Gun Owners, It's time to stop compromising.

[westwall]

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.

The first major compromise was the NFA of 1934

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I am not arguing about whether or not gun control laws are Constitutional.

I am simply asking the question: At what point have gun nuts showed willingness to "compromise" on anything related to guns?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

The first major compromise was the NFA of 1934

I'll admit to not being alive in 1934 to bear witness myself, but I'm fairly certain that was a contentious law when it was passed, and I don't really have any reason to believe that the forerunners of the NRA showed any willingness to "compromise" on it...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I am not arguing about whether or not gun control laws are Constitutional.

I am simply asking the question: At what point have gun nuts showed willingness to "compromise" on anything related to guns?

The same day the ******* easter bunny put an egg under a shrub. You want to talk about make believe shit, let's do it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

You still haven't answered my question.

All you've done is repeat the arguments as to why you shouldn't compromise.

 

[westwall]

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.

You still haven't answered my question.

All you've done is repeat the arguments as to why you shouldn't compromise.

Here's one you were alive for, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 had some very significant concessions that the NRA approved of.

THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

You still haven't answered my question.

All you've done is repeat the arguments as to why you shouldn't compromise.

Here's one you were alive for, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 had some very significant concessions that the NRA approved of.

THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

I do remember that law, and I remember the rhetoric from the gun nuts about it.

I remember people burning their NRA membership cards over that "compromise", and joining GOA instead.

But I do understand the point you're making - I'm kinda using a faulty definition of "gun nuts".

 

[OKTexas]

You still haven't answered my question.

All you've done is repeat the arguments as to why you shouldn't compromise.

Here's one you were alive for, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 had some very significant concessions that the NRA approved of.

THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

I do remember that law, and I remember the rhetoric from the gun nuts about it.

I remember people burning their NRA membership cards over that "compromise", and joining GOA instead.

But I do understand the point you're making - I'm kinda using a faulty definition of "gun nuts".

Ya think?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's one you were alive for, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 had some very significant concessions that the NRA approved of.

THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

I do remember that law, and I remember the rhetoric from the gun nuts about it.

I remember people burning their NRA membership cards over that "compromise", and joining GOA instead.

But I do understand the point you're making - I'm kinda using a faulty definition of "gun nuts".

Ya think?

Actually, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you fall into my poorly-defined category of "gun nuts" perfectly.

Have you ever "compromised" on gun laws?

 

[Wildman]

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

every damn gun law since the 1934 gun control act,

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.html

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025enr.pdf

concessions ? we have conceded nearly every gun right we ever had, up until the 1968 gun control act a 14 y.o. boy could walk into the local hardware store with his Mom/Dad and buy his own .22 rifle and ammo. we could mail order guns, we could even buy a full auto rifle/machine gun IF we jumped thru a few Gvmt. hoops and paid the $200.00 tax stamp.

no more ******* concessions such as, "we just want you to stop smoking on airplanes" THAT is when we started conceding to you whiney assed liberfools.

**** YOU ALL FROM NOW ON !!

regards,
Wildman

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

every damn gun law since the 1934 gun control act,

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.html

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025enr.pdf

concessions ? we have conceded nearly every gun right we ever had, up until the 1968 gun control act a 14 y.o. boy could walk into the local hardware store with his Mom/Dad and buy his own .22 rifle and ammo. we could mail order guns, we could even buy a full auto rifle/machine gun IF we jumped thru a few Gvmt. hoops and paid the $200.00 tax stamp.

no more ******* concessions such as, "we just want you to stop smoking on airplanes" THAT is when we started conceding to you whiney assed liberfools.

**** YOU ALL FROM NOW ON !!

regards,
Wildman

So you've supported all those gun control laws?

Who do you claim to speak for, when you say you've "compromised" on those laws?

 

[Abatis]

I do remember that law, and I remember the rhetoric from the gun nuts about it.

I remember people burning their NRA membership cards over that "compromise", and joining GOA instead.

And the GOA heralded itself as the "No Compromise" gun rights organization and has maintained that hard line ever since, correct?

But I do understand the point you're making - I'm kinda using a faulty definition of "gun nuts".

Well you must be using it wrong cause you own more guns than anybody here so that means that you just can't be an anti-gunner . . . you're just one of those non-anti-gunner good guys that refers to gun rights people as "gun-nuts'.

Really where's the problem?

 

[OKTexas]

I do remember that law, and I remember the rhetoric from the gun nuts about it.

I remember people burning their NRA membership cards over that "compromise", and joining GOA instead.

But I do understand the point you're making - I'm kinda using a faulty definition of "gun nuts".

Ya think?

Actually, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you fall into my poorly-defined category of "gun nuts" perfectly.

Have you ever "compromised" on gun laws?

No actually I've followed them like all law the abiding citizens you people want to **** with. But I agree with the guy in the video, it's way past time to stop even talking about any more gun laws. The ones we have aren't enforced and didn't work to begin with. You want to call people like me an nut go the **** ahead, I really don't give a shit anymore. Someday you may decide to become part of the solution instead of being the problem.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I do remember that law, and I remember the rhetoric from the gun nuts about it.

I remember people burning their NRA membership cards over that "compromise", and joining GOA instead.

And the GOA heralded itself as the "No Compromise" gun rights organization and has maintained that hard line ever since, correct?

But I do understand the point you're making - I'm kinda using a faulty definition of "gun nuts".

Well you must be using it wrong cause you own more guns than anybody here so that means that you just can't be an anti-gunner . . . you're just one of non anti-gunner good guys that refers to gun rights people as "gun-nuts'.

Really where's the problem?

I didn't say that I own more guns than anyone here. I said I probably own more than you.

I refer to people who refuse to compromise in any way on gun control laws as "gun nuts" - which is why my definition is a little faulty, considering my initial post in the thread.

The mistake that you make is assuming that the majority of gun owners, let alone Americans in general, are "gun nuts".

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, background checks are a real dumb idea....<sarcasm>...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ya think?

Actually, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you fall into my poorly-defined category of "gun nuts" perfectly.

Have you ever "compromised" on gun laws?

No actually I've followed them like all law the abiding citizens you people want to **** with. But I agree with the guy in the video, it's way past time to stop even talking about any more gun laws. The ones we have aren't enforced and didn't work to begin with. You want to call people like me an nut go the **** ahead, I really don't give a shit anymore. Someday you may decide to become part of the solution instead of being the problem.

Who you callin' "you people"?

I don't support a vast majority of gun control laws.

 

[Old Rocks]

and pass a mental health and criminal background check

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

Guess you would not be able to buy a gun, eh?

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you fall into my poorly-defined category of "gun nuts" perfectly.

Have you ever "compromised" on gun laws?

No actually I've followed them like all law the abiding citizens you people want to **** with. But I agree with the guy in the video, it's way past time to stop even talking about any more gun laws. The ones we have aren't enforced and didn't work to begin with. You want to call people like me an nut go the **** ahead, I really don't give a shit anymore. Someday you may decide to become part of the solution instead of being the problem.

Who you callin' "you people"?

I don't support a vast majority of gun control laws.

Well then you might want to find a new way to articulate your ideas because your, giving a lot of people the wrong impression.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sandy Hook almost did it. But the NRA went on the offensive. So no gun laws for preventing this type of tragedy. What is going to happen, with the continued proliferation of military weapons, is that there will finally be a massacre so horrible that the citizens of this nation will vote in laws as stringent as those in other sane first world nations. Laws that will even effect the type of traditional hunting weapons that I have. So be it, you fools have brought it on yourselves.

 

[westwall]

Sandy Hook almost did it. But the NRA went on the offensive. So no gun laws for preventing this type of tragedy. What is going to happen, with the continued proliferation of military weapons, is that there will finally be a massacre so horrible that the citizens of this nation will vote in laws as stringent as those in other sane first world nations. Laws that will even effect the type of traditional hunting weapons that I have. So be it, you fools have brought it on yourselves.

The problem you have with that is of course they admitted that the laws they wanted to pass wouldn't have prevented it.