Gun Control "Compromise'

[CBDV]

Taken from a gun board I am a member of -

 

"I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control

camp ... except, it's not compromise.

 

Allow me to illustrate:

 

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN

RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you

come and say, "Give me that cake."

 

I say, "No, it's my cake."

 

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by

asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to

keep half of my cake.

 

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National

Firearms Act of 1934.

 

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my

cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

 

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

 

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this

compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I

already own.

 

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of

1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of

my cake.

 

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and

here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

 

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the

Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what

has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

 

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have

already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

 

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act

(nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement

(nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM).

Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act

(sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

 

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I

lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what

was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with

most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being

"reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise"

as you try for the rest of my cake.

 

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic

Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel

of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I

owned, and a host of other things.

 

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy

a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without

.Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose

in this "compromise"?

 

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms

anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no

restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've

got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving

firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and

how I buy or sell guns.

 

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY

DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND

AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the

importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

 

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968

"compromise"?

 

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly

deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or

convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your

side lose in this "compromise"?

 

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter

is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give

up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and

giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now

wants to take more.

 

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake

now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always

will be.

 

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

[mcpapa]

Just to be clear - are you advocating that we should all be able to go out and buy fully automatic Thompsons or anti-tank guns?

[Run To State]

Just to be clear - are you advocating that we should all be able to go out and buy fully automatic Thompsons or anti-tank guns?

I can't speak for him, but my take would be gun owners have given enough while the opposition has given nothing. Enough is enough. Stop striping away at our right to own guns.

[Jumper_Dad]

Just to be clear - are you advocating that we should all be able to go out and buy fully automatic Thompsons or anti-tank guns?

 

You can buy a fully automatic Thompson today if you want one, legally. Just need $16,000 and ATF approval.

[BigVMan23]

Compromise:

 

n. noun

 

1.A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

 

2.The result of such a settlement.

 

3.Something that combines qualities or elements of different things.

 

As RTS said, when one side gets what they wanted or even some of what they wanted and GIVE nothing, that's not a compromise.

[Dlbdonn]

I can't speak for him, but my take would be gun owners have given enough while the opposition has given nothing. Enough is enough. Stop striping away at our right to own guns.

What have gun advocates given up lately ?

[LIPTON BASH]

What have gun advocates given up lately ?

 

Why should they have to give up anything? What have gun-control people given up ever.

[Bluegrasscard]

What have gun advocates given up lately ?

 

NY magazine limits is one.

[Run To State]

What have gun advocates given up lately ?

I can't think of one good reason why we should have to give anything up. What have gun advocates asked you to give up?

[Bert]

What have gun advocates given up lately ?

 

I tend to look at it from a different direction. Have the gun rights given up so far really accomplished much? Are measurable lives being saved?

 

One that has often made me wonder is putting so much restriction on suppressors or as the media and Hollywood mistakenly call them, silencers. For all those who feel suppressors should still be restricted, have you ever been near a gun shot with a suppressor? Trust me, it is nothing like the sound you hear in movies. It is pretty dang loud, if shot indoors, you should probably still wear hearing protection, outdoors probably not needed but certainly loud enough that everyone within shooting range of you would probably hear it. So people who think keeping suppressors restricted makes secretly killing someone and being able to sneak away more difficult is kidding themselves. That law is purely a feel good law and has no real substance.

 

Another was the laughable Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. The best part of that law was how they could barely define an assault weapon so it showed the writers of the law had no idea what they were trying to regulate. When you read what was restricted, it virtually had only to do with the looks of a gun rather than the operation of a gun. For instance if a semi automatic rifle which used detachable magazines were to have a pistol grip and a folding or telescoping stock, it was a prohibited assault weapon. However, an identical rifle which did not have either the pistol grip or the folding or telescoping stock was perfectly legal. Now, how a pistol grip or folding/telescoping stock suddenly made that rifle operate different and now more dangerous is beyond me.

 

I could go on about other gun control laws which are feel good only but most would be similar to the above.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Bert

[mcpapa]

You can buy a fully automatic Thompson today if you want one, legally. Just need $16,000 and ATF approval.

 

Understood, but it didn't answer my question.:lol2:

[Bert]

I tend to look at it from a different direction. Have the gun rights given up so far really accomplished much? Are measurable lives being saved?

 

I look at this similar to restricting alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for thousands of deaths on the roads yearly. Alcohol addiction destroys thousands of families. Despite these, most Americans will say that Prohibition sounded great but as actually a bad policy. Taking away the rights of 99% of alcohol consumers who consume responsibly just because of the 1% who cannot is not a good policy for a country that prides itself on freedom and liberty. Similar to gambling. Numerous bankruptcies and loss of homes of families and suicides occur due to gambling addiction. Does that mean no one should be able to gamble? I don't think so and neither do many people as more and more states are allowing expanded gambling. I look the same way towards high capacity magazines and semi automatic rifles.

 

Some will say why do you need hi capacity magazine or semi automatic rifles. The truth is I don't. The same way I don't need alcohol but I should not be prohibited from buying it even though it results in many deaths on the road. I don't need the ability to go to a casino to gamble but I don't think I should be prohibited from doing so even though it bankrupts some households, I don't need red meat but think I should be allowed to even though obesity and heart disease are at terrible levels in the US. I look at gun control the same way I look at alcohol, gambling and other "vices" control.

[Bluegrasscard]

Constitutional right as a vice - interesting concept.

[Bert]

Constitutional right as a vice - interesting concept.

 

I don't look at gun ownership and carry as a vice but you can guarantee the gun control crowd does, I was just trying to speak their language.

[Jumper_Dad]

Understood, but it didn't answer my question.:lol2:

OK I'll answer it, yes we can buy them and law abiding citizens should be allowed to own them.