Gun Control Comoromise?

[netsecurity]

Gun Control Compromise?

How many of you would be willing to accept a 10 round limit on magazine sales for rifles if the government eliminated all gun free zones (that didn't provide armed police security of their own)?

 

[AJMD429]

I would not be willing to accept it, because it sets up the premise that it is "reasonable" to trade one freedom for another.

We should DEMAND abolition of 'gun-free-zones', period.

If they can ban 20-round magazines, why not 10-round ones, or 5 round ones, or 2 round ones...?

 

[netsecurity]

I would not be willing to accept it, because it sets up the premise that it is "reasonable" to trade one freedom for another.

We should DEMAND abolition of 'gun-free-zones', period.

If they can ban 20-round magazines, why not 10-round ones, or 5 round ones, or 2 round ones...?

They will take away 30 round magzines in rifles no matter what though, so would you rather not trade anything and just loose freedoms? Personally, I think GFZ's are a good trade. If I can carry my 17 round pistol in every movie theater and shopping place nation wide, then I'd be much happier.

Besides, I already have my AR mags . The question is not about an AWB, just a 10 round limit on RIFLES. Perhaps this compromise would be more appealing to those in states where a GFZ sign holds the weight if law. States like Ohio, with their Criminal Protection Zones (CPZ).

 

[jgreiner]

Magazine don't kill people. Guns don't kill people. Bullets don't kill people.

Evil people kill people. It's time to take a look at that. I got a facebook link that went:

Dear God: Why did you allow this massacre to occur in our school?

Dear Parent: I haven't been allowed in your school for years.

 

[netsecurity]

Magazine don't kill people. Guns don't kill people. Bullets don't kill people.

Evil people kill people. It's time to take a look at that. I got a facebook link that went:

Dear God: Why did you allow this massacre to occur in our school?

Dear Parent: I haven't been allowed in your school for years.

I agree 110% but that isn't the trend nationally or globally. The trend s more atheism and more disarmament. Mental health and moral wealth improvements would be the correct actions, but making people take responsibility for their own lives and actions is not likely to happen in this "liberal" day and age. So the government just tries to protect us from ourselves.

 

[Jeremiah]

I will not be happy with gun laws till there are none. I want to be able to mail order machine guns and ammo. I want to take a pistol with me everywhere, I think everyone else should as well.

People are fragile beings, I do not need to list the ways you can harm large bodies of people without a firearm. They exist, and what worse is the normal response to these situations can be predicted to exacerbate the situation. no concessions, not again.

 

[Mackey]

This is like asking if I'd rather be blind or deaf
Or writing about what I'll do when I win the lottery (I don't play).

We're not getting a choice. It's going to be thrust upon us.

 

[jgreiner]

I agree 110% but that isn't the trend nationally or globally. The trend s more atheism and more disarmament. Mental health and moral wealth improvements would be the correct actions, but making people take responsibility for their own lives and actions is not likely to happen in this "liberal" day and age. So the government just tries to protect us from ourselves.

Gun free zones don't fix a damn thing. Ft Hood was a gun free zone. and those were MILITARILY trained adults. And look what happened. If ONE OTHER person had been in that center that day and had been armed, lives could have been saved.

Guns aren't the problem. Stupid policies and evil are the problem.

 

[eldirector]

There is no such thing as compromise with the Federal Government. The common citizen ALWAYS looses . We are always asked to give just a little bit more than we get.

 

[parkerj112]

NO! It will not fix the problem!

Parker

 

[quicksdraw]

For many years, gun owners compromised with the grabbers. After all, they only wanted "REASONABLE GUN LAWS" to protect the people and curb violence. Yeah, we compromised and they kept pushing for more and more pervasive gun laws, while the rate of violent crime skyrocketed. Finally, after Willy the Weasel got his AWB passed, we saw the light and got serious about the fight. Now, after the progress we've made, you want us to start to compromise, again.
Not only no, but HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[femurphy77]

No. That's just a first step.

Why don't we do a poll on addressing mental health issues, or the drop in morality thru the years, or putting religion back in school, or allowing the "board of education" to be used when it's needed without fear of lawsuit, or any other of a myriad of problems in society that are spawning generations of people that think reality is a bunch of stuck of snobs on t.v. that think the world revolves around them.

You want reality? Finish school, get a job, support a family, be a productive member of society, know that you're NOT always going to get a trophy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If one could assure that they'd go no further (and I wouldn't believe it for a second), then it's not honestly a bad idea. I mean the total eliminations of gun free zones, I'd certainly support it, based on what it says on the surface. So based soley on the premise alone, and not overthinking it, I vote yes.

(not to mention, I'm grandfathered in with my high-caps, already, lol)

 

[quicksdraw]

...(not to mention, I'm grandfathered in with my high-caps, already, lol)

Yeah, I even ordered a sh**load of new mags Saturday in expectation of Dizzy Dianne's next move.

 

[eldirector]

Oh, and I assume this proposed ban would impact ALL gun owners, including government agencies? If *I* don't need more than 10 rounds before reloading, then neither does:
- private security
- security details for public officials
- law enforcement (Hell, Barney only needed one round)
- the National Guard
- and maybe even the military.

Since their adversary would be limited to 10, the "good guys" should be fine with 10 as well!

No?

 

[stlaser]

FYI: Those are the owners of such places rules, not my personal rules which allow me to carry in all the places that you listed below.

If I can carry my 17 round pistol in every movie theater and shopping place nation wide, then I'd be much happier.(CPZ).

 

[Mrkeller]

No. That's just a first step.

Why don't we do a poll on addressing mental health issues, or the drop in morality thru the years, or putting religion back in school, or allowing the "board of education" to be used when it's needed without fear of lawsuit, or any other of a myriad of problems in society that are spawning generations of people that think reality is a bunch of stuck of snobs on t.v. that think the world revolves around them.

You want reality? Finish school, get a job, support a family, be a productive member of society, know that you're NOT always going to get a trophy.

What's putting religion back in school going to do? And when you do that you infringe on my right to freedom of religion.

 

[Shift]

Absolutely not. I also see it as trading one freedom for another

 

[MilitaryArms]

How many of you would be willing to accept a 10 round limit on magazine sales for rifles if the government eliminated all gun free zones (that didn't provide armed police security of their own)?

Absolutely not.

What's next? Compromise and give them semi-automatic rifles so we can have national reciprocity on our CCW's?

It makes absolutely no sense and is a sure fire recipe to slowly erode our gun rights down to nothing.

 

[WestSider]

Absolutely not.

What's next? Compromise and give them semi-automatic rifles so we can have national reciprocity on our CCW's?

It makes absolutely no sense and is a sure fire recipe to slowly erode our gun rights down to nothing.

I couldn't have said this better myself.