Negotiate .... Compromise?
I keep hearing this from the gun ban groups, negotiate and compromise. We are supposed to give up guns, mags, flash hiders even bayo lugs. Semi auto's that look scarey, goodness the shivers it give to even think of them.
Got to ask this when was the last gun used in a mass shooting that had a bayo mounted or used in any way? Does a flash hider make any difference when shooting kids in a school room where they cant run and no one is looking for the bad guy yet? During the V-Tech shooting the news showed the police hiding behind trees and cars while you could hear shooting inside. To dangerous to enter.
My point is what are the gun grabbers giving up? How are they compromising? This seems like a one way street to me.
Makes me very sad to see the number of gun owners that agreee with more restictions just as long as it does not effect them. They will soon find out Gramps old single shot 12g will be the top dog some day so it to will need to go. That is how we negotiate and compromise.
Got to ask this when was the last gun used in a mass shooting that had a bayo mounted or used in any way? Does a flash hider make any difference when shooting kids in a school room where they cant run and no one is looking for the bad guy yet? During the V-Tech shooting the news showed the police hiding behind trees and cars while you could hear shooting inside. To dangerous to enter.
My point is what are the gun grabbers giving up? How are they compromising? This seems like a one way street to me.
Makes me very sad to see the number of gun owners that agreee with more restictions just as long as it does not effect them. They will soon find out Gramps old single shot 12g will be the top dog some day so it to will need to go. That is how we negotiate and compromise.
0
-
That's the thing. 2A is "shall not be infringed" and anything and everything they want is an infringement.
If we were to take the some so called "gun rights advocates" groups approach and say, ok, let's find another compromise.0 -
The antis do not know crap about guns and therefore have no clue what they are talking about.
I was discussing this yesterday with people at work; four of which are very anti gun. We were discussing the single characteristic test in NY state. We mentioned flash hiders and they said those had no use in the real world. Why does anyone need something that makes the gun totally silent so people cant hear you shoot? I crap you negative.
Tried to explain what a flash hider is and they just said NO...you are wrong...it makes the gun silent.0 -
Compromise: We give up gun rights and they sit back and laugh at us and ask, when can we meet again and compromise? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by medic07
The antis do not know crap about guns and therefore have no clue what they are talking about.
I was discussing this yesterday with people at work; four of which are very anti gun. We were discussing the single characteristic test in NY state. We mentioned flash hiders and they said those had no use in the real world. Why does anyone need something that makes the gun totally silent so people cant hear you shoot? I crap you negative.
Tried to explain what a flash hider is and they just said NO...you are wrong...it makes the gun silent.
0 -
quote:Originally posted by medic07
The antis do not know crap about guns and therefore have no clue what they are talking about.
I was discussing this yesterday with people at work; four of which are very anti gun. We were discussing the single characteristic test in NY state. We mentioned flash hiders and they said those had no use in the real world. Why does anyone need something that makes the gun totally silent so people cant hear you shoot? I crap you negative.
Tried to explain what a flash hider is and they just said NO...you are wrong...it makes the gun silent.
Well it does make the gun silent for deaf people.0 -
I will not compromise or comply with any new laws 0 -
The negotiation should be a bi-partisan review of the interviews of those shooters that survived arrest and friends/relatives of those that didn't seeking to learn WHY the actions were taken- not HOW. It doesn't matter what is outlawed, someone can always figure out a way for the HOW. So the government should stop chasing its tail and focus on what it can do to prevent a citizen from wanting to take the anti-social endeavor. 0 -
I was just thinking about this the other day. Their compromise needs to be an end all FINAL bill. The last anti-gun bill that is deemed as safe as we can possibly make things, never to have another one proposed at federal or state level ever again, no matter what or how many tragedies happen. With built in penalties should any of them file a bill. They may talk about it, they may complain about it, but file a new anti-gun bill and lose your job immediately!! No work around. Only way this can ever end. But this would require pro-gun people in office that wouldn't be pushing for a gun ban anyway.
We will have to go through this over every major national tragedy with constant pushing of the envelope.0 -
quote:Originally posted by torosapo
I will not compromise or comply with any new laws
+1
F-em'0 -
quote:Originally posted by torosapo
I will not compromise or comply with any new laws
you got it!!0 -
I was thinking about that the other week. Someone said our government is screwed because we don't compromise. How do you compromise with Communist who's goal is the "fundamental transformation" of America? 0 -
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Thomas Jefferson0 -
When will the ill-informed Americans and naive gun owners learn that you NEVER "negotiate" or "compromise" with Liberals on anything?
Read "Rules for Conservatives" it explains the scheme clearly, it is a Sol Alinsky tactic (remember PresiDUNCE Marshall-Davis/Soetoro/Obama taught that course in Chicago) that "the Left" (Liberals/Demofascists) always demand concessions from Conservatives wanting "EVERYTHING" (meaning 100% of what they desire on a subject/program).
They, "the Left" will erode our 2nd Amendment Right's gradually, they'll settle for 1/3rd the first time (machine gun ban), take a second 1/3rd ("so-called 1994 "assault" weapons ban). Now that's 2/3rd's of our Right's surrendered and then they'll come back a third time for the last 1/3rd wanting us to hand over ALL firearms, even flintlocks and blackpowder.
Once they, the mincing, limpwristed Liberal weenies achieve "disarmament" of law-abiding American who own firearms then they'll come after my compound bow and aluminum arrows.0 -
They are chipping away.Every compromise is one more chip.Eventually our right to own any firearm will be totally compromised away.Face it,they are winning.The only thing that would stop it is not going to happen.It is only a matter of time. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jersey Jubal
Read "Rules for Conservatives" it explains the scheme clearly, it is a Sol Alinsky tactic
Thanks for the book recommendation Jubal. I just put it on my Nook.0 -
If the gun lobbies are to compromise I'd say the trade off has to be laws that regulate the lies the media is able to tell in their assault speech. 0 -
Never go against your conscience, even if the state mandates it. Albert Einstein 0 -
Bring up taxing churches, and will lose their fn minds because its unconstitutional 0 -
quote:Originally posted by torosapo
I will not compromise or comply with any new laws
+10[}:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
If the gun lobbies are to compromise I'd say the trade off has to be laws that regulate the lies the media is able to tell in their assault speech.
First Amendment "compromise"; Congress shall make no law abridging the right to Free Speech, except when that same speech is derogatory, insulting to the intelligence, couched in lies or misinformation, espouses Liberal ideas, comes from a media outlet that does not comply with equal time for all sides, conveys amoral, antisocial, or Liberal agendas, or is not the whole truth.
Blah, Blah, Religion, Blah blah assembly, etc.
Feel free to add, detract, conspire, or comment.0 -
You are right. Bayo lugs are not the point getting your guns and giving you a hard time is the point. They want to hassle you. Here in MA they are trying to move our gun laws to the NY level. WHY? Because I deserve a poke in the eye I guess. 0 -
It would be nice if they would apply that "Some guns are too dangerous" to the first amendment as in Communist are too dangerous for America and should be banned/hanged as fast as they pop up. 0 -
People who believe in the Constitution have already compromised too much. Not just about gun rights, but a whole list of things. Eventually we'll be talking about compromising on the right to own a slingshot. The American people are letting their politicians make a real mess that will someday have to be cleaned up. 0 -
NO COMPROMISE. 0 -
The 2nd amendment is the only one that states "shall not be infringed". None of the others have it. No negotiating or compromising. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
The 2nd amendment is the only one that states "shall not be infringed". None of the others have it. No negotiating or compromising.
+1,000,000
There is NO reason TO compromise.
COB0 -
I am in agreement about the assault weapons ban being illogical and ineffective regardless of constitutionality, but people need to stop pretending that the 2nd amendment wording is stronger than the 1st. This sort of thing hurts the cause more than helps it. I'd also not go around suggesting the government limit free speech if your main concern is erosion of liberty. What if they agreed?
The 1st says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. In this case those words abridging and infringement have nearly identical meanings and it is well established that certain dangerous speech is outlawed. The famous examples being "yelling fire in a theater" and libel/slander. Actually I think in this case abridged is more severe as it means limit or curtail vs infringe which means break or transgress.0 -
KC Racer,
I'm not certain I can agree with you on this. There are 3 distinct clauses contained in the 1st Amendment.
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
3. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So far, Congress has made no law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the free exercise of one.
As to the abridging the freedom of speech, they have made laws like "no false saying FIRE in a theater" the courts say is for public safety. This is deemed acceptable by courts but does not stop someone from saying it IF there really is a fire. They are abridging a lie not a truth.
To me, abridge is no where close to the severity of infringement.
Abridge is defined as: indicating or being or seeming to be limited in duration;. Also punishing a falsehood (i.e. libel/slander) does not stop the conduct.
Whereas the definition of infringe is: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate; to defeat; invalidate. The prohibition of guns does infringe as it stops the conduct and defeats it, invalidates it, and exceeds the limit of what is allowed.
As to the peaceable assemblage, the courts have ruled that the time and place can be curtailed but the actual assemblage cannot as in a parade so again it doesn't STOP the conduct.
When you compare this to firearms, there is a distinct difference between what laws have been enacted regarding the 1st Amendment and the laws they are attempting to pass regarding the 2nd Amendment.
I don't believe banning 8 round magazines is akin to banning lying or saying the assemblage is limited to the part. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
COB
quote:Originally posted by kc_racer
I am in agreement about the assault weapons ban being illogical and ineffective regardless of constitutionality, but people need to stop pretending that the 2nd amendment wording is stronger than the 1st. This sort of thing hurts the cause more than helps it. I'd also not go around suggesting the government limit free speech if your main concern is erosion of liberty. What if they agreed?
The 1st says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. In this case those words abridging and infringement have nearly identical meanings and it is well established that certain dangerous speech is outlawed. The famous examples being "yelling fire in a theater" and libel/slander. Actually I think in this case abridged is more severe as it means limit or curtail vs infringe which means break or transgress.0 -
quote:Originally posted by torosapo
I will not compromise or comply with any new laws
Amen, enough is enough!!![:(!]
Every talking head is scratching their heads and want to know why the country is 'polarized'! Well it is plan as the nose on your face. We have been pushed to far!!![V] Those of us who insist on this country remaining a Republic and being free individuals are saying "We are not going to the back of the bus any more"!!![^]0 -
Abridge is not as severe as infringe,but remember these are limits on government therefore limiting a smaller infraction is more limiting to the limited party. I'm not a linguist or attorney but that is my reading of them. This makes sense right because the framers intended reasoned discussion and the political checks to prevent as much war/revolt as possible. The first is listed first for a reason (although that reasoning ony applies to the first 10 obviously).
On the Pre-emptive limitations of libel The U.S. Supreme Court dodged the issue in Tory vs Cochran just saying the order was too broad. But lower courts have decided that permanent libel injunctions are legal.
I also think that the first amendment doesn't say anything abut "dangerous or libelous" speech any more than the second limits magazine size. There may be multiple reasons for this but the most likely is that the framers expected common sense from both sides and for the courts/amendment process to arbitrate most serious disagreement. Scalia's commentary on DC vs Heller indicates the courts think some limits are appropriate (right or wrong). I don't like the potentially arbitrary consequences of that but I digress.
I also think people ignore the framer's words on the 2nd. The most common reasoning from what became the Democratic-Reublicans was that there should be no standing army and that the 2nd amendment was needed to prevent one from being formed. On the federalist side John Adams talked about the need for regulation of arms in his "Defense of the constitutuions".
Basically I think at a minimum durable semi-automatic weapons are guaranteed by the constitution
(There is not convincing some that jet fighters and artillery are ordinance not arms and that was the accepted 18th century definition as well). I think handguns and hunting weapons are defended by political will and their discussions mostly a moot point. I do think that the standing army has only been turned against its population once (and risking anger here) that was legal since the rebellion was against the elected representatives. People may not like it but that is the truth.
Sorry for the lack of coherence. My beautiful baby wanting to play and doing this on an iPod is distracting.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments