So, you want the NRA/pro-gun side to compromise...?

[GuyPinestra]

It happens every day. Under current federal laws, if you purchase a firearm at a gun show or from a private sale, there is no background check what so ever. Anyone, gang bangers, felons, america hating terrorists, all of these people can buy weapons with no questions asked. This is what is commonly refereed to as the "gun show loophole"

This fact has the right wingers pinned in the corner with no where to go.

So, where's the link that supports your statement? Where's the testimony that it happens 'every day'? Where's your 'proof?

Please don't tell me that you are so ignorant that you didn't know private guns sales don't require a background check,....

PRIVATE sales, which as I told you before, account for less than 2% of gun sales, your lie about gun shows notwithstanding.

Please don't tell me that you are so ignorant that you don't know that ALL dealers are required to do an NICS check for EVERY gun sale, REGARDLESS of where that sale is made, and please don't tell me that you are so ignorant that you don't know that over 90% of gun show sellers are licensed DEALERS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.

What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rights side?

Obama and the Democrats don't do Compromise, that would be why we haven't had a budget since mid 2009. They want to just get what ever they demand.

As we see here, this is 100% correct.

The anti-gun/pro-gun control side has nothing to offer the NRA/Pro-gun side, and wouldn't offer it if they did.

They don't wan't compromise, they want acquiescence, voluntary or othewise.

This is why the NRA/pro-gun side should never ever give an inch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Loosening up the restrictions on fully automatic weapons would be nice.

Lets say lifting the post-86 ban.
What would you be willing to give for that?

A private person selling guns at a gun show would need to have a background check done for each sale. Either by paying a dealer at the show or the sponsors of the show could provide it. Except if the buyer has a concealed weapons license.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The anti-gun/pro-gun control people will never go for it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would love my CWP/CCP to be honored in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Including New York City and Chicago. Even though I have no intentions of ever going to either one of those cess pools.

What would you be willing to give up to get that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sigh.......old news, let the right wingers make this a battle and talk about rights when they came up with the patriot act. Sigh.......

I see you did not address the OP in any way shape or form.
Why is that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.
What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rights side?

...Subsidies for penis enlargements?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cuyo, the second ammendment couldn't be any clearer:
"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then why the bit that you intentionally left out, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."?

Bear in mind also that "To Bear Arms" was a popular metaphor of the day to roughly translate as "To serve in the military."

It's far from cut and dry. If they wanted it cut and dry, it would be.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You don't have to like it, but you can only pretend that it is not so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME). Absolute idiocy.

Perhaps you did not notice that the entire topic revolves around copmromise.
What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer?

 

[Cuyo]

Cuyo, the second ammendment couldn't be any clearer:
"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then why the bit that you intentionally left out, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."?

Bear in mind also that "To Bear Arms" was a popular metaphor of the day to roughly translate as "To serve in the military."

It's far from cut and dry. If they wanted it cut and dry, it would be.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You don't have to like it, but you can only pretend that it is not so.

And to be sure, 5 out of 9 justices agreed with that interpretation in 2008. But 4 out of 9 did not, and the language is (in my belief, intentionally) ambiguous. We're aware that you've adopted the least restrictive interpretation possible, but don't pretend that the debate is not so.

Once more, if the intention was for there to be no regulation whatsoever, why not say so? If it was intended to be unconnected to military service, why lead off with the necessity of military service, and use an idiom strongly connected to military service at the time?

Fwiw, I don't even have a strong opinion on gun control; There's provocative arguments on both sides of the argument. But it's a little irritating when the pro-gun folks behave as though the debate doesn't exist.

 

[martybegan]

Then why the bit that you intentionally left out, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."?

Bear in mind also that "To Bear Arms" was a popular metaphor of the day to roughly translate as "To serve in the military."

It's far from cut and dry. If they wanted it cut and dry, it would be.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You don't have to like it, but you can only pretend that it is not so.

And to be sure, 5 out of 9 justices agreed with that interpretation in 2008. But 4 out of 9 did not, and the language is (in my belief, intentionally) ambiguous. We're aware that you've adopted the least restrictive interpretation possible, but don't pretend that the debate is not so.

Once more, if the intention was for there to be no regulation whatsoever, why not say so? If it was intended to be unconnected to military service, why lead off with the necessity of military service, and use an idiom strongly connected to military service at the time?

Fwiw, I don't even have a strong opinion on gun control; There's provocative arguments on both sides of the argument. But it's a little irritating when the pro-gun folks behave as though the debate doesn't exist.

Do you really find it comforting that a vote by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can remove your rights? If gun control advocates want to eliminate it so bad they should start a movement to revise or eliminate the 2nd amendment.

 

[Cuyo]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You don't have to like it, but you can only pretend that it is not so.

And to be sure, 5 out of 9 justices agreed with that interpretation in 2008. But 4 out of 9 did not, and the language is (in my belief, intentionally) ambiguous. We're aware that you've adopted the least restrictive interpretation possible, but don't pretend that the debate is not so.

Once more, if the intention was for there to be no regulation whatsoever, why not say so? If it was intended to be unconnected to military service, why lead off with the necessity of military service, and use an idiom strongly connected to military service at the time?

Fwiw, I don't even have a strong opinion on gun control; There's provocative arguments on both sides of the argument. But it's a little irritating when the pro-gun folks behave as though the debate doesn't exist.

Do you really find it comforting that a vote by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can remove your rights? If gun control advocates want to eliminate it so bad they should start a movement to revise or eliminate the 2nd amendment.

There's a lot that I find discomforting amigo.

But I don't know how many times I can sit here and re-iterate that the debate over how absolute the 2nd amendment is, exists. You continue to respond as though it's absolute, that the collective jurisprudence of a nation agrees with you 100%, and that circumvention or revision are the only methods available to regulate gun sales. It's not the case, and I think you know that. THAT is what I find irritating.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I would love my CWP/CCP to be honored in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Including New York City and Chicago. Even though I have no intentions of ever going to either one of those cess pools.

What would you be willing to give up to get that?

Nothing, considering that is is Constitutionally mandated NOW! (Full Faith & Credit clause)

 

[martybegan]

And to be sure, 5 out of 9 justices agreed with that interpretation in 2008. But 4 out of 9 did not, and the language is (in my belief, intentionally) ambiguous. We're aware that you've adopted the least restrictive interpretation possible, but don't pretend that the debate is not so.

Once more, if the intention was for there to be no regulation whatsoever, why not say so? If it was intended to be unconnected to military service, why lead off with the necessity of military service, and use an idiom strongly connected to military service at the time?

Fwiw, I don't even have a strong opinion on gun control; There's provocative arguments on both sides of the argument. But it's a little irritating when the pro-gun folks behave as though the debate doesn't exist.

Do you really find it comforting that a vote by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can remove your rights? If gun control advocates want to eliminate it so bad they should start a movement to revise or eliminate the 2nd amendment.

There's a lot that I find discomforting amigo.

But I don't know how many times I can sit here and re-iterate that the debate over how absolute the 2nd amendment is, exists. You continue to respond as though it's absolute, that the collective jurisprudence of a nation agrees with you 100%, and that circumvention or revision are the only methods available to regulate gun sales. It's not the case, and I think you know that. THAT is what I find irritating.

There are already restrictions on the right, some of them i find to be unconsitutional, others not. People already require a permit for concealed carry, which is proper as it in public areas. On your own property, and as long as it isnt a gatling gun or a howitzer a law abiding citizen should be able to own what they want. Semi auto firearms are not millitary arms, but the technoligcal cumulation of the modern long arm.

The ones I find unconsitutional are the ones in NYC that seem to favor police officers
(off duty) retired police officers, and anyone who has influence with the government. THEY can get concealed carry and home permits easy, while the proles such as myself have to go though hoops to do the same exact thing.

Then you have mag size bans, which are about as rediculous as you can get.

 

[Triton]

Not one inch to the gun grabbing leftists. They want to disarm the citizenry and leave only the military and police armed, PERIOD.

To hell with your background checks, registrations, magazine limitations, semi-full auto firearm ownership restrictions, firearm accessory ownership restrictions, and the rest of it.

Repeal the 2nd amendment or go pound sand.

 

[Triton]

Here's what the collectivists in NY wanted to push through with the unSAFE Act.

We know the agenda and you are not fooling anyone with your "reasonable" bullshit.



Confiscation of “assault weapons”
Confiscation [of] ten round clips
Statewide database for ALL Guns
Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
State issued pistol permits
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
Mandatory locking of guns at home
Fee for licensing, registering weapons

McLaughlin.1.22.13.Rejected Democrat Proposals

 

[rightwinger]

What is there for he NRA to compromise?

They are just lobbyists. They have nothing to give

 

[squeeze berry]

That they can keep their guns...

So, you have nothing to offer other than a promise that you will not take their guns.
That is, you have nothing to -give- them, and so, there's no reason for them to give anything up.

If the dems didn't want to compromise, they would go on an all out blitz to bring back the assault weapons ban.

Having gun owners pass a background check before acquiring a firearm is just common sense legislation.

As it sits now, any gang banger, maniac, or other thug can walk into any gun show or through a private sale and obtain firearms, no questions asked.
That is downright nuts and anyone that supports this is even more insane.

how do you do a background check on a private sale?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then why the bit that you intentionally left out, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."?

Bear in mind also that "To Bear Arms" was a popular metaphor of the day to roughly translate as "To serve in the military."

It's far from cut and dry. If they wanted it cut and dry, it would be.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You don't have to like it, but you can only pretend that it is not so.

And to be sure, 5 out of 9 justices agreed with that interpretation in 2008. But 4 out of 9 did no

So? Same for Roe v Wade and any number of important decisions.
Unit the decision is overturned - unlikely, given the fact that it has already ne affirmed - youdon't get to pretend otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And to be sure, 5 out of 9 justices agreed with that interpretation in 2008. But 4 out of 9 did not, and the language is (in my belief, intentionally) ambiguous. We're aware that you've adopted the least restrictive interpretation possible, but don't pretend that the debate is not so.

Once more, if the intention was for there to be no regulation whatsoever, why not say so? If it was intended to be unconnected to military service, why lead off with the necessity of military service, and use an idiom strongly connected to military service at the time?

Fwiw, I don't even have a strong opinion on gun control; There's provocative arguments on both sides of the argument. But it's a little irritating when the pro-gun folks behave as though the debate doesn't exist.

Do you really find it comforting that a vote by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can remove your rights? If gun control advocates want to eliminate it so bad they should start a movement to revise or eliminate the 2nd amendment.

There's a lot that I find discomforting amigo.

But I don't know how many times I can sit here and re-iterate that the debate over how absolute the 2nd amendment is, exists. You continue to respond as though it's absolute, that the collective jurisprudence of a nation agrees with you 100%, and that circumvention or revision are the only methods available to regulate gun sales. It's not the case, and I think you know that. THAT is what I find irritating.

You say this that this is any different than any other issue you care to mention.
Fact is, the 2nd means something other than you want it to mean. Too bad for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So far, no one on the anti-gun/pro-gun control side has offered the NRA/Pro-gun side a single thing.

If you give nothing, you get nothing -- If the NRA/pro-gun side won't budge, its because they have not been offered a compromise.