Gun Control Compromise Poll #2

[cbseniour]

Any conversation about gun control in the US is nothing be a political sham a smoke screen to make people think the care.. There are over 200,000,000 guns in the US right now. Talk all you want about Assault rifles or high capacity magazines if someone wants to shoot you badly enough you will in all likely hood be shot.
Taking guns away from Americans would be like taking Tea away from the British or wine away from the Italians, it just won't work.

 

[lazarus0213]

There must not be comprimise! with the parties involved there is no such thing as comprimise, oh sure they call it that. But we all know what happens, they pass a bill that screws us and we have to deal with it. That is the way THEY comprimise. I have already agreed to a comprimise by filling out a crap ton of paperwork to buy a gun, by paying a fee to carry the same gun, by paying a tax to make that same gun less bothersome to my neighbors when I shoot it. Let me ask again, show me ONE time THEY actully came to a comprimise. I am sad for the days that come, and bothered by the sheep that await them.

 

[femurphy77]

I'm kind of shocked at the unwillingness to find a compromise. Maybe the things I am listing are not as valuable to others.

C'mon guys, we need to get something GOOD in return if we get a 10 round limit on rifle mags, which is almost guaranteed. What would you trade your 30 round mags for? Full auto pistols? Sawed off shotguns? Those things don't seem necessary or practical to me, but what floats your boat? Come up with something GOOD.

What makes you think "we" are going to "get" anything? They are going to do whatever it is that they think will get them VOTES. Plain and simple. There won't be any trading, there won't be any negotiating, there won't be any discussion with pro-gun groups. They will buy votes as a result of this because "In chaos, there is profit".

Banning guns is a touchy feely way of doing something without actually addressing the real problem of deranged lunatics hell bent on killing people.

So go ahead and compromise, just remember you should probably be ready for the next compromise because hey do you really need a semi auto handgun or a semi auto shotgun? What do we "get" in return when they come for those?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

What makes you think "we" are going to "get" anything? They are going to do whatever it is that they think will get them VOTES. Plain and simple. There won't be any trading, there won't be any negotiating, there won't be any discussion with pro-gun groups. They will buy votes as a result of this because "In chaos, there is profit".

^ This. Most of our Democrats are marxists & far too many of our Republicans are statists. Both want to control you...and no would-be tyrant wants his subjects to have teeth.

 

[NYFelon]

In OKC the fertilizer killed over 150 people, but yet no one wants to ban fertilizer

guns & fertilizers aren't the problem, crazy people are

They didn't ban fertilizer, no, but they changed the legally permissible amount of ammonium nitrate in commercially available fertilizers. This of course neglects the fact that instant cold packs (the type you smack and rap with a towel to put on a sprained ankle or other injury) contain 100% pure ammonium nitrate, or that ammonium nitrate can be made in your house with commonly available items. Just another feel good measure that solves no problems.

We have a culture problem in this country, not a weapon problem. Political compromise on an inherent natural right is not ever an answer. It accomplishes nothing of value, and makes no significant change to the actual issues it purports to address.

 

[LP1]

I sincerely hope you wrote that in jest. If you really believe that, you are seriously confused about a Constitutional Republic.

No jest. Are we now, or have we ever truly been a constitutional republic?

Don't be politically tone deaf; read the public sentiment, and watch what happens.

Life is all about compromise - family, job, money, you name it. I'm a realist.

 

[ATM]

No jest. Are we now, or have we ever truly been a constitutional republic?

Very briefly, before people started trading away their liberty for promises of security.

Don't be politically tone deaf; read the public sentiment, and watch what happens.

I am not swayed by irrational sentiment, regardless of the magnitude.

Life is all about compromise - family, job, money, you name it. I'm a realist.

I'm afraid you're confusing compromise with abdication of responsibility, they aren't the same.

 

[longbarrel]

The new AWB will be worse than it was before. After this last massacre, even moderates are going to be questioning gun rights. Feinstein will want to not only ban sales on AW she wants to prevent grandfathering. This is gonna be the big gun grab effort. Where are the guys who were on here earlier this year saying obama wasnt a threat to guns like Romney was. I guess now is the time to say it. I told you so.

Can they pass w/o house approval?

 

[longbarrel]

Any conversation about gun control in the US is nothing be a political sham a smoke screen to make people think the care.. There are over 200,000,000 guns in the US right now. Talk all you want about Assault rifles or high capacity magazines if someone wants to shoot you badly enough you will in all likely hood be shot.
Taking guns away from Americans would be like taking Tea away from the British or wine away from the Italians, it just won't work.

Read the signature

 

[davedolli]

Compromise? The answer isn't no but Hell no!

Compromising away that which is not negotiable is the reason why we are in the mess we are in, and not just with guns.

This!!!


Dave

 

[jbombelli]

I don't compromise away PART of what I have. Ever. Whenever you do that, the people you made the deal with inevitably come back later for more. And eventually you compromise away everything.

 

[japartridge]

No jest. Are we now, or have we ever truly been a constitutional republic?

Don't be politically tone deaf; read the public sentiment, and watch what happens.

Life is all about compromise - family, job, money, you name it. I'm a realist.

I'm sorry you feel that you need to compromise your life away... not all us feel that way.

 

[AJMD429]

You don't "compromise" when lives are at stake, period.

If we have some right we feel is being infringed, we should DEMAND it be un-infringed, NOT toss some other rights under the bus in some perverse 'tradeoff'.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Would you be willing to accept a 10 round magazine limit on only new rifles/magazines (existing are grandfathered, but >10 round magazines cannot be sold/transferred) if:

1) Your LTCH was effective nation wide, and

2) GFZ /CPZ's were eliminated without meeting minimum standards, including armed security quotas?

Some states do not have a license or permit, what about them

 

[Mosinguy]

I already knew what the results were gonna be without reading the OP.

 

[Sgt.Striker]

no way man, i think if you outlaw "high capacity" clips the manufactuers will lower their standards because with only ten round clips being available many of todays rifles will have a significantly lower rate of fire. thus the maker will be able to go off these new specs and cut cost by producing lower quality parts for the lower rate of fire. i.e. barrel, bolt etc. just my two cents

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

Compromise? The answer isn't no but Hell no!

Compromising away that which is not negotiable is the reason why we are in the mess we are in, and not just with guns.

This!!!


Dave

Doubling down with the Daves!!
THIS to infinity...and beyond!!

"Compromising" (sic) with the anti-gun, anti-self defense, anti-personal freedom idiots means giving up 1 inch today for what will become the remaining 5279 feet, 11 inches of the disarmament (of only the law abiding of course) plans that they have in mind for tomorrow. Every modern gun ban has been preceded by "compromises" to the gun-grabbers, so...

 

[LP1]

NO COMPROMISE! Hey, it worked for senator-elect Richard Mourdock. Oh, wait...

 

[Dave-O]

Interesting question ? I don't like the gun free zones at all, most times I will avoid them if possible. I don't like going into illinois for that reason. As sad as it has become I get uneasy going onto a public schools property for my business or personal interests because of no firearms being allowed. I don't want to be there unarmed if the s.h.t.f. So in my world I would be on the fence because all my carry guns are 10 rds or less. If the scenario allows the items I own to be retained I already own plenty that have way more than 10rds if needed. So if can keep my high caps that I have and not have to leave my ccw behind again.......tough call.

 

[Lex Concord]

No, he left a Saiga shotgun in the trunk they say now. And he shot ALL of the victims MULTIPLE times with the .223 (Bushmaster) AR-15. Same weapon as DC sniper, and Aurora shooter, and OR mall shooter last week even.

If he used the pistols I wouldn't be so sure of a magazine ban of this type.

Really?

I honestly believe that if he had committed all the murders with a .22 LR revolver, but had the Bushmaster nearby, such a hi-cap mag (excuse me, long extended bullet-clip thingie for our visitors from Slate and the Brady Bunch) would still be a desire.

Feinstein had this drafted months ago...I posted a link to her website on here at least a month ago where she discusses this.

Regarding grandfathering, I don't believe she is talking about something that would result in gun collection/turn ins...merely the restriction of sales of those already in private ownership. It's still crap, but if we are to fight something, it behooves us to know exactly what it is we fight. Energies might otherwise be wasted on phantoms.

If such a ban were to pass (turn them in/confiscation), how does anyone really think that will turn out?