Gun Owners, It's time to stop compromising.

[Abatis]

I don't know, guy, I htink laws that would prevent Joker Holmes and Adam Lanza from buying guns are pretty much common sense to most people except for the NRA...

Lanza would have been stopped buying his guns? And you have the balls to declare that you are the one arguing from "common sense"?

What laws would have thwarted Lanza (who didn't buy his guns) or Holmes (who did not meet any criteria that would have made him a prohibited person)?

Please, in your infinite wisdom have a go at being a legislator and state what those "common sense" laws would say.

 

[Papawx3]

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?

I didn't join the military right out of high school, train in the use of firearms and other lethal weapons, then join thousands of others like myself traveling overseas and spending two long years risking my life in combat situations defending the rights and freedoms of others just to come back here and have to ask my government for their permission to own a firearm.
Owning firearms is my Constitutional right and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some bureaucratic assholes tell me I can't own one without their permission!!

 

[Iceweasel]

You got you all those fine guns but forgot to buy the balls to use them. You, like Flagg, are all ******* talk all the time. If you were not all mouths, then the revolution would be underway.

What the **** are you guys waiting for? Be a leader. Form your militia and get the revolution started.

I'm getting tired of all this promise and no action. What are YOU waiting for?

Does that normally work? Welcome to my filter....

 

[natstew]

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.

You contradict yourself!
WHAT PART OF, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Shall is absolute!
Infringed is interfered with in any way!
Don't like it? Use the amending process our founders gave us!
Enough of these infringements!!

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Gun Control: "Compromise" Colion Noir for NRA News - YouTube

You haven't compromised on jack shit.

Under Obama Federal laws have been loosened. You can now pack heat into a National Park or on an Amtrak train because you never know if Jesse James is going to show up.

You continue to cling to ignorant talking points and FEAR.

You guys come off as the biggest cowards, scared of your own shadow or any person with dark skin.

 

[hazlnut]

I don't know, guy, I htink laws that would prevent Joker Holmes and Adam Lanza from buying guns are pretty much common sense to most people except for the NRA...

What laws would have thwarted Lanza (who didn't buy his guns) or Holmes (who did not meet any criteria that would have made him a prohibited person)?

Change the standard from Adjudicated to Treated for Mental Serious Illness.

Once Lanza's Mom started the process of having him committed a state law could mandate that all weapons are removed from the home until the commitment is complete.

If Lanza had been treated for serious mental illness and his place of residence was his mothers house, then why in the hell would anyone sell her a gun??

The school counselor should have been mandated to notify police and police should have been mandated to pay a visit to the Holmes home, just like they are for reports of child abuse.

If states started treated serious mental illness, reports of manic or psychic behavior with the same mandate as child abuse -- a visit from police and a social worker. We could get a lot of guns out of the hands of psychos.

For Domestic Abuse, if police see a bruise, they arrest your abuser. Why isn't their a standard like this for people on anti-psychotic meds. NO GUNS IN YOUR HOUSE.

Sorry, PTSDs, you need to get cleared by a doctor to determine how serious your case is. You know what the NRA protects PTSD soldiers so much? They don't care about your suicides, because they've already got your money. They're only sad about your death because you won't be buying any more bullets.

 

[SwimExpert]

You continue to cling to ignorant talking points and FEAR.

 

[Iceweasel]

Under Obama Federal laws have been loosened. You can now pack heat into a National Park or on an Amtrak train because you never know if Jesse James is going to show up.

You continue to cling to ignorant talking points and FEAR.

You guys come off as the biggest cowards, scared of your own shadow or any person with dark skin.

I think you got a little spittle on your "I hate gun owners" baby bib.

As far as your misguided belief on Obama, yes he doesn't pursue a anti-gun agenda. But it's due to politics not ideology. Reads up:

NRA-ILA | Did You Know

 

[SwimExpert]

Change the standard from Adjudicated to Treated for Mental Serious Illness.

Once Lanza's Mom started the process of having him committed a state law could mandate that all weapons are removed from the home until the commitment is complete.

NO, NO, NO!

You are an ignorant, bigoted, pathetic little mind, who doesn't know the first thing about what you're saying. But it's dangerous and contemptible.

If Lanza had been treated for serious mental illness and his place of residence was his mothers house, then why in the hell would anyone sell her a gun??

Again, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. There are a great many things that are serious mental illnesses. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is a serious mental illness. PTSD is a serious mental illness. According to what you're saying, a person who has been treated for PTSD should never be able to possess a weapon. You know what that's going to lead to? A whole lot of people are getting discharged from the military, never allowed to bear arms again. And once people see what happens when they reach out for help, people will stop seeking help. Your asinine ideas are going to set us back 50 years worth of progress, back to the days when people were locked away in institutions and forgotten about.

The school counselor should have been mandated to notify police and police should have been mandated to pay a visit to the Holmes home, just like they are for reports of child abuse.

NO!

The government has no right or business keeping tabs on a person's health issues. Not to mention the fact that implementing your plan would cause people to stop seeking out the help when they need it.

If states started treated serious mental illness, reports of manic or psychic behavior with the same mandate as child abuse -- a visit from police and a social worker. We could get a lot of guns out of the hands of psychos.

The only psycho I see here is you. You're so bent on controlling other people that you now are advocating that the government insert itself inside the synapses of every single person, to make sure that they are thinking and feeling the thoughts and feelings you find acceptable. But the good news is that under your plan, you won't be allowed to possess a gun. The government will keep close tabs on you and your Narcissistic Personality disorder.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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 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.

So now we'll have yet ANOTHER means for the government to decide who they will give permission to buy a gun, and who they won't give permission to?

So much for the "No compromise" stand of the OP. DIdn't last long, did it?

It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Yep, that'll conform to the 2nd amendment, which says:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed as long as the government finds them to be an Upstanding Citizen. If it doesn't so find, then it can ban Them from such ownership."

 

[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.

Gun Control: "Compromise" Colion Noir for NRA News - YouTube

You haven't compromised on jack shit.

Under Obama Federal laws have been loosened. You can now pack heat into a National Park or on an Amtrak train because you never know if Jesse James is going to show up.

You continue to cling to ignorant talking points and FEAR.

You guys come off as the biggest cowards, scared of your own shadow or any person with dark skin.

The Constitution says that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be INFRINGED.

Every law that restricts the right to Keep and Bear arms is an infringement. It is a compromise.

Just because we have decided to stop compromising doesn't mean we haven't compromised in the past.

 

[bendog]

I want the "ammo's too damn high" party.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

.

 

[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.

You contradict yourself!
WHAT PART OF, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Shall is absolute!
Infringed is interfered with in any way!
Don't like it? Use the amending process our founders gave us!
Enough of these infringements!!

And you exhibit your ignorance.

As with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is indeed subject to reasonable restrictions.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘compromise,’ but what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

you contradict yourself!
What part of, "shall not be infringed", don't you understand?
Shall is absolute!
Infringed is interfered with in any way!
Don't like it? Use the amending process our founders gave us!
Enough of these infringements!!

and you exhibit your ignorance.

As with other rights, the second amendment right is not absolute, it is indeed subject to reasonable restrictions.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘compromise,’ but what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions.


.
.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Let's just start this list of people not allowed to have guns based on whether they register as democrat. The shootings and the crying afterward always involve left wingers. Seems like a logical starting point.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

And isn't this the point with the limp-wristed left? They always want to surreptitiously "convince" those with which they disagree (in this case, law abiding citizens) to willingly "surrender" their rights and to do it in the name of "compromise".

Screw the limp-wristed left.

I currently own a Beretta 12 gauge shotgun, a 1911 .45 pistol, a Sig-Sauer P220, a Walther .380, a Winchester 30-30, a Remington 700, a Colt AR-15, and I am in the market for a .308…..that I will most likely purchase at the next gun show.

I have never been charged (let alone convicted) of a crime in my life. I have killed at the behest of my government and ONLY at the behest of my government. I carried a gun (to be precise a Sig Sauer P229 or a Walther PPK) for over 22 years as a CI agent for the United States Army.

Now, these ***** liberals believe that, for some inane reason, I can't be "trusted" to make sound judgements concerning weapons. They can kiss my black ass…..

 

[RandallFlagg]

you contradict yourself!
What part of, "shall not be infringed", don't you understand?
Shall is absolute!
Infringed is interfered with in any way!
Don't like it? Use the amending process our founders gave us!
Enough of these infringements!!

and you exhibit your ignorance.

As with other rights, the second amendment right is not absolute, it is indeed subject to reasonable restrictions.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘compromise,’ but what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions.


.
.

Don't you find it rather incredible that the left lies (and lies repeatedly) about a subject that they obviously know so title about?

 

[Meister]

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

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

It's nothing to joke about. Bigotry and ignorance regarding mental health are spreading like wildfire in our society. It's becoming an increasingly convenient scape goat, all the meanwhile demonizing people unjustifiably. You know several people in your personal life who have or have had real mental health problems. You may not know it, but they are there. They are all around us. All of us.

At the end of the day, their health issues are none of your business, or my business, and most especially the government's business. People are now talking about government maintained databases of people with mental health diagnoses, and wanting to cross reference the same in order for a person to be able to own a gun. And if you aren't scared shitless of such an idea then you need to wake the **** up. Doctors should not be reporting people's health to the government, and the government should not be legislatively revoking constitutional rights based on their whimsical evaluation of your personal health.

Yup, some committee would be able to define what is and isn't a mental health issue. Sure would give a lot of lee way for a bias group of politicians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Again, background checks are both Constitutional and effective in facilitating laws prohibiting the mentally ill, felons, and undocumented immigrants from possessing firearms, “or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Laws having no effect preventing gun violence and crime would include waiting periods, licensing, permit, and registration requirements (save that of a license to carry a concealed weapon), as well as the prohibition of the possession of firearms due to magazine design or capacity, or other superficial or cosmetic aspects such as a pistol grip or flash suppressor.

Unfortunately, current Second Amendment jurisprudence doesn’t reflect this rationale, in light of the two recent rulings concerning AWBs in New York and Connecticut, respectively. Needless to say these and similar cases will likely end up before the Supreme Court.

In both of those cases each court found that an AWB indeed infringes upon the Second Amendment right, and that AR and AK type firearms are in ‘common use.’ But given the courts’ level of judicial review, in conjunction with the states’ demonstrating a compelling interest and legitimate legislative end, public safety, the bans were upheld as Constitutional.

In the meantime it would seem one’s Second Amendment rights are contingent upon his state of residence, where the states are at liberty to place restrictions and bans on various classes of weapons, but may not ban handguns outright nor deny a citizen the right to carry a concealed firearm.

But one’s civil liberties are not dependent upon his state of residence, where the majority lacks the authority to determine who will or will not have his Constitutional rights. Gun owners are citizens of the United States first and foremost, the states and other jurisdictions lack the right to dictate to citizens who own firearms the manner in which they exercise their right of self-defense.

It’s incumbent upon advocates of Second Amendment rights, therefore, to demonstrate that AWBs and similar regulations do not facilitate public safety, are an unwarranted violation of the right to self-defense, and are in no way rationally based.