The future of gun contol

walkin' man

New member
I really hate to admit it, even to myself, but we are going to lose our right to keep and bear arms. It’s only a matter of time. You will be able to keep your single shot 20 gauge safely locked at the gun club and they will tell you “Your second amendment rights have not been violated”. I also believe this will reawaken the "Spirit of '76" in America.
Before anything like that happens does anyone think we have a responsibility to attempt compromise? I'm not convinced myself, but it's been something I've been contemplating for some time now.
Let me propose a scenario: The President or the congress or whoever has authority to do it says "If the NRA/GOA and an HCI type group can reach a compromise on a universal firearms law we will nullify all existing federal and state gun laws."
If we knew somehow this new law could never be expanded upon would a majority of gun owners willingly submit to some restrictions?
should we? Which ones? My personal belief is the second amendment recognizes my right to keep and bear the same class of weapons as the foot soldier in a modern army i.e. a semi auto pistol and an M-16A2 type of rifle. I don't think I have the right to possess a thermo-nuclear device. This new law could never infringe on my possession and fair use of the above two classes of weapons. Would we or could we accept restrictions on barrel lengths, age restrictions, magazine capacities, felon possession, concealed carry and things like this?
I'm sure some will say that to even say what gun owners would accept will give ammo to the HCI types, but I don't think we could give them any ideas they don't already have.
I know I will probably be heavily flamed for this thread and I probably deserve it.
Would YOU be willing to go along with this?
What would you suggest? Besides throwing me off TFL.
 

TEX

New member
We had and may still have that law. It is called the 2nd Amendment, but contrary to what our founding fathers had in mind it has been subverted and added to. What makes you think that anti-gunners would keep their end of the bargin. They are not, by their very nature and past deeds, honorable people. They would see this as just a stepping stone or resting spot before pushing for the "but just this one more little exception - for the children you understand" program.
 

walkin' man

New member
Let me clarify, I know this could never happen. The real purpose is to say in the future when TSHTF we can really say we tried to compromise.
 

Karanas

New member
The fatal flaw with your idea is the notion that the anti's would ever be content to settle on a law that could never be expanded.
The history of gun controls laws is that of gun owners making just one more compromise after another in the hope that the other side would finally be satisfied and then leave us alone. It has never happened and it never will!
You are hoping to reach some sort of middle ground with irrational people who are on an emotional crusade.
And just to put the icing on the cake, who would you trust to broker this deal?
"Honest" Bill Clinton?
"I can't find any evidence of wrongdoing" Janet Reno?


------------------
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once"
 

DC

Moderator Emeritus
WM..
I think you are failing to consider that we have compromised many times. The statement the anti's always spout about pro-RKBA folks not compromising is absurd rhetoric.

Their concept of "compromise" really means: Let them win without opposing them. This was perfectly evidenced by Clinton's speech last week. A resultant tragedy is that many people believe the rhetoric. I'd bet the the average person forgets the latest gun control bill within a week of its passage and the next time the anti's want to pass a new one the exact same statements are made and Joe Average doesn't remember the last one. Why do they always say "assault weapons"? There are a ton of laws that have banned assault weapons.

Certain California anti-gun legislators have been blatant by constantly passing bills that amend the definition of "assault weapons". Why? So they can continue to use that emotional terminology. They love that term and don't ever want to let it go

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 

BigFang

New member
I feel that there have already been enough compromises from the gun-owner side of the issue as far as new laws are concerned. Most of the current laws about gun-ownership are "against". There are few laws that provide honest citizens with "rights" to firearm ownership. Why aren't there any compromises from the "other side"?
I do not know what the current regulations are on putting together a Gun Show, but I may be in favor of check in-check out for buyers and sellers. Something that says that if you come through the door, your name goes on record as a buyer/seller, and includes what you came and left with. This would mean increases in admission fees (for time/effort to keep the records), but if we "gun owners" want to show everyone that we are trying to "be more safe", then pay the fee or don't come. Because of the location of most gun shows, the records should be able to be kept locally by law enforcemant, and released under "as needed" circumstances. Would there be anything to fear from that? I suppose that the list could get to anti groups that could call you personally, but I would stand up to that.
 

Hal

New member
The following quotes were compiled by "The Water Rat" h20rat@hotmail.com
and are being posted with his permission. I have left his comments intact. I really appreciate the time and effort involved in putting these together. Please feel free to e-mail him and tell him" Well done" As another poster signs" Compromise is not an option". It is clear what path the ban of private arms holds, as history does indeed repeat itself. I posted an article a few months ago that originated in classical times, and it reflected many of our concerns today.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government" --Thomas Jefferson, June 1776

"The constitutions of most of our states, and of the United States, asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press" --Thomas Jefferson

Of Course in the past there has been those in favor of gun control:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolf Hitler - 1934

But this patriot probably said it the best:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

I think it is quite clear that the framers of our constitution had no intent of limiting the ownership of firearms.

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. James Madison, principal author of Constitution

"Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself". John Adams

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

"Little more can be reasonably aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped. The scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous and impracticable." Alexander Hamilton

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, 1787

"A free people ought to be armed." George Washington, 1790

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

"Unfortunately, nothing will preserve public liberty but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined" Patrick Henry

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,

spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

There is of course the argument that the National Guard is the Militia spoken of but, nothing could be further from the TRUTH.

"The Militia is composed of all free citizens." Samuel Adams

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." . . . "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States'

The National Guard did not exist from the beginnings of the Republic until 1903 when it was instituted and created by Congress as the Act of January 21 , 1903, known by the name of its sponsor as "The Dick Act".

In 1982 the Senate Judiciary Committee Sub-committee on the Constitution stated in Senate Document 2807:

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States."

All the arms, munitions, armament and equipment of the National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government, not by "the people" as clearly stipulated in the last phrase of the Second Amendment.

Also, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that no Civil Organization whether the Police, military or courts is responsible for your safety, you are. As a result the "shall issue" law was passed, in most states, partially restoring (though very regulated) the right of citizens to carry concealed.

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

and previously,

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." Supreme Court, (1878)

Why do I feel so strongly about protecting this right? I feel that it is our responsibility as citizens to protect our Rights (these are not earned privileges granted by a caring government, they are "natural" rights that the framers of our Constitution Believed were granted by god "…he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Luke 22:36). In this right all others are in the balance. If we lose this one, we can do nothing to protect the rest.

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

..."Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. When the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." George Tucker, Virginia Supreme Court

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part, sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree." James Wright (scholarly research in collaboration with Peter Rossi)

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill Speech before Parliament, 1939

If you think this can not happen:

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." Josef Stalin, responsible for over 30 million deaths.

"I am not a dictator...Those that call me that do not understand the principles of Socialism." Joseph Stalin, 1932 (just recently that Democratic Party admitted that they are in favor of and supporters of bring about Socialism in America)

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Chairman Mao

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing... ...So let's not have any native militia or police." Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." Heinrich Himmler

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister (the democrats sure have a mastery of this)

"Gun registration is not enough." U.S.Attorney General, Janet Reno on "Good morning America," 12/10/93

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno (Heinrich Himmler reincarnated)

"The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security." Louis Freeh Director of the FBI, 1993 (Benjamin Franklin roll over in your grave)

"The strongest gun legislation...I will enforce diligently and exhaustively." Louis Freeh FBI Director, U.S. Senate Confirmation Hearings, 1993.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." Senator Diane Feinstein

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission." Rep. Chuck Schumer, (Anti-Gun Zealot, LIAR and Bill Clinton's court fool.)

In this comment, in addition to declaring the Constitution a "radical document," Bill Clinton is totally ignoring the Fourth Amendment.-"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." Bill Clinton, on MTV 3-22-94 (how interesting can you say Hie Clinton)

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993. (I wonder who he is talking about when he uses the term "ORDINARY" Americans? What does he consider himself to be?)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --George Santayana The Life of Reason, 1906


h20rat@hotmail.com


------------------
(!)
 

Rob Pincus

New member
It was compromise when there was no organized armed revolt in 1934.

It was compromise when there was no organized armed revolt in 1968.

It was compromise when there was no organized armed revolt in 1986.

It was compromise when there was no organized armed revolt in 1994.

I'm sure there were other instances, and there wil probabably be more, but those are the ones that stand out to my mind.

------------------
-Essayons
 

Ed Brunner

New member
First I am not sure that we are in more trouble than we were a month ago,but our right to arms is in jeprody today because of compromise and for no other reason.
If we could go back we would probably all have resisted any infringement.
Having the benefit of hindsight we can see where incrementalism and compromise has got us.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 

Grayfox

New member
Like everyone else, I say no compromise. I don't ever see the antis compromising. In every deal I've seen we lose and they gain. That's not compromise, that's surrender.
I think it's high time we tell them to stick in where the sun don't shine!
 

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
Walkin' Man: Your fatal flaw is that you're honest, and have honor and integrity. Those who would have you comprimise away your rights and freedoms are not honest. They know not the meaning of honor, and have no personal integrity. To them, the end of "no guns" justifies the means of "Say anything to promote the cause".

There was a saying about dealing with the Communists during the Cold War, that their premise was "What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable." Sound familiar?

And that's the reason for FOUP.
 

Paul B.

New member
I firmly believe that ALL gun control laws are illegal. Period! They not only violate the Constitution, but Title 10 of the U.S.Code. Unfortunately I forget the section number. This describes the Militia, the National guard and I believe the Army. I could be wrong on that last. There is the "organized" militia, and the "unorganized militia. The former is, of course the National Guard. The latter is us, the able bodied men, ages 18 to 45 if without prior military service. To age 60 if you have served militarily. "Well regulated", by the way means "well trained". Somebody ought to inform that jackass in the White House of that fact. To be well trained means we should be proficient in the weaponry of this nation. M-16's anyone?
I have appended to my posts the statement "COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!" NO MORE. Tell the politicians where you stand. Let them know that in no uncertain terms. And get off your duffs and VOTE. They pass anti-gun laws, vote them out. I compromise no further. How about you?
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 

Ed Brunner

New member
I guess that since I am over 60 I can now prove that I'm not in the militia? I mean in case anybody asks.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 

Brett Bellmore

New member
"Compromise" implies an exchange of concessions, both sides in a dispute giving something up. Since we started out with everything we could have wanted, a constitutional guarantee that the government would never interfer with gun ownership, there's precious little the anti-gunners have that they COULD give us. Generally speaking, what often get's called "compromise" is actually "surrender" or "defeat".
 
Great Scott -- "Compromise"???? Don't do it!!!!

You want to see what "compromise" does??

Check out the new UK "gun laws" -- or those here in Australia! And the "antis" still aren't satisfied with the situation here, as I've posted before.

Now we are, as we say here, pushing **** uphill to even maintain those few firearms "privileges" we have left.

DON'T DO IT!!
 

K80Geoff

New member
OK I'll compromise. Let them have their restrictions on gun shows and restrictions on children owning handguns.

Give us back the right to own an AR15 with flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

Allow CCW throughout the US if you can qualify.

Allow us to own magazines made for specific guns without regard to how many rounds they hold.

Prosecute criminals who use guns, without plea bargains, and put them away for their full sentence.

Stop the punitive repetitive lawsuits by cities aimed only at bankrupting manufacturers.

Compromise means compromise, they give, we give...

I don't think for a minute that this will happen, but let's throw it in their faces to see their reaction.

[This message has been edited by K80Geoff (edited May 03, 1999).]
 

walkin' man

New member
My girlfriend says I have commited blasphemy by suggesting such a thing. My friends now eye me suspiciously and whisper behind my back. I went shooting this afternoon and all of my guns refused to fire. When I got home from work my own dog wouldn't even play with me.
I HAVE NOT gone over to the dark side, it was just a thought I shared with almost 1300 people.
Thanks to all who commented, especially Hal for that compilation from "The Water Rat", that's a keeper.

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
 
Top