Gun Owners, It's time to stop compromising.

[OriginalShroom]

Colion Noir says here many of the things that I have posted here and other places many times in the past.

Gun Owners have compromised. It's time to stop.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCZHMRhsjPk]Gun Control: "Compromise" Colion Noir for NRA News - YouTube[/ame]

 

[cutter]

By compromising you give up a little of your rights every time they want to disarm you. Pretty soon you have nothing left. What right do we have to give away the rights of future generations anyway. Protect what we have because they are a lot easier to keep than to get back. Do we want to be known by future generations as the generation that gave away all our Liberty's?

 

[g5000]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

 

[tyroneweaver]

ya but then the dems would say that all gun owners are nut bags and disqualify em all

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

The fact that you would have to register in the first place and be granted permission from the government upon said registration is already an infringement of your right.

A right is inherent. If you need permission from some bureaucrat then it's not a right, is it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court found poll taxes an unlawful Constitutional activity for voting which is not completely a right, why would requiring tests for ownership of firearms be constitutional? Who writes the test? Who administers it? Who controls it? Who modifies it?

There is no compelling Government interest in compelling citizens to be tested to use their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Zander]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

The fact that you would have to register in the first place and be granted permission from the government upon said registration is already an infringement of your right.

A right is inherent. If you need permission from some bureaucrat then it's not a right, is it?

No it isn't. But that won't stop the gun grabbing Authoritarians like Nanny Bloomberg. They know much better than the founding fathers. Especially Bloomberg, he's a billionaire!! That is second only to our most important citizens, celebrities!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

The fact that you would have to register in the first place and be granted permission from the government upon said registration is already an infringement of your right.

A right is inherent. If you need permission from some bureaucrat then it's not a right, is it?

Correct.

One cannot be compelled to be ‘pre-approved’ to exercise a civil right as a prerequisite to indeed do so.

And without affording citizens due process to contest his name not being placed on the ‘approved’ list, such a measure would be struck down as un-Constitutional.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The nutters want to keep the status quo - easy access for known terrorists, criminals, illegals, mentally ill.

Funny, but when I read the subject line, I naturally thought that it meant sane Americans who own guns should stop bowing down to the nutters, that the majority of gun owners want to keep guns away from crooks. Silly me.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Colion Noir says here many of the things that I have posted here and other places many times in the past.

Gun Owners have compromised. It's time to stop.

WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.

 

[SwimExpert]

and pass a mental health and criminal background check

We really need to get rid of this nonsense about mental health.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

 

[Abatis]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

No thanks, you are completely bassackwards.

Now, NOT being on "the list" means you are an eligible buyer / owner.

Being put on "the list" means you are a nutjob or criminal or wife beater and can't legally buy or own a gun . . .

In just raw numbers, that list of those nutjobs and criminals etc, who are ineligible is much, much smaller than the list of all 18+ year old Americans who can buy and own a gun legally -- in 2010, 13,605,218 were old enough to buy a long gun (18-20) plus 220,958,853 people 21+, old enough to buy a handgun . . .

From those we subtract the smaller number of those ineligible which exists now with 11,166,690 names in the NICS database (14.8KB pdf -FBI.gov) on a list that can't be kept current even though all that needs to be done is add those as they become ineligible to it.

It is a fact that those ineligible people are not likely to ever leave that list (exception being PFA's) whereby yours would need to be constantly added to as people became of age (11,000+ people turn 18 every single day in the US) and would need to be "certified" as eligible while others, who have become ineligible, would need to be removed from the list.

An unmitigated logistical data entry nightmare (and you think you hate Mondays!) and as I said, if the quality of the present list of prohibited persons (linked above, which includes 5.5 million illegal aliens who are barred from buying a gun) is any indication of the quality and efficiency of your system, well, you are deep in a pipe dream.

 

[Abatis]

Colion Noir says here many of the things that I have posted here and other places many times in the past.

Gun Owners have compromised. It's time to stop.

WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

Just goes to show how deep the ignorance is on the anti-gun side.

Amazing really . .

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Colion Noir says here many of the things that I have posted here and other places many times in the past.

Gun Owners have compromised. It's time to stop.

WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

Just goes to show how deep the ignorance is on the anti-gun side.

Amazing really . .

I'm not the slightest bit "anti-gun". I probably own more guns than you do.

I noticed you don't seem to be able to answer my question, though.

 

[OKTexas]

WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

Just goes to show how deep the ignorance is on the anti-gun side.

Amazing really . .

I'm not the slightest bit "anti-gun". I probably own more guns than you do.

I noticed you don't seem to be able to answer my question, though.

It all depends where you live.

 

[Mr. H.]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

And if you wish to exercise your right to vote, no need to prove you are who you are...

You fuckers crack me up.

 

[FA_Q2]

WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

Just goes to show how deep the ignorance is on the anti-gun side.

Amazing really . .

I'm not the slightest bit "anti-gun". I probably own more guns than you do.

I noticed you don't seem to be able to answer my question, though.

He does not need to. The OP posted a video that actually outlined various ways that gun owners (and all Americans for that matter) have compromised with the gun control crowd. The fact that you could not be bothered to click the video that was imbedded for your convenience does not mean that he or anyone else on this thread should bother to do the legwork for you. How about you actually address the points given. You can ask your question again only AFTER you have addressed the examples already supplied.

It is also worthy of note that the gun advocates have absolutely ZERO burden of proof in this endeavor. It is the gun control crowd that is demanding the limiting of a right. Because of that, it is on them to not only show that the government has a valid interest in this endeavor but that the measures put forth actually address that. To date, I have not received one single piece of evidence that supports the gun control crowd’s case. Universally, it seems gun control laws have virtually no effect on crime rates. You don’t get to limit a right just for a feel good. You need to show real and tangible gains.

 

[Abatis]

WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

Just goes to show how deep the ignorance is on the anti-gun side.

Amazing really . .

I'm not the slightest bit "anti-gun". I probably own more guns than you do.

I noticed you don't seem to be able to answer my question, though.

Tell me where is the authority granted to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen?

Every federal gun law is a compromise of our right to arms by those who took an oath to uphold and defend (and abide by) the Constitution.

And I don't care how many guns you claim to own . . . Such claims are never a real indicator of one's understanding and respect for Constitutional rights theory; such an empty claim is usually the first thing uttered by those hostile to their core of the right to arms.

 

[westwall]

The nutters want to keep the status quo - easy access for known terrorists, criminals, illegals, mentally ill.

Funny, but when I read the subject line, I naturally thought that it meant sane Americans who own guns should stop bowing down to the nutters, that the majority of gun owners want to keep guns away from crooks. Silly me.

They already have easy access dummy. Gun laws only affect the law abiding.