JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
...


It does only exist in their minds. As such they should have to prove it is something more than their succumbing to the fallacy of misleading vividness. Violent crime and murder are at historic lows. Prattling histrionics that we are experiencing a bloodbath of epidemic proportions certainly garner attention from those unwilling to view reality, but it is not something to base laws upon....

Like you, I'd like laws and decisions to be based upon good numbers and good facts, however, we live in a country run by elected officials who cater to voters. Many of the voters are not very well informed, or easily brainwashed folks who barely take the time to pencil in their choices, even In Oregon where they mail you a ballot! Perceptions are very powerful in this system and there is a lot of brainwashing going on. Thinking that numerical arguments are going to allow us to keep our gun rights is an act of faith.

Prattling histrionics sounds like a good description of a lot of the arguments on this forum, or off the AM radio where this morning, I heard an incomplete argument, that would make an idiot blush, put forth by a yapping phony who kept repeating the phrase 'The Regime'. Since this fellow is worth a heck of money and is syndicated all over I will, under no circumstances, ever, underrate the power of 'Prattling Histrionics'. Of course, the left has it's own brand of this 'commodity. People who present honest facts as a path to decision making don't seem to have much of a market share of the media.

There are about 8,000 gun homicides in the country per year, the vast majority with handguns, yeah, not many, but look at all the attention being put on this issue!
 
We do live in a country run by officials, elected and otherwise, who cater; some to the voters, many to power and money, and a few to the rule of law. Unfortunately, this leaves us living on that 'act of faith' that our laws will be Just in much the same way that it is an act of faith that 'compromise' with prohibitionists will mean only one more law. History proves otherwise on all accounts.
There are about 8,000 gun homicides in the country per year, the vast majority with handguns, yeah, not many, but look at all the attention being put on this issue!
A thinking person might ask why this is so. I am by no means the smartest man around, but any answers I can think of all point in the same general direction.
 
We do live in a country run by officials, elected and otherwise, who cater; some to the voters, many to power and money, and a few to the rule of law. Unfortunately, this leaves us living on that 'act of faith' that our laws will be Just in much the same way that it is an act of faith that 'compromise' with prohibitionists will mean only one more law. History proves otherwise on all accounts.

A thinking person might ask why this is so. I am by no means the smartest man around, but any answers I can think of all point in the same general direction.

The US Constitution, and it's ratification, is an example of a compromise that worked (though I'm sure some here will say. "Nah it never worked", lol). The States wanted to keep their power and were suspicious of any potential Federal Gov, the Federal Gov wanted to tax but without the Constitution had no right to, Small states worried about being dominated by more populous ones, and so we have this marvelous cobble.

I don't find one direction to point at, though the gov is a big direction in an of itself. The police want registration and tracking, so do the FBI, and Homeland Security, but IMHO our biggest, and strongest, opponent is our fellow citizens. As long as scumbags keep shooting people, How we look to others will determine the future of our gun rights.

And about prohibitionists, I seem to remember the 18th was repealed, and I suspect most prohibitionists were pleased by that.
 
The US Constitution, and it's ratification, is an example of a compromise that worked (though I'm sure some here will say. "Nah it never worked", lol). The States wanted to keep their power and were suspicious of any potential Federal Gov, the Federal Gov wanted to tax but without the Constitution had no right to, Small states worried about being dominated by more populous ones, and so we have this marvelous cobble.

I don't find one direction to point at, though the gov is a big direction in an of itself. The police want registration and tracking, so do the FBI, and Homeland Security, but IMHO our biggest, and strongest, opponent is our fellow citizens. As long as scumbags keep shooting people, How we look to others will determine the future of our gun rights.

And about prohibitionists, I seem to remember the 18th was repealed, and I suspect most prohibitionists were pleased by that.
Compromise to put the Constitution in place involved each party giving something up so that each could get something greater. How does that equate to 'compromise' with gun prohibitionists? What have they given up and what have we gained? The gun prohibitionists have 'given up' the totality of everything they are asking for while gaining some of it and 2A supporters have given up whatever they have gained and in turn we have gained nothing in reality. I still think you are confusing compromise with conciliation.

How we 'look' certainly can help, but in the end it matters not how we. I hate to put it this way, but think of this; You and I will never 'look' right to a hard line Islamic radical... unless we fully capitulated to their demands and most likely convert. Perhaps that is a bit simplistic for the 2A issue, but it is close enough.

I wonder if you make the mistake of looking at this solely from a present view. To illustrate this, lets look at the Patriot Act and NDAA. From a present view (meaning today and not considering more than 12 years ago) some group could demand an expansion of these programs, another group could demand they stay where they are. They 'compromise' and end up somewhere in the middle of what the two want. The demanding group 'gave up' everything they were asking for in exchange for something less and the status quo group gave up staying as things were at the beginning of their present exchange and 'gained' the relief of not giving everything to the demanding group. In reality the demanding group gave up nothing and the status quo group gained nothing. This is the same with gun prohibitionists.
 
he said something along the lines of "if arizona law were different" and "if the shooter were adjudicated as mentally ill then he would've failed the background check."

And if chickens had lips could they whistle?
 
Compromise to put the Constitution in place involved each party giving something up so that each could get something greater. How does that equate to 'compromise' with gun prohibitionists? What have they given up and what have we gained? The gun prohibitionists have 'given up' the totality of everything they are asking for while gaining some of it and 2A supporters have given up whatever they have gained and in turn we have gained nothing in reality. I still think you are confusing compromise with conciliation.

How we 'look' certainly can help, but in the end it matters not how we. I hate to put it this way, but think of this; You and I will never 'look' right to a hard line Islamic radical... unless we fully capitulated to their demands and most likely convert. Perhaps that is a bit simplistic for the 2A issue, but it is close enough.

I wonder if you make the mistake of looking at this solely from a present view. To illustrate this, lets look at the Patriot Act and NDAA. From a present view (meaning today and not considering more than 12 years ago) some group could demand an expansion of these programs, another group could demand they stay where they are. They 'compromise' and end up somewhere in the middle of what the two want. The demanding group 'gave up' everything they were asking for in exchange for something less and the status quo group gave up staying as things were at the beginning of their present exchange and 'gained' the relief of not giving everything to the demanding group. In reality the demanding group gave up nothing and the status quo group gained nothing. This is the same with gun prohibitionists.

I predict that within the next ten years there will be a law demanding universal background checks (could be wrong). Having universal background checks with the compromise that they are fast, free, and online is better than universal background checks that are slow, expensive, and require you to travel to a state office. In addition, as a responsible gun owner I don't want to sell a weapon to someone who is irresponsible, so I don't see that me being able to check out a buyer, easily, costs me at all.

There are people like Islamic radicals on both sides of this issue.

I don't understand your example of the NDAA, no change because opposing forces are matched is a temporary condition, not a permanent one, unless you think that forces are going to stay matched on the gun issue?
 
If people really understood that once or 2A liberties/permissions are gone and the registrations, then confiscations begin it is over. Once hard core tyranny takes hold it is done.

The Oligarchs/Plutocracy that control this nation/corp desperately want private ownership of any guns/knives/weapons GONE. I almost find humor in the fact that despite all sorts of FF/trickery that haven't been able to attain that goal.

They always eventually get what they want though as they take more desperate measures and amp up their game. They already have all the important politicians, judges, military, police, etc in their back pocket as well as 'irrational fear/emotions' as their main card.

I wholeheartedly agree with the 'no compromises' people. Once a tic jabs you it won't stop until it bleeds you dry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I predict that within the next ten years there will be a law demanding universal background checks (could be wrong). Having universal background checks with the compromise that they are fast, free, and online is better than universal background checks that are slow, expensive, and require you to travel to a state office. In addition, as a responsible gun owner I don't want to sell a weapon to someone who is irresponsible, so I don't see that me being able to check out a buyer, easily, costs me at all.

There are people like Islamic radicals on both sides of this issue.

I don't understand your example of the NDAA, no change because opposing forces are matched is a temporary condition, not a permanent one, unless you think that forces are going to stay matched on the gun issue?
And still you seem to confuse compromise with conciliation. This is what you are supporting with your 'compromise'.

The forces will not stay matched on the 2A issue if people like you don't pull your heads out and realize that when gun prohibitionists say 'compromise' they mean 'we'll take as much as we can and give nothing in return.' They are using newspeak. Wake up, man!

See Burt's video link above for a different take on the gun prohibitionists drive to this point.
 
And still you seem to confuse compromise with conciliation. This is what you are supporting with your 'compromise'.

The forces will not stay matched on the 2A issue if people like you don't pull your heads out and realize that when gun prohibitionists say 'compromise' they mean 'we'll take as much as we can and give nothing in return.' They are using newspeak. Wake up, man!

See Burt's video link above for a different take on the gun prohibitionists drive to this point.

Talking heads that are doped up on media hype can't differentiate the two.....
 
@Bugeye - I'm curious, would you be in favor of some kind of universal background check to be sure that someone can exercise their right to free speech? freedom of religion? You can't deny the fact that while words are not lethal in the same sense as guns, they can and do kill. How many kids are committing suicide because of bullying? What about people like David Koresh of the Branch Davidians? He was simply exercising his right to free speech and freedom of religion and ended up causing the death of dozens of men, women and children. We don't require a background check for people to freely use words. We don't require it for exercising our freedom of religion. Heck, we don't require a background check for people to buy cigarettes, but according to the CDC, smoking causes more deaths per year by far than firearms. Why then should we 'compromise' and give up our rights under the 2nd amendment (as upheld by the Supreme Court) and submit to these checks, which are always matched with registration?

I don't see how this can go anywhere but from bad to worse if we expand the checks beyond what they already are. Or, perhaps a different compromise - we allow the background checks but forbid registration of the type, make, model, serial number, caliber or quantity of any guns purchased? That way, you can have your comforting feelings of having the background check done, but don't have to dig deeper into the business of what they want to buy. It shouldn't be anyone's business as long as it's a legal firearm. The only thing that information does is better arm the government with an accounting of who has what - and that will rarely, if ever, stop a crime.
 
And still you seem to confuse compromise with conciliation.

I spent most of my adult life watching California politicians " compromise " when it came to my rights, the problem is, it was NEVER compromise. More like bend over here it comes... It seems all the nanny state supporters have this vocabulary issue.

Having universal background checks with the compromise that they are fast, free, and online is better than universal background checks that are slow, expensive, and require you to travel to a state office.

Your example is NOT compromise. This is exactly how California got into the mess it is in now. One law at a time, on calguns, we called it death of a thousand cuts.

A compromise is when BOTH parties settle a dispute by MUTUAL concession.

No more compromise from me.
 
Let's just for a minute, entertain this notion of "fast, free, and online". Right now, the State Police are the gatekeepers of the criminal database. Inquiries require a signature and some pretty specific personal identification from the person being investigated. There is also the paper trail of legally required documents to be saved, that will verify the signature, a.k.a., permission to perform the investigation.

Making it "fast, free, and online, requires that the barriers, or safeguards provided by the gatekeepers be taken down so that anyone has authorization to access the database. Now, I'll be the first to admit that it would be interesting to see how many of our elected officials would be cleared to posses a gun. However, it raises significant privacy issues for the rest of us that are simply not addressed.

Now who was that short, and somewhat annoying multi-millionaire that said something about the devil being in the details? Maybe he was on to something!
 
Do you want freedom from tyranny? Then support the Second Amendment as it is written, " shall NOT be infringed"..

You want some jackboot brownshirt thug pounding on your door at 1:00am, asking for your papers, weapons, IDs, etc? Then compromise cowards!
 
I spent most of my adult life watching California politicians " compromise " when it came to my rights, the problem is, it was NEVER compromise. More like bend over here it comes... It seems all the nanny state supporters have this vocabulary issue.



Your example is NOT compromise. This is exactly how California got into the mess it is in now. One law at a time, on calguns, we called it death of a thousand cuts.

A compromise is when BOTH parties settle a dispute by MUTUAL concession.

No more compromise from me.

I'm not sure what rights you lost in CA?

Personally, I've gained something if I can check out a buyer without any trouble, so what have I given up? This system would make a purchase from a store faster too. Keep in mind the NRA, up until most recently, supported universal background checks, So, this is really just a bargaining point anyway.

The advantage here is that responsible gun owners distance themselves from the criminals, gangs, and nutcases that are on the news everyday. I can't make a quantifiable case that this will help us retain our far more important gun rights into the future, but anything responsible gun owners can do to show we aren't scumbags couldn't hurt. We are losing a popularity contest, throwing a few perceptual trinkets to the growing angry mob to direct them toward the real problem seems smart.
 
Do you want freedom from tyranny? Then support the Second Amendment as it is written, " shall NOT be infringed"..

You want some jackboot brownshirt thug pounding on your door at 1:00am, asking for your papers, weapons, IDs, etc? Then compromise cowards!

The 2nd from Wikipedia
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.
One version was passed by the Congress,[24][25][26][27][28]
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[29]
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]
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. "

I propose compromise to keep that jackboot away from our doors!
 
I'm not sure what rights you lost in CA?

Personally, I've gained something
:huh:

if I can check out a buyer without any trouble, so what have I given up? This system would make a purchase from a store faster too. ... this is really just a bargaining point anyway.
:huh: You can already check out a buyer and you still advocate for giving up a Right, yet I suspect you are completely oblivious to that fact. It would not make it any faster and would most likely make it slower with higher demand due to UBCs. RIGHTS ARE NOT BARGAINING POINTS!!!!

The advantage here is that responsible gun owners distance themselves from the criminals, gangs, and nutcases that are on the news everyday. I can't make a quantifiable case that this will help us retain our far more important gun rights into the future, but anything responsible gun owners can do to show we aren't scumbags couldn't hurt.
You go right ahead and keep on this track. You are playing their game by trying to defend your moral and legal activities. Where is your outrage at being equated with the gangs, criminals and nutcases?!? And nearly anyone can give a quantifiable case that this will NOT help us retain our Rights. Just look at CA and the unlawful confiscations that are happening there.

We are losing a popularity contest, throwing a few perceptual trinkets to the growing angry mob to direct them toward the real problem seems smart.
Rights as perceptual trinkets...

I propose compromise to keep that jackboot away from our doors!
Please, look up the full definitions of 'compromise', 'consession', and 'conciliation', from several sources. That may help your confusion.

The jackboot will NEVER stop with a compromise, especially a 'compromise' that is in reality a concession or a conciliation on your part. The jackboot will see it as license that their views and actions are legitimate.

Use some critical thought and challenge your own arguments. Pick them apart for yourself. You are assisting in giving away the Rights of all Americans by advocating for your 'compromise'!
 
The advantage here is that responsible gun owners distance themselves from the criminals, gangs, and nutcases that are on the news everyday. I can't make a quantifiable case that this will help us retain our far more important gun rights into the future, but anything responsible gun owners can do to show we aren't scumbags couldn't hurt. We are losing a popularity contest, throwing a few perceptual trinkets to the growing angry mob to direct them toward the real problem seems smart.

You are implying that all of the law abiding citizens are somehow the same as criminals. Just what is your motive on this forum? Is this some form of mental masturbation for you?
 
What bugeye and other compromising types should think about is future generations ,"for ourselves and our posterity"—not only for our children and our grandchildren, but literally for "all succeeding generations.". You might be comfortable with the antis small toe hold of "harmless" internet BG checks. And in your short lifetime it may not go further than that.
But you must know and history proves again and again that these compromises with time lead to more restrictions.
Those A.M. radio "loudmouths" might just be so passionate about what they speak of because they feel not just their 2nd A rights and in turn their Country slipping away, but their Grandkids future slipping away as well.
I choose NO COMPROMISE!
 
The 2nd from Wikipedia
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.
One version was passed by the Congress,[24][25][26][27][28]
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[29]
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]
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. "

OMG!!
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top