Poll: Article and Poll: The Path Forward On Guns

[L84Cabo]

*** Unfortunately this article is a tad bit long. But you have to read it ALL before you weigh in and vote. ***


The article starts with what the Gun Control side gets. Don't just shut down and say "no" immediately. There's some pretty big concessions on the Gun Rights side such as silencers, national reciprocity, and elimination of the barrel length requirements. Again, please read it all.

Also, I'm not familiar with who the author is. If anyone has any background on him, please share.


Interesting Take on "The Path Forward on Guns"


Note: I'm dreaming here but if there was something in this that said, "Democrats have to shut their pie holes and not push any gun legislation for the next 10 years," I'd have a hard time saying no to this. I absolutely do not like the bump stock concession. But I'm not sure it's a hill that I want to die on if we get what we get out of this.

Read More

 

[MasterChief]

I read most of it......Never compromise, unless you are getting more than you are giving up.....and I think this is giving up more than gaining.....does it make some sense.....if the ANTI's would abide by their own rules.....but I dont think they will....give it one mass shooting with a M-249 and they will demand more.....but the M249 was stolen from a army base?....doesn't matter .....ban them all. It's easy to play in theoreticals but that is not reality. You cant fight a war with an ever changing battlefield/weapons if the other side gets to choose the terms.

 

[L84Cabo]

I read most of it......Never compromise, unless you are getting more than you are giving up.....and I think this is giving up more than gaining.....does it make some sense.....if the ANTI's would abide by their own rules.....but I dont think they will....give it one mass shooting with a M-249 and they will demand more.....but the M249 was stolen from a army base?....doesn't matter .....ban them all. It's easy to play in theoreticals but that is not reality. You cant fight a war with an ever changing battlefield/weapons if the other side gets to choose the terms.

There is a larger issue here...and that is that there is a strong and ever growing contingent within the Democratic Party that is outright anti-America. They are anti Bill of Rights, pro socialism, even pro communism. There can be no peace and no securing of the Republic until that contingent is dealt with. And they will remain pacified only until the next opportunity is spotted where they can grab another piece of liberty. As good as this proposal might sound, I don't believe there should be any compromise on our part.

 

[bolus]

There is no compromise until they people screaming to have someone take their rights away starts with what they offer to restore for gun owners. It is not a compromise in my opinion to not have to register a rifle with a 15" barrel and not with a 16" barrel. That was already a compromise.

Anti-gun people are winning. Coming out and trying to say take away the second amendment and ban assault rifles is a dumb emotion fueled reaction. If they were smart they would keep chipping away with gun control laws every year like usual. No one is going to revolt if they make bump stocks illegal this year. And next year they make something else illegal. They already have a winning strategy to slowly make gun owners criminals over time.

Jumping right to banning anything that takes a magazine or going straight for the second amendment clearly shows there isnt any critical thinking to their approach. And that means there is no chance of compromise. Its like trying to compromise with the tapeworm in your bowel.

People are really at the point of saying kill gun owners to save lives. Does that sound like someone that would negotiate?


I pick 2 and 3 but it wont let me vote twice.

 

[slimmer13]

From a practical point of view, since the described compromises in the article are less strict than current Worshington state law, id be all over it. From a philosophical POV, eff that.

 

[notazombie]

Nope.

 

[Boboclown]

Things I agree with in the article: Removing suppressors from the NFA, repeal barrel length laws so you don't have an arbitrary $200 tax on a short barreled rifle, concealed carry permit reciprocity, and fixing the media's portrayal of the mass shooting events.

Everything else? Nope.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No.
You can not compromise or work with people who always want one more :
Ban...
Law...
Regulation...
Restriction...
Compromise...

Any law , ban , regulation , restriction will only work if folks are willing to abide by it...
Criminals are already working and thinking outside of the law , ban , regulation , restriction ...so more of the same will not stop crime and criminals.

Law abiding gun owners are the only ones who are affected by any ban , law , restriction , regulation , compromise...
Andy

 

[Geardo]

This was written by a guy who is pro-gun. I agree with it in theory, but in principal, I know the Antis will never stop.