What would we actually accept?

[NHT3]

The interesting thing here is that Senator Reid made a compromise with the NRA (not sure how that happened) but in the Obamacare shamble, it protects the storing of personal data for gun owners. Im not sure there can be a compromise on anything "gun" related. Dems will start with ässault"rifles and just keep slowly taking things away

What "compromise" we didn't have it before and we still don't have it?? That's just the way the politicians want you to look at it.

 

[Warsaw214]

Most lawmakers address symptoms, and typically not the actual 'real' root-cause... Which is a opportunity in its self to address the actual root-cause of those lawmakers sponsoring these types of thoughtless legislation... Vote Them out...

 

[Bunnykid68]

I would compromise that all of them can retire immediately and have some run off elections to replace the lot of them

 

[dhnorris]

everything they're proposing will not do a thing except restrict law abiding citizens and create yet another "list" to put us on. ALK & the GD's are going to still be strapped. If dealing and killing are already against the law why would they follow any new gun laws? 20 white children dead is horrible, thousands of dead black and brown kids, who cares? Worthless turd "boyfriends" kill more children weekly year after year and what do they get? No one in the media speaks for the vulnerable except when it suits their political agenda. If the 2nd goes, the 5th amendment will be my new best friend.

 

[Birds Away]

I should have known it would derail into a barrage of "not a damn thing".

I dont disagree, our goal is not to compromise, but they will want SOMETHING. Congress may very well be incapable of passing ANYTHING, which is all we can hope for, but I am more interested in what people could actually live with. We are talking amongst ourselves, not in a negotiation with the other side. If we had to chose "X new rules" or "Feinstein's AWB Ban" what would "X new rules" be?

I don't think you get it. Enough is enough.

 

[TopDog]

I like many of us I have sent emails and written letters stating No AWB no magazine limits.

I would love to think that we are going to come out of this unscathed. In reality that is not going to happen. So compromise? Call it whatever you want, compromise or accepting what they decide. Every politician right now is seriously considering what impact his/her vote on upcoming proposed legislation will have on their career. To that end we are not going to make any infringements currently in law go away. If we are lucky with enough of our voices shouting at the politicians we can convince them if they infringe any further it will cost them dearly.

To that end the only change I can tolerate is an increase to access of mental heath records to support a NICS background check. Disclosure during the check if an individual is on any psychotropic drugs. We know that many of the mass shootings have been done by individuals under the influence of these drugs.

Before anyone responds with no compromise again, consider the true impact of psychotropic drugs. If we are indeed responsible gun owners then a gun owner being prescribed psychotropic drugs should be responsible enough to consider not carrying. My understanding is that only certain psychotropic drugs are involved in the mass shootings. Those should be the ones that impact a individuals ability to purchase and carry a firearm. Obviously some medical research will have to be done to determine which drugs are involved.

Go ahead, flame on. By the way in my letters and emails to politicians I dont mention this. I simply state I dont want any AWB or magazine restrictions.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I like many of us I have sent emails and written letters stating No AWB no magazine limits.

I would love to think that we are going to come out of this unscathed. In reality that is not going to happen. So compromise? Call it whatever you want, compromise or accepting what they decide. Every politician right now is seriously considering what impact his/her vote on upcoming proposed legislation will have on their career. To that end we are not going to make any infringements currently in law go away. If we are lucky with enough of our voices shouting at the politicians we can convince them if they infringe any further it will cost them dearly.

To that end the only change I can tolerate is an increase to access of mental heath records to support a NICS background check. Disclosure during the check if an individual is on any psychotropic drugs. We know that many of the mass shootings have been done by individuals under the influence of these drugs.

Before anyone responds with no compromise again, consider the true impact of psychotropic drugs. If we are indeed responsible gun owners then a gun owner being prescribed psychotropic drugs should be responsible enough to consider not carrying. My understanding is that only certain psychotropic drugs are involved in the mass shootings. Those should be the ones that impact a individuals ability to purchase and carry a firearm. Obviously some medical research will have to be done to determine which drugs are involved.

Go ahead, flame on. By the way in my letters and emails to politicians I dont mention this. I simply state I dont want any AWB or magazine restrictions.

Being prescribed any medication means nothing of itself.
Should we restrict people on Viagra and Nitroglycerin from driving, since taking these two at the same time could result in low blood pressure, unconsciousness, and thus car crashes? Or do we trust that the person on these medications knows better than to try to take them both at the same time?

Now, being on some of these medications, if you would research the pharmcokinetics of these drugs in the human body - particularly psychotropics, and especially modern psychotropics - you would spit the pills back out and throw them in the trash. Not only do some of their described, documented 'side-effects' include a worsening of the conditions they are intended to treat (depression, schizophrenia, etc.), as well as a demonstrable, noted increase in suicidality/homicidality in certain people.

Self-responsibility is one animal. Recognizing that you might not be of a personality or disposition to responsibly arm yourself is one thing, insofar as it is possible for a self-truthful person to admit that and come to that decision, which I would respect and admire for honesty, if not the rationale requiring that conclusion.

Forced governmental coercion is another. Horses of different calibers.

Until and unless someone unjustly harms another person with a firearm, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to justify attempting to take away that person's innate right to self-defense, and to defend others. How far down this murky path must we tread to submit to government's irrational and tyrannical demands? I don't think we need to give one inch on this. I'll let the tough decisions of whether someone is or is not fit to carry up to that person and the people who know that person well. Not government.

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

Compromise suggests that they are offering something we want. So far I have not seen them offer us anything we want. Why should we bother doing anything but opposing everything they desire?

 

[Signal23]

I could understand a form and check requirement for private sales (like me to you) and a stronger mental health history disqualifier. That's the most, and I mean most.

I must correct myself:

As a former dumb asc, I retract my above statement and insert and extended middle finger!! The Second Ammendment is the Second Ammendment, no changes. Infact, lets have a round table about removing what has already compromise my (ours and yours) rights.

Thank you, carry one

 

[jb1911]

I'm in the 1st congressional district, my congressturd is a democrat named Peter Visclosky. I sent him an email last week asking him to protect my 2nd amendment rights and I got an answer 2 days later. He told me that he is very interested in protecting my 2nd amendment rights, then in the next paragraph he told me that he is even more interested in taking away some of my 2nd amendment rights.

 

[jb1911]

Compromise suggests that they are offering something we want. So far I have not seen them offer us anything we want. Why should we bother doing anything but opposing everything they desire?

Libtards never give up anything. When they say they want compromise, they mean the other side needs to give in.

 

[stoyan79]

Everybody who is willing to compromise on his GOD given RIGHTS is a PU$$Y and a MORON.

Wait, I think somebody said it a little better.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

 

[TopDog]

Everybody who is willing to compromise on his GOD given RIGHTS is a PU$$Y and a MORON.

Wait, I think somebody said it a little better.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

If you own a firearm now and or have a LTCH and obey the laws. Then your 2nd amendment rights have already been compromised and you have participated in the compromising of the 2A. So that makes you in your words a *****. Your thinking is flawed at best.

 

[Sdixon]

Nothing more; we already have too many restrictions in place.
Last time I read the constitution I did not see an asterisk next to "...Shall not be infringed".

 

[Iroquois]

Nothing.....we should surrender nothing without getting something in return.California banned hi-cap mags...6months later they tried to reduce it more. If we give up hi-cap mags we should get interstate concealed carry...no city exemptions. Illinois too, and Chicago...
If we get universal background checks then no limits on private sales between states...if we have to follow dealer rules then we get dealer privilege s...No more backing down. We did not shoot those kids at Sandy Hook. Some loony who was armed by an irresponsible relative did. I refuse to surrender my rights or privilege s because of someone eldest crime.

 

[marinemom]

In my opinion, when you compromise, each party gives a little. What exactly would we be getting in this "compromise"? We stand to lose everything especially since that is the ultimate goal.
We have laws on the books. Criminals never have and never will obey the laws so I do not except any compromise!

 

[LP1]

If you can't make your point without name-calling (libtard, *****, moron), it means that you have a weak argument, or none at all. It also reflects badly on you and on all responsible gun owners.

 

[jb1911]

If you can't make your point without name-calling (libtard, *****, moron), it means that you have a weak argument, or none at all. It also reflects badly on you and on all responsible gun owners.

I thought I made a pretty good point. Read it again.

 

[rugertoter]

Background checks at gunshows, mag size.... That's it.. Enough compromises with these a$$ hats...

I agree with that.

 

[Slapstick]

The only compromise I would accept is that they go back through all the gun laws, get rid of the duplicates, those that aren't enforced and the utter BS ones. We'd only end up with one or 2 using that criteria.

Let's face folks we don't need new laws, murder, robbery, assault etc are already against the law whether it's done with a butter knife or a gun. WE need to enforce the laws we have on all crime so NO MORE COMPROMISES.