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    It seems to me that your GOP establishment is waaay beyond it's Best Before date.
     
  18. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    it's readily apparent Shoobee believes in that whatever limits or restrictions any government, whether state or federal, passes as law is completely agreeable with him.

    he states he is against anything that is subversive of the Constitution. however as we can read further into his post, this is fully contradictive of what he says.

    so what if a person wants to own a fully automatic Thompson? so what if they want to own a sawed-off shotgun? are you not aware that in many states this is legal as long as you pay the tax stamp fees to the BATF? so in reality if a person can afford the permit fees to the federal government, they are less likely to be a criminal than other LAC's?

    looks to me to be just another revenue generator than anything. payment to excercise a Constitutional right, the 2nd amendment.

    you are one of the worst types of gun owners. you are a hypocrite. you have said in the past you support the Constitution, but just by your posts here, we can see that to be in direct contradiction, because you go on to sat you are okay with limits and restrictions. so here's a question for you, and see if you can give a direct and truthful answer, for once. if the government decided to confiscate all firearms, would you comply?
     
  19. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Maybe someone will want to help me out here.

    Was it, or was it not, the Hi-Point carbine which was,

    IIRC, specifically designed to satisfy gun grabbers?

    And it wound up at the top of their gun ban list, as soon as

    it came off the production line?

    Is this not accurate?
     
  20. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Only thing wrong with the GOP is all the stupid compromising with the libs/progressives. If you believe that the left wants compromise and not complete control then you are naïve and a very dangerous enemy of the constitution. You must have me on ignore because you didn't answer one of my questions.