I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this

[BiscuitNaBasket]

I am not willing to compromise any further.

NOT ONE MORE INCH.

We have done nothing but compromise since at least the 1930's and every time we compromise, we lose a little bit more than we gain.

^^^THIS. IT NEVER WAS COMPROMISE, IT WAS THEFT.^^^
Gun owners in the USA have not received anything in return worthy of a right guaranteed to us by the 2nd amendment because there is nothing worth more than our rights.

 

[LP1]

Hey guys, keep yelling "all or nothing". You know what you'll get? You'll get more candidates like Mourdock, Palin, Cruz, and Paul, which will lead to more lost elections, which will lead to more supreme court justices being selected by people you don't agree with, which will lead to... well, you do the math.

 

[JetGirl]

Hey guys, keep yelling "all or nothing". You know what you'll get? You'll get more candidates like Mourdock, Palin, Cruz, and Paul, which will lead to more lost elections, which will lead to more supreme court justices being selected by people you don't agree with, which will lead to... well, you do the math.

And where will we end up with the "sure, take a little more" types?

 

[pjhubbard90]

@Patriot 3. Hello Sir,

I am a fellow college student, full time worker, and NRA member, occasional IDPA shooter, multiple gun owner, and a Hoosier(although I was born in Michigan, please don't hold it against me) that is proud to live in the most gun friendly state in the Union. Let me start off with saying that you sound like a very reasonable person. By going along with these "background checks" and other BS Trojan horse procedures these guys keep wanting to shove down our throats, the real solutions never get put forward.

I am going to give an example. New York City. Had a crime spree in the 70s to 80s. Then all of the sudden the crime wave stopped. Some people contributed it to policing, other people contributed it to a local vigilante who had enough and capped a hoodlum on subway, but what seems more plausible is this. Subway companies quit putting up with graffiti and free loaders (where a good portion of the crime was taking place). Cars were not allowed to leave terminals unless they were clean and payed fair was finally enforced by the subway company. Almost over night those places quit attracting criminals and the city started becoming safer.

As long as we as a society keep looking at gun crime and criminality as controlled through gun laws either through control or the lack thereof, problems will never get solved. For instance I think here in the Hoosier state and other states where we have so little crime isn't so much a product of our gun laws, but in turn that our low crime rate, low taxes, friendly gun laws are a PRODUCT of our culture here in the Hoosier state. It is a state that promotes personal responsibility. So in short in my opinion. I am not making these concessions because they do not address the problem and further prove that the people claiming to solve the problem know nothing about what it takes to solve social problems.

Desperta Ferro!,
Peter J. Hubbard

 

[AceDerringer]

Absolutely no more compromise...I would love to see us go on the offensive and get rid of the stupid NFA tax and open back up those trade channels as well...who wouldnt want a full auto MP5 if they could legally just walk in and take it home.... that would certainly help the economy... not to mention the market for sears... I am fairly new to the NFA world but it definitely seems ridiculous...

 

[24Carat]

I find it curious when I repeatedly see these compromising, mildly inflammatory OP's from low post count members that start a thread and then seemingly disappear and contribute nothing more to the conversation.

 

[ModernGunner]

Hey guys, keep yelling "all or nothing". You know what you'll get? You'll get more candidates like Mourdock, Palin, Cruz, and Paul, which will lead to more lost elections, which will lead to more supreme court justices being selected by people you don't agree with, which will lead to... well, you do the math.

Well, sure!

'Cause those candidates are 'soooo' much more radical than.... oh, I dunno... say... Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein.

Odd that the SOME on the right, or conservative (or whatever) pro-2A group keep pushing to elect "moderate candidates that won't offend the anti-gunners", when 'radical' left candidates are exactly the ones who HAVE been getting elected. THAT 'playbook' obviously works? Learn from it.

And that quoted thought also fails to realize that the pro-2A folks are by far the vast majority of people in the nation. Even in Illinois, get outside of Chicago and Springfield, and Illinoisans are predominantly pro-2A by a huge ratio.

No, what MUST be done is to STOP giving in to the few rabid and outloud screwballs for NO other reason than they

Want a 'sneak peek' into EXACTLY what Obama, Reid, et. al. have been doing? Read Saul Alinsky's (IIRC) "Rules for Radicals". That IS their 'playbook', literally.

Start using it. Nothing works better than using the enemies' own weapons against them.

 

[jbombelli]

No more compromise. Every time you compromise with people who want to take everything from you, you lose. And they always come back later with another compromise. If you compromise enough times you lose EVERYTHING.

 

[actaeon277]

Hey guys, keep yelling "all or nothing". You know what you'll get? You'll get more candidates like Mourdock, Palin, Cruz, and Paul, which will lead to more lost elections, which will lead to more supreme court justices being selected by people you don't agree with, which will lead to... well, you do the math.

So carry that thought a little further.
After there are more restrictions and more........

 

[remauto1187]

Hey guys, keep yelling "all or nothing". You know what you'll get? You'll get more candidates like Mourdock, Palin, Cruz, and Paul, which will lead to more lost elections, which will lead to more supreme court justices being selected by people you don't agree with, which will lead to... well, you do the math.

No...incorrect. One of the last times "we" were forced in to loss of rights the Revolutionary War started.

 

[Field King]

Whom or what government department is asking for such concessions to our "inalienable" rights?

 

[brotherbill3]

@ Patriot 3 ...
1) you might want to get to an appleseed to make that meaningful; and that will start to change your tune.
2) I've stood as tolerably and patiently with the MdA folks several times over the past year. They don't want 'compromise' ... you need to read between the lines of the propaganda. I have had training; safety and otherwise, yet they want to further restrict our rights to carry; no amount of training or 'reasonable rules' will appease them.
3) UBC's? they want to add more and more and more 'requirements' and 'exceptions' ... until NO ONE qualifies - except of course the hired guns that they can pay for.
4) many of their 'people' truly believe their propaganda - or that the government is responsible for your safety.
5) this is just the starting point; (or starting over point) - the AWB of '94 - was infact - a stepping stone - they even admit it - to the disarming of america. more and more of them - are coming out and want to strip the 2A and hand over liberties we are guaranteed by the constitution (not granted by it) over to the government.

No. No more compromises. ... go to an appleseed ... learn what was the final strike of the match. and stand with the 3%.

@LP1
We haven't 'restored' the rights we have 'gained back' over the last 5, 10 ,20 years by compromise. It has been hard fought baby steps. Yes the NRA compromised on backing the NICS checks; they did it to buy time or there was great likelihood of worse restrictions at the time of Clinton's UBC signing.

We all (EVERY SINGLE gun owner and patriot) need to stand strong and not willingly give 1 more inch. baby steps. baby steps. just like SB 229 - baby steps. forward.

 

[cwillour]

... I was wondering what would the NRA's stance would be if we were to come to an agreement with the liberal politicians in congress on gun reform. IF we were to support the background check system and the mental health system they want, could we in turn agree to a universal concealed carry law throughout the 50 states? and on top of that insure that the gun control lobby sees handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles as viable means for hunting, protection, and hobby sport shooting? If we could come to that agreement and get their guarantee that they will not lobby against those types of firearms would the two groups be better off? ...

The problem, OP, is that this group of "liberal politicians" to which you refer is not a fixed entity, nor does it have an actual structure that can control/limit the actions of it's "members". Therefore, it is impossible to enter a meaningful agreement with them as there is no way of binding future behavior or enforcing the agreement in any way. This year's votes in congress do not (and I believe cannot) prevent a future congress from going a different direction. Because of this, any "compromise" that requires parties refrain from certain future activities for an indefinite period is, at best, just delaying a fight -- not WINNING it.

 

[BuckCreek]

Hello, The topic I would like to discuss is the email I sent to the NRA. I am going to post what I said and it is just an idea I thought up this morning and I would like to hear your guys opinion. I am not a gun control advocate by any means and the letter I sent excluded ar15 sporting rifles because they will always hate us for owning them. The other thing is all the types of shotguns, handguns, and guns like 10/22's, m1a's, and tactical bolt guns will remain untouched. Those guns in my opinion can be qualified as hunting and sport shooting guns. So here we go.

hello,
I understand that the NRA takes a very firm stance on gun politics and I believe in that. I am an NRA member, a college student, a license to carry civilian, and I own a multitude of guns. I am worried about the future of the NRA seeing how the public is starting to doubt some gun legislation. I was wondering what would the NRA's stance would be if we were to come to an agreement with the liberal politicians in congress on gun reform. IF we were to support the background check system and the mental health system they want, could we in turn agree to a universal concealed carry law throughout the 50 states? and on top of that insure that the gun control lobby sees handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles as viable means for hunting, protection, and hobby sport shooting? If we could come to that agreement and get their guarantee that they will not lobby against those types of firearms would the two groups be better off? I am just curious as to what the leaders of the NRA's opinions are. Thank you and Molon Labe!

Again this is not something I am comfortable agreeing to, but at the same time I am wondering if the public is turning on us because of the media portraying us as evil and guns evil? I AM comfortable though to express this concern on this site. Thanks guys

Patriot3,

No disrespect, but I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Additionally I believe the Founding Fathers made it pretty clear when they added the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", especially with the "shall not be infringed" part. Add to that the Indiana Constitution ARTICLE 1 Section 32. "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

In my opinion our government and the gun control types have infringed far too much on our inalienable rights. Yes we have made some strides toward reclaiming those rights, but we have a long way to go before we get back to what our Founding Fathers intended. They knew well that governments tend to grow and seek ever more power over the people they govern. That is why they put in place and made it clear certain rights were off limits. Unfortunately over time people in our government have forgotten the message or twisted the words and meaning of our Constitution to further their greed for power. We have slowly over time allowed them to infringe on more and more of our rights. The rate at which this was progressing increased drastically with 9/11 and the 2nd term of our current President. The current administration is blatantly abusing power and infringing on our rights at an ever increasing and frightening rate. Many have either been blissfully unaware of it, turned a blind eye to it, or had the proverbial wool pulled over their eyes by the government, mass media, and Bloombergs of the world.

The liberals are more than happy to slowly chip away at the foundation of our rights until the whole of our rights come tumbling down into the pile of rubble that they want. Any concessions they leave in their legislation are later removed as loopholes. If they can't win by passing laws here they sign UN treaties that threaten our rights and could be used against us. Do you not see the pattern? You wish to give up more of your rights for an "agreement" or their "guarantee"? Once they have the law in place what is to stop them from going back on said "agreement" or "guarantee" the next session to close the "loophole" that was in the previous legislation to "fix" it? While you ponder that let me point back to what Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

As to universal background checks or should I say back door registry.... They will neither stop criminals from acquiring firearms, nor reduce crime. They WILL burden law abiding citizens greatly. They WILL provide the federal government with a back door registry, and if history has anything to teach us WILL lead to gun confiscation.

Where did you get the idea they want mental health checks? They don't want the mental health records involved. They want to keep them protected.

Finally as to your outlining certain firearms that would be off limits to them banning, while offering others up for sacrifice. First there are those of us that hunt with the AR platform. Second, and more importantly, our Founding Fathers didn't put the 2nd amendment in there to protect hunting, they put it there to serve as a final last resort failsafe against an oppressive government that has become an enemy of the liberty and freedom of its people. You could also say that our Founding Fathers, and without a doubt, the founders of our state meant for the right to keep and bear arms by individuals to be for their individual defense along with the defense of the state from all enemies foreign and domestic. That domestic part would include a government run awry and oppressing its people if all other options had been exhausted. They intended the government to fear the people, not the other way around. Unfortunately today it is more and more backwards from what they intended. So...when people say "oh it doesn't mean the same firearms used by military"....those people are dead wrong. Our Founding Fathers meant for the firearms to be the same as those used by the military. Heck our Founding Fathers didn't even want a large standing military, as they saw a large standing military to be a threat to our freedom and liberty. They saw a standing military as a weapon that could be wielded by an oppressive government against its own people, something they did not want at all.

I encourage you attend a Liberty Seed sometime. ( LibertySeed / RWVA ) It might help you to understand the mindset and what would have been fresh on our Founding Fathers's minds when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I am curious as to why you used the term "Molon Labe" if you are willing to surrender some of your rights?

A wise man once suggested to me that it ought to be that for every new law they pass they should have to repeal or do away with 2 others. I would take it a step further, and say that the 2 others should be ones that infringe on rights as opposed to ones that protect any rights.

While I strongly and adamantly disagree with your idea of compromise in regard to our rights. I thank you for prompting me to organize and type out some of my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Bill of Rights]

"Dialogue" in this context usually plays out, as others have said, as "Give up that which you treasure for nothing more than me asking or demanding it".

I don't often phrase it this way on here, but, plainly and succinctly put, "F*** "dialogue"!" I agree that compromise is supposed to be a give and take from both sides, and all I see is them taking and us giving. You want a compromise, how about this: "You take your grubby paws off our guns and more importantly, off our rights. Leave us the hell alone. Do the job the Constitution defines as yours and other than that, stay out of our way. Let us innovate and build and grow, and protect us from those who would infringe upon THOSE rights. If you do that, we may let you stay in office, doing the work of governing a nation, not stealing personal power and influence for yourselves. You start by reading the Constitution you swore to uphold. After that, you live by it. You work under it. You accept the yoke it places on you, of your own free will, and you bear it happily. THAT is public service. That's your job. Running our lives is OUR (collective) job."

I say again, "F*** "dialogue"!"

As for all or nothing resulting in nothing... How many of you have Molon Labe or a Gadsden flag as a symbol or motto you use as a guide?

Here's a hint: The Gadsden was not meant to be pretty.... it was and is a warning.

I don't display one. I don't even own one. As to whether or not I'll follow what it means... I may. I may not. No one's going to know one way or the other at this point in time.

Blessings,
Bill

...
Overall, the persecution complex is misplaced. We need to accept the fact that other American citizens, whose votes count just as much as yours or mine, interpret the poorly-worded 2A differently, and we need to have a dialogue with them in good faith. "Hell no" is not dialogue.....

 

[shades171]

Quote from the movie "Air Force One":

President James Marshall: Kathryn, if you give a mouse a cookie...
Vice President Kathryn Bennett: It's gonna want a glass of milk.

This is in reference of negotiating.

 

[Scutter01]

[video=youtube;DaAnrouJiOY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaAnrouJiOY[/video]

In case the allegory isn't clear, we're the giant disembodied floating head and the dwarves and kid fleeing in terror are the anti-gunners. I feel like that didn't need to be explained.

 

[Henry]

To the original poster:

I will simply abide by the natural rights documented in the Second Amendment.

I fully expect the government to observe that amendment for what it is; a restriction on the state.

The Constitution was designed as a restriction on the state, not on the people. That is what I recognize.

Nothing less... Nothing more.

 

[GIJEW]

Schumer admitted that UBC doesn't work without REGISTRATION. Ask the subjects of any police state (to include places like 'new cuba, new york') what the purpose of registration is. So, what's so great about getting to "keep" what is ours in exchange for giving them a 'hit list' so they can kick down all the right doors?
As for the "gun show loophole" BS, consider it from the criminal's perspective: 1) you have to PAY to get in 2) next, you have to interact with LEO who want to check that you're pistol is unloaded and zip-tie it (do you have your LTCH sir?)--maybe the same ones who have busted you before and know you have no business there 3) all the licensed dealers will make you do a NICS check (and maybe say something to the LEO if they get suspicious) 4) the "unlicensed dealers", in an act of CYA, will probably ask to see your LTCH (and might say something to the LEO at the front door if they get suspicious) 5) some of the buyers (and sellers?)are LEO--who you don't want to try and buy from 6) everyone will expect you to pay close to RETAIL, not the 'pennies-on-the-$' you're used to paying for stolen goods 7) most everybody around you owns guns to deal with thugs like YOU! On the other hand, you could just do a deal in the parking lot of your favorite bar and take bets on whether eric holder would prosecute you for not telling the FBI you're buying a gun.
And the anti-gun fascists say WE are unreasonable? Maybe they're as stupid as they think we are?

 

[actaeon277]

We had UBC in Indiana, 20 years. Cost booku $. Results..... Nada. Money would have been better spent tracking down dirtbags.

Canada had UBC. Mega-booku $ spent. Results..... Nada. Money would have been better spent tracking down dirtbags.


So, the definition of insanity is what????