-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Compromise on the 2nd amendment
- Thread starter Fishfinder
- Start date
I used to think the way the article uses as an example - that it was "okay" to compromise a "little" because hey, it's just a "little" and that seems fair and reasonable, etc.
Note, "used to think".
Not anymore. F that. No more compromising, we've seen what compromising does and the article makes mention of it directly. It just emboldens those who wish to see ALL of us disarmed or otherwise gimped
with more ham-fisted laws that don't do anything, other than making Liberals all "warm and fuzzy". No thanks.
Note, "used to think".
Not anymore. F that. No more compromising, we've seen what compromising does and the article makes mention of it directly. It just emboldens those who wish to see ALL of us disarmed or otherwise gimped
with more ham-fisted laws that don't do anything, other than making Liberals all "warm and fuzzy". No thanks.
“According to the FBI, in 2015, 6,447 people were killed by handguns. The total number of people killed by rifles of all types was only 252, less than half the number of people (624) murdered by means of “hands, fists, and feet.” Yet the current obsession is not to ban handguns, but to outlaw AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles.”
Al458
NES Member
Don't worry if they succeed with banning ar's handguns will be next, the scary glock has to be banned, its for the children. Then it will be "well we banned the 2 most popular semi auto rifles and handguns, let's go for the rest, all in the name of safety.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,670
- Likes
- 49,216
I run an adblocker and couldnt read the article. Let me guess, theres no mention of them giving our side anything in return for our "compromise".
Sorry ,the comprise bank account is overdrawn.
How does this sound instead , F*ck off and leave me alone and I will offer you the same courtesy.
It's a much better plan for everyone.
It was a good article BTW.
How does this sound instead , F*ck off and leave me alone and I will offer you the same courtesy.
It's a much better plan for everyone.
It was a good article BTW.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,670
- Likes
- 49,216
The "f*ck bumpstocks" crew needs to read this. I dont give a shit about bumpstocks either, but I can read the writing on the wall. Bumpstocks today, >10 round mags tomorrow, then semi autos, then bolt action rifles will be referred to as military grade sniper rifles. It wont stop.
Any and all legislation that disarms civilians in any way regardless of how minor should be met by all of us with a resounding "NO" without even listening to what they have to say about it.
Any and all legislation that disarms civilians in any way regardless of how minor should be met by all of us with a resounding "NO" without even listening to what they have to say about it.
KBCraig
NES Member
Do you remember when the Brady Campaign was originally "National Council to Control Handguns"? Then it was renamed "Handgun Control, Inc.", and partnered with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (they split again, and NCBH became Coalition to Stop Gun Violence).
But anyway, in 2001, HCI was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Why are these anti-handgunners so concerned with rifles? Because they're going after the low-hanging fruit. If they can implement a national ban on modern rifles, they will next go after handguns, which are used in far more murders and other crimes. If they get that, they'll point out that hunters don't need more than three shots, and then they'll go after all repeaters, and eventually we'll be down to England's model, where a farmer can own just one single-barrel shotgun, as long as it's locked up separately from any ammunition, and only used for vermin control.
Well, it's also worth noting that after GCAt68 at least a bunch of "handgun control" had swung into place and they realized that adding any more got them more
political resistance, so they had to shift gears and dumb down the messaging even further.... You are right though, eventually they want to come back after
handguns, or more than likely, "anything semiautomatic" as a blanket.
-Mike
mikeyp
NES Member
Here
For years, we have been subjected to an endless barrage of claims that the NRA and the gun lobby stubbornly resist any compromises on new gun control legislation. New restrictions, in whatever form, are invariably characterized by euphemisms such as “sensible” and “reasonable.”
Of course the invocation of these terms presumes what must be demonstrated: Whether any new gun control laws, rules and regulations are indeed sensible and reasonable, and will achieve their stated goal of reducing violent crime.
Suppose you have a neighbor who disputes the boundary line between your properties. He wants to move it 10 feet so that your property is diminished and his enlarged. After a heated argument, you compromise on five feet, shake hands and go home. But the next day, the same neighbor is back with a demand that the new property line is also improper.
This time, he demands that it be moved 20 feet. Again, you compromise by splitting the difference and settling on 10 feet. You’re unhappy with losing your property, but are willing to surrender some land so as to maintain peace.
But when the same neighbor returns yet again and demands the property line be moved 50 feet, you suddenly realize he’s not interested in compromise at all. He wants all your property, and all the compromises and concessions you made merely emboldened and encouraged his criminal depredations.
So it’s been with the Second Amendment. In 1934, the first significant federal gun control law, the National Firearms Act, established strict controls on machine guns, suppressors and short-barreled rifles. The Gun Control Act of 1968 required that all gun purchases go through federally licensed dealers.
In 1986, the Hughes Amendment banned the sale of new machine guns. The Brady Act of 1993 required that every person who purchased a gun from a licensed dealer pass a background check and receive government approval.
If you think all of the laws I cited above are reasonable and consistent with the Second Amendment, try comparing firearms with the treatment of books under the First Amendment. If anyone were even to suggest that publishers be licensed by the government, dangerous books banned, or that individuals had to receive government permission before buying a book, people would turn purple and smoke would come out of their ears.
Yet the Second Amendment clearly and unambiguously asserts that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s pretty strong language. And surely no educated person is ignorant enough to believe that guns are inherently more dangerous than books and ideas.
After 84 years of appeasements and concessions on Second Amendment rights, the cry for new restrictions is now louder than ever. It ought to be apparent that the only thing we have achieved is to encourage further encroachments on our liberties and rights.
Furthermore, no prohibition on firearms has ever achieved its stated goal of reducing crime. There’s something else afoot.
The claim that we must have gun control to reduce crime is an utterly transparent lie. There are about half-a-million legal machine guns in private hands in the U.S. I can’t recall a single instance in which one of these weapons was ever used in a crime. Yet new sales were completely banned by the 1986 Hughes Amendment. Why?
According to the FBI, in 2015, 6,447 people were killed by handguns. The total number of people killed by rifles of all types was only 252, less than half the number of people (624) murdered by means of “hands, fists, and feet.” Yet the current obsession is not to ban handguns, but to outlaw AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles.
The chasm here between rhetoric and reality ought to tell you immediately that the true goal is not to reduce homicides, but to destroy the constitutional militia that is the ultimate safeguard of liberty and constitutional order. If the Second Amendment goes, the United States is done. And if we’re honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment has already been whittled away.
Can we compromise on guns? Of course we can. From the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, through the implementation of the National Firearms Act in 1934, we had a solution that worked. People were allowed to purchase any gun they wanted, but those who misused them were punished. We can compromise on firearms, but never on fundamental liberties.
• David Deming is professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and author of the series “Science and Technology in World History.”
fshalor
NES Member
Not a bad article. A few little glitches.
Useful talking data point from 2015.
I have to admit, I have been contemplating a few 160/2 kits for various things recently.
A year ago I never thought I would live to see the end of the United States. This feels like a tipping point has been achieved.
Are we really blowing this much political currency for less than 300 deaths a year(rifles)? Are we insane? More people die in hospitals from shitty care every day than that!
Useful talking data point from 2015.
I have to admit, I have been contemplating a few 160/2 kits for various things recently.
A year ago I never thought I would live to see the end of the United States. This feels like a tipping point has been achieved.
Are we really blowing this much political currency for less than 300 deaths a year(rifles)? Are we insane? More people die in hospitals from shitty care every day than that!
Remember back in the 70's , it was all about banning handguns, and not anyone paid any attention to banning any kind of rifle. Someone had a plan and changed their mode of attack. We are now seeing said attack in full force, via step one.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,670
- Likes
- 49,216
Thanks. I caved and allowed their ads.
It seems that all the hooplah to remove the Second Amendment is probably a smokescreen to get a Constitutional Convention to get rid of the Electoral College as well.
Without the Electoral College, is is easy for the owners of the Democratic Party to use their Fake News Media to influence and control the popular vote, and allows even more corruption and oppression of Civil Rights, as occurs now in the cities and states with strict, but unenforced, gun laws. {These are prime locations for drug gangs and corrupt politicians.}
Without the Electoral College, is is easy for the owners of the Democratic Party to use their Fake News Media to influence and control the popular vote, and allows even more corruption and oppression of Civil Rights, as occurs now in the cities and states with strict, but unenforced, gun laws. {These are prime locations for drug gangs and corrupt politicians.}
understood...but when it talks about compromise there is noting pro 2A about it. If it said NO Compromise on the 2nd Amendment I would be all for it. Leaving the work 'NO' out means they want compromise. I will never compromise. we have been compromised to death already.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Once upon a time I didn't care about gun laws. Then one day I started to care. Now I am glad that there were people out there fighting the good fight when I was apathetic regarding gun laws. I have since then tried being reasonable and honestly it doesn't work. The other side wants complete and utter civil disarmament. For what purpose? I have no idea. I also agree, no compromise, ever. Period, end of story.
Similar threads
