Reasonable gun control measure?

[Oh Shoot]

That is the government. They actually have a monopoly on lethal force, if you truly think about it. Think about this: you receive your tax notice for $2.79 from Amazon, refuse to pay. The .gov wants to know why you aren't paying, and sends an official IRS notice (paying 10x the requested cost in official notices, most likely)...

 

Not a good example. Amazon notice regards TN sales/use tax, nothing to do with federal. IRS only concerns taxes on income, not spending. Cheat the IRS you're already in dutch under just the current laws.

 

- OS

Edited January 25, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JeffL]

The only reasonable gun control measure is to take a combat stance and apply a firm grip with both hands.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

  I'm quite willing to compromise, 6.8.  Here's the deal - the politicians abide by the terms of the contract by which they govern, and I don't go looking for lamp posts and rope.  To me, sounds like the bargain of the century.

Sounds like a good deal to me, Mark :D We should hold every last one of them to that standard.

[Good_Steward]

Not a good example. Amazon notice regards TN sales/use tax, nothing to do with federal. IRS only concerns taxes on income, not spending. Cheat the IRS you're already in dutch under just the current laws.

 

- OS

 

 

OS, i think it was a perfect example to make my point in an over dramatic way, which was completely intended. 

[Good_Steward]

I never said they couldn't make you do it. I just said it's not within their authority. In other words half the things they do, they do outside of their authority and outside of the law. Might does not make right.

I was agreeing with you.  It's because the government has a monopoly on lethal force that  we end up obeying laws....even if we wholeheartedly disagree.

[daddyo]

Hey, I have an idea - let's make crime illegal. That should do it!

[10-Ring]

I agree with this 100%. I would also like to add that the one seeking compromise in matters such as these are usually the first ones kneeling to a knew regime.

I'm glad you were able to learn so much about me as a person and my ideals from one thread on the internet.  If you actually knew me you would know that I would not bow down to anything NEW that I didn't want to.  The whole motive of this idea was that the gun grabbers could be appeased (although that will never happen) and not worry about what we own because it is "safely locked away."  I know the whole thing is unrealistic, just wanted to throw something out there to kick around and give us something to talk about, that goes a lot better if we can leave personal attacks out of the conversation, let's not forget that all of us here are like minded and pretty much have the same goals in mind.

[Sam1]

Guys, don't take stuff so seriously.. It's just the internet!

[LagerHead]

Guys, don't take stuff so seriously.. It's just the internet!

 

Racist. ;)

[Oh Shoot]

Racist. ;)

 

Nazi.

 

/thread

[gregintenn]

We are right; they are wrong.

We have the U.S. Constitution to back us.; they have lies, distortion, and a complicit media.

Why the hell do you want to compromise??!!??

 

I've got your reasonable gun control: I'll control mine, and you control yours. Everything else isn't negotible.

[RED333]

Reasonable gun control measure?

As this was posted as a question.

Slow steady breathing, SQUEEZE the trigger, and move to next target on the range.

[vontar]

Reasonable gun control is using both hands.  However there are times when one hand is sufficient. 

[FJCrusing]

[runco]

I can't believe I am going to post this, but compromise (smart compromise) is something that is needed often in order to avoid bad legislation.  Pro gunners and pro banners, are just people.  People don't like to lose period regardless how right or how left you are!  As a member of gun formums, active owner of firearms from pistols, to single shotguns, and to those nasty black rifles, I am with most of the gun world, I do not want to comprimise one inch, in fact I like to have back what has already been comprimised since the birth of the 2A.  However, I would be willing to give up some perceived freedom in order to protect other freedoms, in order for the pro-banners to believe they acheived something, so everyone is happy, happy, happy. 

 

This reminds of something that happened in my professional career, but I think the idology applies here.  I use to work for non-union company, close to 30 years ago.  They were always being hit with pro-union organization, usually very strong union organizations.  They use to fight it, then one day the owner, said we are going to embrace unions with open arms, however he invited a very weak union in for discussion, somone who had not been attempting to organize his company, and working jointly togeather, they formed an agreement to be unionized.  In the end, there was not much change to the benefits, some change, but honestly very little.  Everyone was happy, however the company did avoid the risk of unionization of a militant union.  A smart comprimise!

[TMF]

I'd rather they go full force on us than compromise another inch. At least then it will be a wake up call and perhaps the pendulum will start to swing in the other direction. Incrementalism is working, and so long as we let it work by compromising our rights every few years we will lose in the long run anyway. Let's just get it over with so we can fight the real fight, which is the repealing of the 2nd Amendment. Edited January 26, 2013 by TMF

[RAJTENN]

What is reasonable for a hunter might not be reasonable for a target shooter...what is reasonable for a antique gun collector might not be reasonable for someone who likes to build custom guns...and so on.  What is reasonable to me is not reasonable for others and when you leave it up to the lawyer/politicians to define reasonable you are at risk. The proposed bill says "locked in a safe"...try and define what is a "reasonable safe"...good luck.

 

The Second Amendment said nothing with respect to the term "reasonable" and I don't think we want to go there.

[DaveTN]

Find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted criminals without interfering or adding additional to cost to those of us that aren’t in those categories and I’m onboard. However, with the protections of health records we have today I don’t see that happening. Health records are better protected than our gun rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Even though I agree with your premise, DaveTN, there is good reason why health records are sealed. They should have never been

allowed to go to DC as part of the ACA. Mental illness could be handled much differently. And like Lester Weevils said a while back, one

mental illness isn't as dangerous as another. There are many things lumped in with the group that are not dangerous at all, yet when

classified as one large group and considered as dangerous, the classification catches too many people in the net who shouldn't be there.

 

Most are not criminals and can lead very normal lives. Most are not capable of evil, either. We see the extremes most of the time.

[gregintenn]

I can't believe I am going to post this, but compromise (smart compromise) is something that is needed often in order to avoid bad legislation.  Pro gunners and pro banners, are just people.  People don't like to lose period regardless how right or how left you are!  As a member of gun formums, active owner of firearms from pistols, to single shotguns, and to those nasty black rifles, I am with most of the gun world, I do not want to comprimise one inch, in fact I like to have back what has already been comprimised since the birth of the 2A.  However, I would be willing to give up some perceived freedom in order to protect other freedoms, in order for the pro-banners to believe they acheived something, so everyone is happy, happy, happy. 

 

This reminds of something that happened in my professional career, but I think the idology applies here.  I use to work for non-union company, close to 30 years ago.  They were always being hit with pro-union organization, usually very strong union organizations.  They use to fight it, then one day the owner, said we are going to embrace unions with open arms, however he invited a very weak union in for discussion, somone who had not been attempting to organize his company, and working jointly togeather, they formed an agreement to be unionized.  In the end, there was not much change to the benefits, some change, but honestly very little.  Everyone was happy, however the company did avoid the risk of unionization of a militant union.  A smart comprimise!

I cannot believe how many here are ready to just roll over and take it! We are in the right here. You DO NOT compromise when you are 100% right. You are playing into the progressives' hands. They'd like you to give a little now, and then next year when something else happens that stirs them up, then you will be expected to "compromise" again. When do you see them compromose?

[Berettatn]

You can't legislate responsibility.  If you could there would be fewer traffic fatalities, teenage pregnancies, and stray dogs.  But our elected officials sure do try, God love 'em.  They really try. 

 

They are also trying to legislate morality and common sense, neither of which they are qualified to do because they possess neither of those two things themselves.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Berettatn

[runco]

I don't want to compromise, but I also don't want to lose the war. The old saying you can win the battle, but the lose the war mentality. These are new times, and the old stand my ground "may" not work. As a last line in the sand, I would accept having a to qualify to own a gun like my hcp process, before I lose the ability to own AR15, 30 round magainze, etc. Compromise is not a bad word, if done intelligently and strategically!

[TMF]

[quote name="Runco" post="896550" timestamp="1359213665"]I don't want to compromise, but I also don't want to lose the war. The old saying you can win the battle, but the lose the war mentality. These are new times, and the old stand my ground "may" not work. As a last line in the sand, I would accept having a to qualify to own a gun like my hcp process, before I lose the ability to own AR15, 30 round magainze, etc. Compromise is not a bad word, if done intelligently and strategically![/quote] Okay, but if we keep compromising, at what point have we lost the fight? When we can't have high capacity magazines? When we have to register assault weapons? When assault weapons are illegal? When we have to register ALL guns? When handguns are illegal? When all guns are illegal? Make no mistake, that is the path we're on right now. We keep losing ground at increments of 10 years. With the accelerated push from the media we could be all the way down to all guns being illegal inside of 20 years. Doesn't set the next generation up very well, and sets the following generation up for a complete loss of liberty with no way to defend against it.

[jlautiger]

A compromise is defined as "an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions" (from Google).  This implies there's a win-win or a reasonable middle ground for the two parties in dispute.  It also says the compromise is "a settlement of a dispute".  The matter is resolved.

 

I think our key issue, as TMF points out, is when we talk of "our side" compromising is that the matter is not settled.  The other side will start pushing again with our last compromise being the starting point for any discussions while their side has not moved one inch.  We continually lose ground and have.  

 

So, to me, we need to restore our liberties before we start talking about further compromises.  

[DaveTN]

I don't want to compromise, but I also don't want to lose the war. The old saying you can win the battle, but the lose the war mentality. These are new times, and the old stand my ground "may" not work. As a last line in the sand, I would accept having a to qualify to own a gun like my hcp process, before I lose the ability to own AR15, 30 round magainze, etc. Compromise is not a bad word, if done intelligently and strategically!

Neither side is willing to negotiate. Bills will be presented and they will pass or fail. Obama will hand down whatever executive orders he wants and they will be tested in the courts. I don’t think you will lose the ability to own an AR or the 30 round mags you have. I suspect you will lose the ability to buy anymore 30 round mags and will lose private sales. That’s how I think the legislators will see “compromise”.