Question of the Day: Should Gun Owners Compromise on AWB, Mag Caps?

Truth About Guns,

I write this to you as a question and I wonder what your thoughts are on this . . . I happen to be active duty military, but I am first and foremost a believer in the constitution, the second amendment, and in the importance of having civilian firearm ownership as a check on government oppression. That said, the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School has me worried, as I am sure it has worried you and the rest of your readers . . .

I own several AR15s, an LR308, and several high capacity handguns. I love them and I know that restricting firearms based on cosmetic features or magazine capacity will have no effect on crime and will not prevent these massacres. I know that preventing law abiding citizens like 99.9% of your readers from owning firearms only prevents us from defending ourselves, enjoying our hobbies and sports and, in my case training for my profession. It will only embolden criminals and do nothing to save lives. Still I am so worried by these events that I have an interesting question.

If this shooting is indeed our Dunblane, might it be smart for us as gun owners to give a little to save much more?

Regarding our AR15s, Kalashnikov clones etc, might it be smart to preemptively propose legislation limiting ownership of high capacity magazines and, perhaps, require background checks for the private sales of firearms. If, for example, Republican, NRA backed congressman proposed a simple bill that would limit ownership of high capacity magazines it would probably pass with little effort and would placate those that say “something must be done.”

It could get us past this madness without losing our beloved firearms.  Personally, I would much rather have my AR15s–even with limited magazines–than for them to be illegal altogether. At least it makes more sense than banning cosmetic features and, in some circumstances it could be argued it might limit casualties in situations like this. I don’t believe that, as I have seen how much damage a bomb made out of fertilizer and a propane tank can do during my two tours in Iraq, but it is more logically sound than banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs.

It could also save the thousands of jobs involved in the firearms and firearms accessory manufacturing business and it could save our beloved competition shooting (3 Gun, High Powered Rifle etc). Perhaps high capacity magazines might be simply regulated and not be banned outright but, bottom line, I am more concerned with keeping my rifles and pistols than magazine capacity.

I understand that this might be a slippery slope, and might only embolden Dianne Feinstein and others, but I think it likely would end the argument for the time being.  MSNBC could have a feel good gun control story, and we could still own our weapons legally. It could be a rhetorical victory for the gun control advocates and firearm owners alike.

Let me be clear, I don’t want any restrictions on firearms or magazines, but recognizing the possibility that the tide will turn against firearm owners based on this tragedy, I throw this out as food for thought.

Respectfully,
Cavalry Captain

comments

  1. avatar Anmut says:

    Um, no. Not ever. Not one bit. Compromise to liberals = giving into their demands. A little to start with, then more later and before you know it there is nothing left.

    This is possibly the stupidest opinion article I have ever read on TTAG. Ever.

    1. avatar Ben Keim says:

      Dude, the guy took the time to write a civil article arguing his case. Even if you don’t agree with his conclusion (and for the record I don’t) at least pay him the same courtesy he bothered to show you by not turning to name-calling or insults.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Um, he didn’t make any conclusions, he simply asked hypothetical questions.

        1. avatar DanC says:

          The Urban Dictionary defines “concern troll” as follows:

          In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.

          I think that pretty accurately sums this up . . .

      2. avatar Anmut says:

        His opinion is stupid. I stand by my statement.

        1. avatar Mike says:

          His opinion is no more stupid than yours. His was just much better written and more detailed.
          I still laugh at the statement “guns are needed to stop government oppression”. If the Government really wanted to oppress you then your guns wouldn`t save you against the full might of the state. Just a fact.

        2. avatar Jerryboy says:

          @ Mike: really? ever hear of this thing called the American Revolution?

        3. avatar WLCE says:

          “If the Government really wanted to oppress you then your guns wouldn`t save you against the full might of the state. ”

          hey dumbass (yes dumbass because ive refuted this several times each time you bring it up), havent you been to the middle east? i take it no.

        4. avatar Moonshine says:

          Mike, even if 90% of gun owners (not the entire population, JUST the gun owners) are sheep and roll over for the government when told to, the numbers still don’t work out in the government’s favor.

        5. avatar LongPurple says:

          @ Mike
          Check out Michael Collins. See how he defeated the British Empire with all its ships, planes, tanks, etc. with handguns.

        6. avatar Carrymagnum says:

          And it’s gun owners like you mike b hole likes to lump us in with. So thanks for that. While I disagree with him, he is trying to help and should be commended.
          This is too ammut

    2. avatar Zac says:

      I agree, once you give in you already lost.

    3. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      +100

      1. avatar Brother Bear says:

        We know that banning high capacity magazines won’t do anything to crime. So giving in to it only gives the other side more power. Because after the next massacre occurs after the ban, the easy next step is to say, “Obviously banning high capacity magazines wasn’t enough. We need to ban all magazines”.

        And when that does work… guess what comes next.

  2. avatar JSIII says:

    HELL NO to any kind of an awb. Live free or die

    1. avatar JSIII says:

      P freakin S. Conn already had an AWB for years when this happened.

    2. avatar toggle12 says:

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. BEN FRANKLIN

      1. avatar Mike says:

        Having an assault weapon is hardly an ESSENTIAL liberty. You might like them but it is hardly the same as freedom of sppech or assembly or other key things for freedom. Are other countries where those guns are banned (UK etc) less free? I see a vibrant press, freedom of association etc.

        1. avatar Forrest says:

          Actually it is essential. The 2nd amendment was not put into place to protect the rights of hunters and target shooters, it was put into place to insure the citizens of the United States of America could defend themselves from any tyrannical regime, foreign or domestic.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          “Having an assault weapon is hardly an ESSENTIAL liberty.”

          That’s your opinion. If rights and liberties are subject to majority approval, they are neither rights nor liberties.

          This is a lot less about magazine capacities and semi-automatic rifles and much more about REAL rights and REAL liberties. I don’t want government qualifying all of my rights and liberties when I practice them responsibly with no ill-intent toward fellow citizens. This is no different than if government wanted to criminalize speech that is critical of Islam.

          Two people this year used semi-auto rifles to attack people causing about 30 fatalities. While those events are horrific, they do not justify infringing on the rights and liberties of citizens who have no intention of harming anyone.

        3. avatar Dave says:

          A vibrant press? Are you freaking kidding me. I see a corrupt press aligned against the founding principals of this country and aligned with the ruling class out to suppress dissent and liberty. Wake the F*&^ up!!!!!

        4. avatar WLCE says:

          “Having an assault weapon is hardly an ESSENTIAL liberty.”

          in your mind maybe. they are a essential liberty since the 2nd amendment is meant to protect the public against a tyrannical government…not only for sporting purposes.

          “You might like them but it is hardly the same as freedom of sppech or assembly or other key things for freedom.”

          once again, in your mind maybe. the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights.

          “Are other countries where those guns are banned (UK etc) less free? I see a vibrant press, freedom of association etc.”

          LOL right.

          vibrant freedom. the police regulating the internet, CCTVs, sure. vibrant press and freedom.

        5. avatar pat says:

          It is ESSENTIAL. Semiauto rifles with 20-40 round clips are needed to snipe and suppress against a future (maybe not so distant) dictatorial ‘Big Gov’. Gorilla asymetrical warfare works cuz big gov cant drop bombs on itself (poop where you eat).

  3. avatar TTACer says:

    Ask Bill Ruger.

  4. avatar Steve Ramsey says:

    No.
    There are all the technical reasons in the world for this that others can get into.

    The main reason is that in practical terms, it will not end the possibility of another mass shooting.

    Next, the gun control movement will never be placated. Ever. There is nothing to be gained, because they will be back with more demands before the ink is dry on any compromise.

    Lastly, preventing crime, violence, evil is a function of the armed, law abiding public. Diminish their capabilities and you empower evil.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      I agree you won`t placate the gun control crowd, but the suggestion is about placating the middle of public opinion. Do enough to placate that, not the zealots. There is a difference between those two groups.

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        I would rather spend my effort educating the middle through discourse and evidence than compromise and further delude them.

        1. avatar Uncle Buck says:

          + 1,000,000

  5. avatar AZRon says:

    No, no,no, no NO!

    What you are asking reminds me of the policies of placating dictators and radical muslims. It doesn’t work to anyones benefit. They don’t play nice, and they don’t legislate with honor.

    We must never relent. Inch/Mile.

    1. avatar Lolinski says:

      What the heck do muslims have to do with this? You do know we arent plotting to take over the world and blow you all up?

      1. avatar Andy T says:

        He did say “radical muslims.” You know, the ones who love blowing anyone up.

      2. avatar pat says:

        Islam…..the ‘religion of pieces’.

    2. avatar APBTFan says:

      If you happen to wander through Glendale I’d be happy to buy you a beer.

    3. avatar WLCE says:

      youve got to be kidding me

      /facepalm

      you really dont know much about islam do you? trust me, you have a lot more to worry about from your own government than you do with muslims.

      1. avatar APBTFan says:

        I believe Ron referred to RADICAL Muslims but if you want to get touchy and go there…

        How many attacks on U.S. citizens in the last 30 years were perpetuated by our government as opposed to fundamentalist Muslims? I’m a staunch atheist that, in my quest for knowledge, has read much about the major religions and avidly follow current events. My nightly browsing includes the major U.S. news outlets, BBC World and Al Jazeera.

        What I see is every continent save the North and South poles has active fundamentalist Muslim factions fighting and killing folks. That’s a fact. I don’t see any other religion waging war against those they don’t agree with like Muslim fundamentalists do. The atrocities perpetuated against Christians in Nigeria by Boko Haram are a prime example. I absolutely concede that there are millions of moderate Muslims that simply want to practice their faith and get along with everyone (I associate with good folks from Afghanistan, Iran and Kosovo) but the amount of killing on the part of radical Muslim factions is inescapable and the negative connotation towards Islam can only be wiped away by the majority of moderates doing everything they can to mitigate, condemn and stop the actions of the radicals. Like it or not the reality is that anything less is seen as tacit agreement.

        1. avatar pat says:

          Yup. Islam needs a reformation. Their ‘prophet’ was a military leader who engaged in many bloody campaigns…..and it shows.

  6. avatar WiKDMoNKY says:

    I am sure you are going to get a lot of people in here that will say… give an inch, take a mile or where does it end or something to that affect. But living in California, I already live under the rules you are proposing (plus bullet buttons). I think your idea to push it federally would be perfect to calm all the anti’s down. Eventually high cap mags are going to get banned everywhere, we should throw them a bone…

    1. avatar Anmut says:

      And after that, eventually they will want to come in your house to take your firearms. And because they will eventually you should just throw them a bone and give them up now. But you first.

      1. avatar WiKDMoNKY says:

        I have no choice (currently) but to have to live under an oppressive states gun laws. I want them changed, but have accepted that I have to abide as long as I live here.

        1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

          So what is being proposed sounds like taking a step backwards in order to facilitate a step forwards. Screw that, I’m already here and I want to go forwards, not fight to get back to where I am.

      2. avatar Carrymagnum says:

        I’d rather throw them a bullet. No one in the armed services should cooperate with the government if they do Indeed come to collect our weapons. It would be a shame to take a good man away from the country; but on the other hand they should know better than to help a government that wants to pussify the people.

    2. avatar Chotch says:

      Seriously?

      “Eventually high cap mags are going to get banned everywhere”

      Please explain why you believe this….

      1. avatar WiKDMoNKY says:

        Usually whatever happens here in Kalifornistan (law wise) happens elsewhere. It is the demwit’s breeding ground for stupid ideas that don’t work! Just be fortunate that you do not have to deal with Bullet Buttons!

    3. avatar Bryan says:

      Also living in California so I can’t go any lower. If I do I’ll have a bolt action rifle!

    4. avatar Bill F says:

      What do you mean “We should throw them a bone”? It’s not yours to throw. Others may wish to keep the rights that have already been taken from you. Should we all volunteer to live under California’s oppressive laws because you are forced to?

      Nothing will calm them down.

      1. avatar Joe C. says:

        Excellent point Bill.

        The issue I have is that gun control advocates, and those who believe we should compromise with them are appealing to the gun owning public to “be reasonable.” The problem with this is that gun control advocates themselves are not being reasonable.
        I could go for snark and say something like “that doesn’t mean what you think it means” but instead I’d like to point out that Conn. already had an AWB in place. The AWB “worked,” it prevented the shooter from legally obtaining his weapons at which point he resorted to theft.
        At this point a “reasonable” person would examine these circumstances and conclude that: AWB’s do not work having now been provided with one more piece of empirical evidence.
        The individuals in question instead conclude that well the AWB needs to be nationwide! Despite the weapons which were used having been originally acquired by someone in compliance with the existing AWB within the state of Conn.

        My personal thoughts about the origins and motivations of the “gun control debate” aside the bottom line is that now as in the past the gun control lobby isn’t presenting us with any arguments to support their position.

        I just don’t see the anything productive about trying to reason with unreasonable people. That’s why I personally don’t even believe that conservative lawmakers should enter into a discussion about “gun control” with liberals and progressives at present.

    5. avatar David T says:

      No compromise.

  7. avatar In Memphis says:

    “Should Gun Owners Compromise on AWB, Mag Caps?”

    A man in California gets off 50 rounds using five 10 round magazines before his rampage is ended. If you want to call it a rampage.

    I think that says a lot

  8. avatar jwm says:

    How about this compromise to the anti’s. They support constitutional carry nation wide, put it into effect for a period of 2 years. At the end of that time we’ll re asses and see what compromises need to be made from there. Sound fair?

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      Sounds like it makes sense but thats the problem.

  9. avatar Michael B. says:

    No compromise. Ever.

  10. avatar Anmut says:

    Btw I would like to thank the author of this article for giving the anti’s a big ‘ol canister of ammunition. Tomorrow we will read “Most Frequented Firearm Website Endorses Hi-Cap Ban.”

    This article is truly a disgrace to TTAG.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The OP asked a question and gave his opinion. You gave yours. Don’t be a dumb@ss.

      1. avatar the OP is not crazy says:

        +1 I would also rather live with reduced capacity than have to give up my weapons.

        1. avatar Anmut says:

          Well how about putting on your big boy pants and demanding that we don’t compromise AT ALL.

        2. avatar Joe Grine says:

          You err by assuming that those are the only two options. This is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

        3. avatar WLCE says:

          joe, read that definition again.

  11. avatar ughh says:

    I can agree with “giving a little” just to keep them from being flat-out Illegal. But it would be a double edged sword. I think all that will really happen is Dems and the Media will break it down, and paint it as a picture that isn’t “good enough”.

    Givem an inch, they’ll take a mile.

    And while they’re trying to take that mile, we’ll be sitting in an even more restricted market than we already are.

  12. avatar GA Koenig says:

    Is this a technical question or a political question?

    If technical, banning 10+ round magazines is nothing but feel-good legislation that will have zero impact.

    1- Magazines are engineered to be rugged yet disposable and manufacturable in massive wartime volume. There are millions out in circulation. Even during the AWB, pre-ban AR magazines were $15. Spree killers don’t mind running up the credit card…

    2- Magazine changes only take 1.5-2 seconds, with a little practice. The “common sense” that the left has that a magazine change is some great impediment to spree killers is simply a technical falsehood.

    3- We are 5-10 years away from 3D printers being able to spit out effective, reliable magazines for any weapon in any capacity. Not much longer before a 3D printer, combined with some off-the-shelf hardware, will be able to spit out a whole firearm.

    As to the politics, I touched on this in another thread; gun owners need to shift the debate away from technical bans and into a discussion about mental health, gun safety and safe storage. I’m not saying this as some sort of shifty political trickery – gun bans and technical bans have a proven history of not working. We need to point out that gun bans do not work and show genuine movement towards keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

    1. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      This.

      Let’s have a little less talk about increasing gun control, and a whole lot more on increasing _crazy_ control. Nutters who can’t be trusted to take their meds need to be involuntarily committed and confined, and people have to start profiling the crazies. Once the crazies are dealt with all you’ll have left are the evils, and those should be killed without mercy.

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        But what if you think neither works? How do you propose keeping the guns out of the crazy hands if they purchase them when they are sane. Following that logic leads to periodic psych-evals – and who gets to conduct those- what about the fact that its not an exact science or good predictor, and that in order to cover your ass to have to err on the side of over-restriction.
        Bottom line, NO! Liberty and personal responsibility is the final arbiter of on this issue. Anything else is just bullshit.

      2. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        But what if you think neither works? How do you propose keeping the guns out of the crazy hands if they purchase them when they are sane. Following that logic leads to periodic psych-evals – and who gets to conduct those- what about the fact that its not an exact science or good predictor, and that in order to cover your ass you have to err on the side of over-restriction.
        Bottom line, NO! Liberty and personal responsibility is the final arbiter of on this issue. Anything else is just bullshit.

      3. avatar rosignol says:

        +1.

        The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the psychos. Treating everyone as if they were psychos is not the solution.

  13. avatar Steven Miller says:

    Not only NO but HELL NO!
    It would not even slow down the antis, their goal is total civilian disarmament.
    Why would we want to add another slash to the impending onslaught of death by a thousand cuts.

  14. avatar Lance says:

    No like in England you give a inch to the gun banners you’ll lose the the whole yard to them.

  15. avatar Chris says:

    Absolutely not.

  16. avatar CoryJ says:

    ‘…shall not be infringed.’

    ‘Nuff said.

  17. avatar Don says:

    I see practical merit in NICS for all gun transfers. I see no merit whatsoever on mag limits. I am in favor of making it harder for criminals to get weapons. I am not in favor of making it harder for law abiding citizens to get weapons. I am willing to spend an extra 25 bucks on getting a rifle. I do ffl transfers when I buy and sell personal rifles anyway, to make sure I am uninvolved in whatever anyone else does or did while in possession of that gun. Feature control on weapons does not address illegal gun ownership at all. It is useless, and compromising on it does nothing for me. Ineligible people not getting guns does something for me.

    The problem with “common sense gun control” is that the people pushing it have no idea how guns are used or traded. That’s why it is always so uselessly stupid. Unregulate suppressors and sbr, I’ll give you nics on rifles.

  18. avatar ST says:

    No.

    The goal of the anti gunners has nothing to do with hardware.Their long term endgame is to modify the culture of America so that gun control becomes a social institution.By yielding to ANY minute agreement for gun control,we legitimize hoplophobia.After all,if ten round mags are a good idea,why not zero round mags at all,aka a civil gun ban?

    Remember that an areas gun laws have nothing to do with crime and everything to do with the cultural standing of that area.Once the social default becomes hoplophobia,the gun laws change accordingly .See California and the UK for real world examples.

  19. avatar Carl says:

    Regarding the original proposal to ban some types of firearms and acessories: As an obvious troll, you are joking – correct?

    While you are at it, let’s just ban speech that opposes the President and his policies. That would go a long way to quieting discord in this country as well.

  20. avatar John says:

    HELL NAW! not even a little bit! We need to be going the complete OPPOSITE way!

  21. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    Enough with these stupid “compromise” questions. NJ has all these lovely bans (well, they let us keep 15 round mags for now), and I ask you, come on down to Newark, Camden or Paterson and walk around at night (or during the day, same thing), unarmed. See what that’s like, see how well those AWB laws are working. Oh, what’s that? Crime there is still high? Even though nobody can CCW legally in this state? Well, knock me over with a feather! How can that possibly be? All these gun restrictions, where you can only buy one pistol per month, and crime is still not magically going down, eh?

    You think NJ is restrictive now? Wait till we cannot buy any rifles legally at all and our wonderful NJ gun laws spread to the rest of the country. Because that’s what the antis will ask for, for now. Of course, even more restrictions will be proposed later.

    Don’t you see that this will not end until nobody can buy and carry guns legally? So take your “compromise” and shove it.

    1. avatar APBTFan says:

      Hungry for pierogi again. Still need to try making some kimchi ones.

  22. avatar Aharon says:

    I’d like to see the gun community re-position the issue and debate by calling for increased and improved gun owner training, gun owners to improve securing their weapons, and to fix the system so that when a judge does declare someone insane (or dangerous) the information does gets shared with the potential gun buyer background check system. Lastly, I’d like to see the gun community call for expanding the acceptance and use of a few/several/whatever number of select teachers and other school staffers to be trained and armed for an emergency.

    1. avatar g says:

      +1 Or a counter-compromise: if they want 10-round magazines for handguns, and a ban on high-cap mags for rifles (30+), firearm rights advocates could ask that a national law be passed that every citizen with a locally issued concealed pistol permit be allowed to carry across state lines.

    2. avatar Hazzard Bagg says:

      +1

      I’d like to see support in our tax code for such things as the installation of gun safes in private spaces and firearms training.

    3. avatar APBTFan says:

      “when a judge does declare someone insane (or dangerous) the information does gets shared with the potential gun buyer background check system”

      It does to an extent although at this point is is purely voluntary on a state by state basis. I feel it should be a required submission to NICS by all states although I also feel before that is done there should be a solid and fair system for appeal to go with it.

    4. avatar elnonio says:

      That’s been the NRA’s angle for quite some time, no?

  23. avatar Adam L. says:

    Absolutely not. We’ve been progressively stripped of our rights for the last 80 years (NFA34 and GCA68). The end game for the liberals is the total confiscation of all privately owned firearms and the police state to follow. Anything short of that is unacceptable. So your premise that the left is rational and will somehow compromise and meet us in the middle is false. History has proven that it will never be enough for the antigunners. Never.

  24. avatar Caylen says:

    While I myself am not a gun owner I can see how this logic might seem like a good idea. But I feel its a step in the wrong direction. I think Obama and many others who have expressed interest in an AWB will just see a ammo cap bill as an added bonus to their AWB, it would make it easier for them to pass an AWB because theres less parts to disagree with and its much easier to argue to ban a military looking weapon then to ban the magazine sizes found in every compact or some sub compact handguns. Then when people complain about a ammo cap law then its easy for them to say “you pushed for the legaslature”. In short, no it will not apease them, it would just make it easier on them to put forth other legaslature.

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    Our endgame is fairness, the observance of the Constitution and the right to be left alone by those pr!cks in Washington. Their end game is absolute domination and the monopoly of force to back it up. Compromise with that? Not a f^cking chance.

  26. avatar Sammy says:

    It’s like MADD. Establish a “reasonable” limit and reduce whenever possible. Give ’em a flash suppressor and they’ll take the whole damn gun. Most of the gun “laws” we have now are unconstitutional. Personally I think they all constitute “infringement”.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      Not to reply to myself, but if the report is to be trusted and factual, Boehner gave in on tax hikes for the top earners and the offer was rejected by you know who because Boehner wanted some spending cuts. Admittedly off topic but to the point as far as the benefits of compromise with the left. Give them what they ask for and they pus the demands higher. Reminds me of Yasser Arafat.

  27. avatar Cameron S. says:

    If you give them an inch they will take a mile. Ultimately I am not willing to sacrifice freedoms and gain no real reward, all just to make a few people feel good for a few days. And then they’ll move on to their next goal. And their next goal. And their next goal.

    Never.

  28. avatar Pascal says:

    The accounts of this tragedy tells me, no law would have stopped it from happening.

    That said, the call for, “something must be done” is as strong as it is illogical. The president having nothing to loose will propose something fiscal cliff be damned. Di fi is pissing her pants in anticipation to propose something on Monday.

    The consensus from the talking heads is to ban private sales. It will do nothing, but it will make it seem like something was done.

    The issues gun owners should be full court pressing is reforms to the mental health system and a call for mental health professionals to come forward. Support mental health issues in Obamacare and give the president something to chew on versus guns. In this scenario everyone truly does win. Because going back to the AZ shooting, we have pretty messed people who do need help who have caused great pain. Then, we need to push for reforms in media coverage of these events in glorifying the shooter. The media will get a taste of their own medicine. Then let’s talk about the violence in movies and video games – all the aspects do play part. Take emphasis off guns because as we know, guns alone without a shooter did not do these evil things.

    Those dogs want something to chew on, give them something otherwise it will be your rights that will be trampled.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Since the talking heads liked to talk about what a wonderfull job MADD has done while talking about public policy for guns, this was the stats that are be talked about

      “The percentage of traffic fatalities that are alcohol-related has hovered near 30 percent over the last 15 years, Fell said. No major laws have taken effect to put a dent in that, experts said.”

      So much for drunk driving laws and public policy, but if feels good right?

  29. avatar Chad says:

    Absolutely NO COMPROMISE. You know why? Because if today, we agreed to limit magazine sizes to 10 rounds. Then next week, a guy with 50 magazines holding 10 rounds kills an entire bus load of kids at a parade, then the next call will be to limit how many magazines you can own. Then is 10 rounds still too many? How many rounds is enough. The answer is that for liberals and gun grabbers, 1 round is too many.

    Today you give up your rifle, tomorrow your handguns.

    This is why we DO NOT compromise.

    The Democrate definition of Compromise, is that you have to give up your principles and fall in line with the democrat policy. If not, well then your a racist, bigot and your stupid. That’s what their arguments always dissolve into.

    No, I will stand and fight against ANY and All gun control and thats what I think the gun community will do.

    Join, the NRA, 2nd amendment foundation, Georgia Carry, Ohio Buckeye Firearms, but join something. Get in the fight if your not already there.

  30. avatar displacer says:

    The last time we “compromised” was in the form of the 94 AWB, but instead of appeasement anti-gun politicians were only emboldened. Before the ink was dry on the Brady Bill they were pushing an even more restrictive law (S.1878) that would have banned certain pistols and made registration mandatory for the rest, an “armory license” for possessing more than 1000 rounds of ammo, outlawed private sales, and much more.

  31. NO WAY!!!

    Not one step back!

    We have given up enough already.

    When they see that minor restrictions make no difference, they will come back for more restrictions. Just look at England as an example. They have even outlawed swords there. England still has a higher murder rate then the US. England is now the Knife stabbing capital of the world.

  32. avatar Ike says:

    What appears to be a reasonable compromise by the captain is, in fact, the ‘slippery slope’. Anti-gun zealots are never satisfied.

    High cap mags have existed for well over 100 years. Would we be required to block Spencer, Evans and Henry magazines? What about Luger 32 round drum mags? What about the hundreds of thousand Browning HP mags?

    Would any such restriction have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting? No. Even if civilian guns were completely banned, what if Nancy Lanza had been a cop or private armed security guard? Are cops or cop’s kids immune from mental disorders?

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      this isn’t about preventing future shootings. nothing can stop them, other than more people concealing. but… this is about stoping a AWB by having a few less rounds in our rifles(which we may not have at all if we don’t compromise with giving up 100rd mags.)

  33. avatar Chad says:

    Also in regards to what can be done to stop these killings. With 10,000 police stationed at our nations schools since Columbine. Not one school killing has taken place where there is armed police.

    Terror groups have been posting on their websites for years, to “Kill the American’s Children”. School attacks have been on the military and law enforcement radars for years. This attack, was carried out by one of our own citizens. Which makes it even harder to understand.

    You want this BULLSHIT to STOP. Go to your local Sheriff, ask that you and other volunteer parents or citizens, be allowed to stand on school property with a rifle slung on your shoulder and a handgun on your hip.

    Let the Sheriff set the guidelines. CCW holders only or some other assurance your not a whack job yourself. Take your off days, or your retirement time and stand ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. If others do the same, then we could have armed citizens at schools 5 days per week and whenever special events are planned.

    That’s what will STOP this SHIT once and for all. Killers won’t go where armed citizens will patrol. At NO COST to the community. That’s the best BANG for your Buck!

  34. avatar Jacob says:

    This is why you don’t Compromise! 56 Million Dead because of Gun Control! in the 20th Century!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPvtEVT5sk&feature=youtu.be

  35. avatar mike says:

    If 1 high cap mag = 2 or 3 low cap ones…. how does that trivial inconvenience even hinder some lunatic that is totally deranged?? So they take a few extra seconds to reload instead……yea that really solved the problem.

  36. avatar Greg Camp says:

    Compromise? Three answers:

    1. No. We’re at war with the control freaks. The only acceptable end is their unconditional surrender.

    2. Let’s pretend for a moment that #1 isn’t the case. What have the control freaks offered that we want? When one side gets want it wants and gives nothing in return, that’s not compromise.

    3. Besides, where’s the end? When will the control freaks declare that there is enough gun control? They say they don’t want to ban private ownership of guns, but they refuse to recognize ownership and carry as a right. Privileges can be taken away at the whim of the giver.

    1. avatar Ross says:

      This was Australia and the UK and neither country is done yet.

  37. avatar S.CROCK says:

    this is a difficult one. if we say no to any restrictions, we might be punished with a even harsher restriction. if only mags holding over 30rds were to be banned, i would probably be ok with that. you can defend yourself perfectly fine with a 30rd mag, and have ton of fun with it. you don’t need 100rd mage to have fun, and be protected.

  38. avatar Kaliope says:

    The whole point of the slippery slope argument is very simple: We give them this. These things keep happening at the same rate they’ve been happening. They try to pass more laws. By giving anything at all, we’re providing precedent and giving into the idea that “more laws will help”.

    I respect your service, I dislike you’re flawed logic.

    1. avatar Bill from Texas says:

      I agree. These tragic events are going to continue to happen. It has nothing to do with availability, capacity or type of weapon. You can’t regulate evil “intent”. The only effective deterrent is to meet force with force and with most mass killers, they don’t have the fortitude to face that. This is why they pick helpless and defenseless victims.

  39. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Well boys this is going to be the fight of the current generation. Remember that anything given up or lost in the battle is FOREVER lost.

  40. avatar Scott Rhymer says:

    I’m originally from Scotland, and I say no for a simple reason: meddlesome busybodies NEVER STOP. You give a bit, and they want more. You are not fighting a holding action, you are just losing ground and initiative. On food, drink, smoking, guns — there are people who think they know better than you and they will NEVER stop coming for your rights and freedoms.

    After all…it’s for your own good

    1. avatar APBTFan says:

      Exactly! Good to have input from a fella that knew Europe first hand.

      So is Craig Ferguson right that “damp” is a color in Scotland?

  41. avatar OldLawman says:

    I agree – No compromise. It may be forced on us, but not by our own choice.

    Without an answer to all of the questions, a system so that private sales could somehow be checked (like a NICS check) by the participants might be useful. No, I don’t know how this could be handled if the potential buyer is not allowed. Haven’t figured a solution to the idea yet.

    1. avatar APBTFan says:

      Regulating private sales opens the door to many other restrictions on private commerce. What if you sell your car to a fella and it turns out he’s a lush with 15 dui’s and kills a family the next night in the car you sold him? Should we require background checks for anyone that sells a car, boat, motorcycle, quad, sword, bow, crossbow or anything else that might possibly be used to kill another person? Where do we draw the line and who exactly do we trust to define that line? We shouldn’t put the burden on someone making a private sale in good faith. Bad things can and do happen because freedom is never free.

  42. avatar David says:

    Of course, any moderately sane person reading through this chain of responses will see that none of you are willing to compromise in the least. And, since you seem to feel that the ultimate evil is that these fire-breathing demon liberals are “idiots” because they “won’t compromise,” I wonder if any of you have the emotional IQ to realize how assinine you are being? You are demonstrating to them here and now that *YOU* are in fact the uncompromising, absolutely insane, nutcases they fear.

    20 precious 6 and 7 year old children died less than 48 hours ago, via one man with one AR15. I own a gun of that power, but I have the heart and humanity to feel a little sick about what happened and to question whether I need to rethink my stance – as did the OP.

    Extremism and “uncompromising” behavior are destroying our country. You all are acting like little children – and not the sweet little kids that were killed. More like the petulant brat that grew up and shot them all, inconsiderate of any feelings but his own.

    Grow a pair, get your ass to the table and discuss a reasonable solution to a horrible problem. The liberals don’t understand how these guns work, and passing more irrelevant laws just hog ties us and doesn’t solve a damn thing. So behave like grown ups and take the RESPONSIBILITY you claim to take so seriously. Behave like citizens in a civil society, who converse and compromise, and not like brain dead half wits. We are the armed militia that keeps the government in check – true – but doesn’t that mean that WE have the responsibility to make sure that guns are controlled appropriately?

    I will also say that I am a father of small children. And, I do not want my kindergarteners having to live in fear huddled among armed guards behind barbed wire. I want big windows, unlocked doors, and smiling sweet teachers who love them without fear. Putting guns in the classroom is (1) ridiculous in the pure cost of training and policing the gaurds, and (2) undermines everything a “peaceful” society stands for. If we as a gun community cannot police our weapons such that our kindergartens feel naturally safe, then sadly, I agree that the Government must.

    Grow up. Solve the problem or it will be solved for you. Denying it exists or just saying “No. No. No!” just makes *you* the idiot.

    Go ahead and flame me. You’ll just be making my point for me again and again.

    1. avatar B says:

      I’m with you on a lot of your points. I do think that as gun owners, we share a certain type of responsibility for our tribe. In this instance, we need to be proactive, sit at the table and start this discussion. Hiding our heads in the sand crying “cold dead hands!” is not helpful, and only reinforces the nut-job label that has been applied to us.

      I don’t think that any of us want to give up any of our rights (or our guns, even the scary black ones), but we need to be part of the discussion and eventually, the solution, or we will be regulated out of existence.

      1. avatar Joe C. says:

        B,

        You need to reject the “nutjob” label. Non-gun owners and gun control people have zero right to label millions of sane, healthy, law-abiding American citizens as “nutjobs” simply because they enjoy shooting and owning firearms whether for recreational or self-defense purposes. That is a natural right, that “shall not be infringed.”
        Calling us all “nutjobs” is just another tactic, it’s designed to advance a cultural stigma about gun ownership that:

        A. Stigmatizes a whole segment of the “culture” which in turn causes many people interested in joining that group to reconsider for fear of being otstracized by their current peer group.

        B. Uses that stigma to drive casual members of the “culture” in question away from it. I.E. casual gun owners who decide that it’s (gun ownership) not worth the BS they are forced to put up with from the rest of society.

        The endgame of this effort of course is always, as seen in cults, religious movments, cultural movements, governments etc, to get the group that’s being persecuted, in this case “gun nuts” to validate the slander. By acquiescing to the “nutjob” label instead of politely but authoritatively telling the left-wingers that you’re offended by their remarks you’re not just giving in but outright aiding them in their efforts to demonize you.

    2. avatar Software Cowboy says:

      So, what law(s) do you propose that would have directly prevented what happened?

      We should not let emotion cloud our thinking. We need to identify the root causes and address them.

    3. avatar Heath R says:

      “Putting guns in the classroom is (1) ridiculous in the pure cost of training and policing the gaurds, and (2) undermines everything a “peaceful” society stands for.”

      1) you don’t have to “put” guns in the classrooms. some people will take their own guns with with them if the law allowed it. there was at least one teacher who seems to have had the presence of mind to have been effective if she were armed (pictures going around talking about how she hid the children before the shooter came to her class. she was shot, but none of her kids were). if she had a decent weapon, all she would have had to do was shoot the guy as he entered and the story would have stopped there. she was not the first kill so the body count might have been in the low teens.
      2) The peaceful society is an illusion. the only question is how close people are to the violence, and each person only has control of half of the equation. will i start violence? once someone answers that with a yes the peace is gone, and everyone else is left with the question will i respond with violence? someone has to answer yes to that or the one who starts it will not stop (take breaks maybe). so the question becomes are we going to put that responsibility (the responsibility of protecting ourselves and those we love, and if we are feeling generous the people around us) on someone else, or will we take it upon ourselves? the adults in that school did not have that option, they were forced by law to put the responsibility on someone else.

      so i ask you, which is more like a peaceful society: a place where everyday people are helpless in the face of those who would harm them, or one where people can defend themselves if they so choose to?

    4. avatar Bill from Texas says:

      How many times do we have to say it. It isn’t about the guns. “Evil intent” killed those precious children.

  43. avatar Mr. Obvious says:

    No – do not compromise. Why? Because the regulations won’t work as grabbers expect them to. The weapons, magazines (“clips”), and parts will be criminalized and mass shootings and gun crimes will still happen. They won’t realize that the regulations they passed were ineffective because they’re arbitrary and have nothing to do with crime. Instead, they’ll argue that even tighter controls / bans are needed. We’ll be told that a shooting wouldn’t have happened with guns that only had 7 round “clips”, then 5, then 2, then 1, and then the questions becomes why you actually need a single shot gun – it’s not even practical for self-defense!

    Americans need to demand rationality in their laws. There needs to be a causal relationship between a regulation and a reduction in crime or mitigation of mass shootings. Pistol grips, shoulder things that go up, etc. don’t make guns more dangerous, nor do they make them more likely to be used in the commission of crimes. Don’t compromise by allowing half-way stupid laws to go through unless you’re prepared to see your rights taken by increment.

  44. avatar Merits says:

    No. As has been mentioned before, gun control will always mean more regulation, restriction, and less freedom. Where we are is a place where we have silly restrictions on magazines and silencers and lengths of barrels. We need principled opposition. If we really believe the 2nd is about keeping tyranny at bay, then we have already compromised far too much. We need to stop participating in conversation that changes this principle by talking about ‘need’ of magazine capacity, hunting, and giving up some shooting sports for the children. Free and law abiding citizens were intended by the founders to own dangerous and powerful weapons, and this is protected by our constitution.
    The AWB is merely what the anti’s see as low hanging fruit. They want the whole tree plucked.

  45. avatar Sam C says:

    There was a man who tried this once. His name was Bill Ruger.

    1. avatar APBTFan says:

      And he got bit in both cheeks for it!

  46. avatar Cavalry Captain says:

    Let me say I agree with the slippery slope argument, and I understand those who argue that giving an inch will lead to complete disarmament. To those who took a more negative direction with responses, attacking me for doing nothing more than trying contribute to the discourse, I would ask you to read my question again. I believe it’s clear that I don’t wish for any restriction, and that I know it would do nothing to prevent crime. I was merely posing a question. Remember, arguing logic with anti-gunners is futile, and being right doesnt guarantee victory. If in the coming weeks the tea leaves indicate that a more restrictive AWB might pass, should we stand on principle and potentially lose it all, die in place so to speak, or be proactive with a less restrictive bill? I don’t know the answer. That’s why I asked. I hope America shows common sense in the coming weeks and shuts down calls for an AWB, but I would hate to lose my beloved firearms altogether because we stood on principle when the will of the capricious, ignorant, sheeple was clearly against us.

  47. avatar APBTFan says:

    I’ve been a shooter, reloader and 2A enthusiast for 26 years and can’t recall any new encroachment on our 2A rights that made the gun grabbers happy or slowed them down. The national background check was supposed to be the panacea that would make us all safe but did it? I still remember the first 4473 I had to fill out. The problem with gun control is that it’s a vicious circle. Because it intrinsically doesn’t work it leads to calls for even more control which doesn’t work which leads to calls for even more control which doesn’t work which leads to calls for even more control which doesn’t work……you get the idea.

    1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      You sir, get a free pierogi.

  48. avatar Sanchanim says:

    The short answer is no.
    Difi has already set to bring the AWB back to the congress on Monday. This is an all out ban, which will make all of us including the author a felon.
    So there is no compromise.. no no and no.
    I am being less than eloquent because there is so much going on right now, that I have little time to speculate.

  49. avatar Cavalry Captain says:

    And to the majority of you all, your comments were insightful and well reasoned. I appreciate the debate.

    1. avatar APBTFan says:

      Thank you for the conversation. Questions like yours allows us all to revisit, reevaluate or reaffirm our convictions.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Yeah, I’m not going to add another comment to this monster post except to say thanks for writing it.

  50. avatar JSIII says:

    I just got done listening to an NPR interview with a congressman from Conn. He was pushing for an awb and other measures but at least he had the honesty to say ita doubtful such laws will have an impact on mass shootings. I also think he must have used the words common sense 15 times in a 3 min span. They are trying to push an awb as something EVEN nra members support.

  51. avatar Gene says:

    No. Absolutely not. That is what got everyone into these messes to begin with.

  52. avatar Avid Reader says:

    Camel. Nose. Tent.

    Need I say more?

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      To that I might add: When the nose first appears, punch it.

  53. avatar Heath R says:

    wow, willing to bet this will be one of the most commented on posts for this site. skipped right over the vast majority.

    IF we decide to make a concession, we need to get something for it. it should not be just a step down to a full ban. i think a worthwhile ‘trade’ for an AWB would be a federal law that 1) no longer bans firearms on school grounds(or any other federal gun free zone), 2) prevent states from implementing laws that would prohibit legal carriers (licensed in the states that require it, people in general for those that don’t) from entering schools/other state level gun free zones. (this would exclude private property based restrictions like the 30.06 in texas) and that is a minimum. since i doubt that will pass in the near future, the effective answer is no.
    remember the most they can do at the moment is ban new “assault weapons”. confiscating the ones in circulation is a much thornier proposition.

  54. avatar 6 gunner says:

    Compromise is not the right term here. Compromise would mean something both sides can agree to and live with. What Feinstein wants is to deny us what is guaranteed by the constitution and then continue to chip away at the second amendment or any other amendment which falls into her sight.

    As a mental health professional let me offer the idea which has been bandied about here already. Let’s increase funding for mental health. Let’s also do whatever we can to bring some jobs back to the country so maybe some stress can be lifted off the shoulders of the heads of families. These shootings are not the disease they are only a symptom. If we can’t find a way to treat the entire system the disease will kill the whole organism.

    1. avatar APBTFan says:

      Our mental health system, and mental health awareness in general, is in dire need of much improvement. How many of these evil turds are twenty-something males obviously off kilter and in need of help/intervention/prevention? I see far too many folks calling for a blanket ban on anyone who has required help for mental health and that will do just as little help as a blanket ban on firearms. It’s a radical idea but maybe we should focus all our efforts on identifying and intercepting the few sickos instead of treading all over the masses.

  55. avatar LongPurple says:

    What do the antis have to offer us? Will they “negotiate” by giving back some of the rights and liberty they have stolen from us? I view anything they would offer in the spirit of “Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes”.

  56. avatar Carl says:

    No compromise. WE NEED FACTS.

    The kid who used these weapons… they ALL belonged to his mother. Imagine that! STOLEN guns used to commit a crime. Strike one.

    Strike two… By Connecticut state laws and most all state laws, he wasn’t old enough to posses a handgun anyway.

    And.. wasn’t the AR15 found IN his mother’s car? That wasn’t used in the school, was it? I have noticed that most all reporting on this seems to point out that an AR15 was found “on the scene.” WE NEED FACTS.

    1. avatar Hazzard Bagg says:

      Sadly, as you probably already know, contrary to initial reports, they are now saying that he used the AR-15 to commit his crimes.

  57. avatar Jerryboy says:

    to quote the soviet commissars at Stalingrad:

    NOT ONE STEP BACKWARD!!!

    not only would an AWB have absolutely no effect on crime and mass shootings, but it would also diminish our ability to resist the government when and if it becomes necessary to do so. i don’t know about you, but i’d much rather go up against the ATF(and, God forbid, the military if it becomes unfortunately necessary) with 30rnd mags and semi-auto capability than 10rnd mags and limited to pump, lever, or bolt action.

  58. avatar Mark says:

    These events should literally be a call to arms. To stop the murder of children we need to demand measures be taken to ensure school staff are trained and equipped to shoot back and effectively take out the violent criminal. All “gun free zones” should be abolished and the liberal weenies can huddle together in each others’ homes while the grownups make it clear that we’re finished with their stupid experiment in disarmament.

  59. avatar Joseph says:

    Winston Churchill said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

  60. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Are the criminals also having to compromise on AWB and mag caps?

    There’s your answer.

    In a fight against good vs. evil, why are politicians limiting the resources of the good guys?

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      The fact of the matter is, criminals have better access to guns than the good guys. Because they don’t have to follow any rules in attaining them. They break into our houses, vehicles, and even kill us to obtain our guns all the time.

      I can understand the logic in thinking limiting or stopping the circulation of high-capacity magazines or “assault” guns that have more “damage potential” right now could help save lives.

      Except for the fact that millions of these guns have already and continue to circulate. And it doesn’t take a genius to think the bad guys have their own gun smiths that could simply overcome any safeguards the government tries to put in place through manufacturers by mechanically trying to limit the “damage potential” of each gun (ie. full auto vs. semi-auto).

      Sorry politicians, you are too late. Any limitations you put in now will only affect the future firepower of the good guys and give an advantage to the bad guys.

      The guns are already out there. You can’t take them back. You need to think of a solution with that in mind. Like focusing your attention on the mental health of our kids and adults.

  61. avatar Ryan says:

    I agree with the idea of some compromise, if we don’t we have a chance to lose everything. That said I would support…

    1. A law that holds the firearm owner reasonable, in some way, for crimes committed with there weapon. This would make all firearm owners to securely lock up there guns.
    2. Low Cap Mags for most
    3. High Cap Mags for those willing to pass background check. Maybe same system for trusted travelers with TSA
    4. A Federal background check for private sales – under the condition that the background check must be done online, without an FFL. For example, a website that a buyer would fill out that if successful produces a unique number. The Seller would then take that number, alone with a picture ID and sell the gun. This same system may be used to purchase firearms online (without an FFL).

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      “A law that holds the firearm owner reasonable, in some way, for crimes committed with there weapon. This would make all firearm owners to securely lock up there guns.”

      They do this sort of thing in Japan regarding suicides. People throw themselves in front of trains and disrupt the transit system. The govt can go after that person’s family for damages.

      It’s a way of saying,”Hey, if you want to go self-destruct, know that your last act on this planet can impact your family not just emotionally, but financially too.”

      It’s purpose is to guilt the potentially suicidal person to give them a last moment to stop and think about what they’re doing and realize it’s impact will have a guaranteed negative affect on their family (assuming they have any good will towards them).

      1. avatar Carrymagnum says:

        Ya man I’m sure there is someone out there who would do it for that reason alone. But I like what you’re saying anyway.

    2. avatar gen4n9 says:

      How about a law that holds you responsible if someone steals your car, then kills an innocent person while eluding the police? What? No?

      Actually I don’t agree with any of your ideas, we have to many gun laws already and what we need is far less not more.

  62. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    No No, not ever, don’t even think about it, Randy

  63. avatar Smaj says:

    No, under no circumstances. No.

  64. avatar Peter says:

    Anyone who believes that they will settle for “reasonable” bans on magazines and “scary” looking guns has not been paying attention.
    The ultimate goal is an absolute ban on ALL firearms, this is just the first step in what would be a never ending series of compromises that will ultimately end civilian ownership of firearms.
    Of course senator Feinstein and major Bloomberg will stil have their armed protection.

  65. avatar Ken Watters says:

    Show me a single rule, law or regulation that ever stopped the criminal use of a firearm and I might be willing to discuss bans. Until then, not so much…

  66. avatar Jay Dunn says:

    I thought Neville Chamberlain was dead.

  67. avatar shawmutt says:

    It’s been said time and time again in these responses, but it bears repeating. No. I’ve been in the internet trenches these last few days, and it’s shameful. These folks use their 1st amendment rights to crap all over the 2nd. Common themes are “it’s outdated”, “it was only meant for muskets”, “it needs to be repealed”.

    “Gun Control” ultimately means only possessed by the government, period. The gun grabbers talk about “sensible controls”. Followed to the logical ending their plan is no guns. Their darling example is the UK. That’s what they want, the government tracking our every move with cameras and cops that don’t carry guns.

  68. avatar Culpeper Kid says:

    If the ‘grabbers’ want to discuss ‘need’ we are going to open the door to a discussion they will not want to have. I don’t understand these people, they must think box cutters caused 9/11.

  69. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I do not wish to compromise for practical reasons.

    First, no amount of gun control can stop a determined lunatic from quickly/easily killing several dozen people. Even without guns, a lunatic can simply drive a car into a large crowd of people with horrific results. Since the proposed legislation does nothing to produce the intended outcome, it is senseless.

    Worse yet, the proposed legislation would hamper the ability of citizens to defend themselves from attack. A semi-automatic handgun with a 15 round magazine and a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine are an excellent defensive combination for someone facing an armed attack from mulitple attackers. The rifle would be the primary defensive firearm in such an attack and the handgun would be for backup in the event the rifle malfunctions.

    Can a person defend themselves with a 6 shot revolver and/or a pump action shotgun with 4 rounds? Sometimes. When I take my wife and two daughters camping in isolated, rustic, remote locations, I want more. And if a group of terrorists ever targets my family or my children’s school (like the Beslan school massacre in 2004), a revolver and a shotgun are not good enough.

  70. avatar Totenglocke says:

    If this shooting is indeed our Dunblane, might it be smart for us as gun owners to give a little to save much more?

    Sorry Cap, but that would merely be the start of losing everything and they’d keep pushing for more and more. What would be smart to do is if they try to ban everything or do a massive power grab, have the balls to do what out ancestors did and throw the corrupt government out of this country. I doubt most people have the guts to do it, despite their tough talk. Or, seeing how people always claim that the military is our friend and truly believe in the Constitution, the military could demand the government actually uphold the Constitution – but I know that will never happen…the myth of the military giving a rats ass about the Constitution is just a nice bedtime story, not something that actually exists.

  71. avatar Nine says:

    How about we give up the stupid, heavy, unreliable, impractical 100 rounders, and make it sound like a big win for the Anti’s?

    1. avatar Carrymagnum says:

      +1

      1. avatar Chris Knox says:

        The argument here is whether to concede principle. In his book Hardball, Chris Matthews suggests conceding on principle as a way to give a little to avoid giving more. That strategy seems to work for Matthews in matters where real principles are not involved, or where one has no principles. In this case, if we concede a principle that boxes with springs are not a cause of crime and madness, and are of little consequence when madness strikes, then when something like this occurs again, the reason is that those crazy gunnies facilitated it. But this time, they have the history. “Even those crazy gunnies concede that big boxes with springs facilitate this evil.” We are immediately on the road to Feinstein’s +10 round ban.

        This is threatening to become a replay of 1989. We had best review that history.

        http://firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=645:bill-rugers-magazine-ban&catid=15:chriss-blog&Itemid=87

  72. avatar Chris Knox says:

    The 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act were both passed with the cooperation of gun owners, in particular the NRA. The theory in both cases was that we should surrender some in the short term in order to stop worse from being forced down our throats. At the time of the 1994 Clinton ban, Tanya Metaksa, then at the helm of ILA, faced tremendous pressure to give some ground on that ban. She refused, and backed by a hard-line board, the NRA held the line. With the NRA opposing the bill, members of Congress who voted for the ban became targets in the next election. In 1994 the House changed hands and a sitting Speaker was voted out for the first time in over a century. In the course of the logrolling and deal-making, the expiration was added to the bill. In 2004, Congress quietly allowed the 1994 ban to expire.

    The history is there. In the long run, the gun banners will get only what we give to them. The guns did not cause this horror. Banning magazines, pistol-grip stocks, bayonet lugs and is as impractical as it is futile.

  73. avatar Rambeast says:

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

    “Feel good” laws are going to be the downfall of liberty. Once you begin to let you feelings guide your thoughts, even when logic is raising the alarms, you will shortly find yourself a slave.

    It is easier to evoke an emotion than to induce logical thought. The music and movie industries have it down to a science. You can make anyone feel any emotion with the right mix of music, lighting, and back story. Thus you can manipulate these emotions to derail the train of thought of people at large, and eventually control them.

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

    America as a whole has been fleeced into this again and again. The great majority have given up their responsibilities to themselves, their families, and their fellow man and placed this trust in the hands of people that do not have their best interests in mind. The path of least resistance will win if we do not open our eyes and take responsibility for our actions (or inaction). Keep signing your rights away and you will shortly find yourselves a slave to another man’s will.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Ben Franklin

    Once the only check and balance the people of the US have against government oppression is whittled away, you will begin to realize the truth that those that desire to be in power deserve it least. Power corrupts…

    We must fight tooth and nail for every bit of liberty we have remaining. We have lost so much, and gained nothing. Remember that repealing a law is MUCH harder than blocking it. Once you give a little of your freedom, you are likely to never see it again.

  74. avatar Jon says:

    I can see where the author of this post is coming from, and would have to agree that if it’s a choice between low-capacity magazines and not being able to own “military-style” rifles at all, the former would be preferable. The problem is the assumption (hope?) that this would placate the prohibitionists. The reality is that they would take a day off to celebrate a small victory, but they’d be back in the office the next day, looking for another tragedy to exploit.

    Gun owners in this country are told incessantly that they need to compromise. Those gun owners might respond better to this suggestion if the prohibitionists understood the meaning of the word. But for all their talk, people like Dianne Feinstein aren’t looking for a compromise or a “common sense approach”. They want absolute surrender. And if you don’t agree, please point out to me what part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a gift–or even a table scrap–for gun owners.

    If the prohibitionists really wanted a compromise, then I might be willing to talk. If, for example, I knew that the principal at my child’s public elementary school could be legally armed, then maybe we could have a conversation about closing the “gun show loophole”. But helping to make society safer while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners isn’t what the prohibitionists are about, so don’t expect us to make much headway by “compromising” with them or preemptively giving up our right to standard-capacity magazines. For the most part, the history of major gun legislation just hasn’t worked that way.

  75. avatar rsh2k1 says:

    If we are really talking compromises, then okay, I’ll compromise on high capacity magazines if they’ll compromise on banning gun free zones.

    According to the Antis, they’re just against the “weapons only our soldiers should have”, despite being unable to define just what the hell those are. And “why do you need 30 bullets to defend your family” and so on.

    Fine. I’ll buy a 6-shot revolver and trade in my Glock 19 if you ban gun free zones.

    In any compromise, both sides have to give something. So I’m very interested to hear what the Antis are offering to give up.

  76. avatar Nelson says:

    FUCK NO.

    IF ANY of these treasonous CONgressional critters move to restrict or ban ANY part of our natural right of self-defense, I call for the Ronnie Barrett Solution:

    http://newyorkcityguns.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-from-ron-barrett-barrett-firearms-manufacturing-ca-50-cal-ban/

    ALL manufacturers of small-arms/components/ammo/accessories need to BAN ALL & ANY service, sale, or resupplying to ANY govt agency and or its actors, or political control freaks’ private Praetorian Guards, aka, the Military and the police.

    Then, they’ll realize just how indispensable smallarms are to the Natural Right of self-defense and ensuring freedoms in the ‘Free World.’

    If the 2nd Amd industry don’t move to that drastic step, they DO NOT “support the Second Amendment” AT ALL, and should stop pretending to.

  77. avatar pat says:

    “Bring back Patriotism and God to the classroom” and you can TRY to ban the billions of inexpensive metal boxes with springs in them.

  78. avatar Derek says:

    Appeasement doesn’t work. You can’t make bullies leave you alone by giving them what they want.

    There will be absolutely no net positive to appeasing them. Nothing will change. Nothing will be improved. It will make some people feel better while not actually being any safer. Then, when the next school, shopping mall, day care center, church, court room (notice what they all have in common) spree shooting happens, they’ll want certain cosmetic features banned. Then they’ll want the Bullet Button. Then they’ll want to ban private sales. Then they’ll want registration. Then they’ll want… they’ll want… they’ll want.

    The problem with groups like the Brady Bunch isn’t that they have a logical position that we can’t argue against, the problem is that they don’t have a position. They don’t have a goal. You’ll never pin one of them to a specific solution because the don’t have any. What they want, is for people to want gun control measures. Because when people want that, they give the Brady Bunch and ilk boatloads of money. Because of that, they will always be screaming Bloody Mary over our lack of gun control. Like Jesse Jackson and Revrum Sharpton; you think they have a tangible goal? A point at which they will be satisfied and stop campaigning and accepting donations? Neither do I.

    In fact, I don’t think they actually even want any gun control measures to go through. You know what happened in ’94? The national AWB. The end-all be-all, gun grabber Nirvana. You know what happened after that? Crime stayed, mostly, where it was at. (In fact it actually climbed a little). You know what happened in the early 2000’s? The rise of CCW and since then crime has steadily fallen. Then the AWB expired and crime has continued to fall. You know what my point is? After all of that, the Brady Bunch et al were at their weakest, poorest, and least influential point in their existence. Gun control was wholly debunked and un-popular. Gun control doesn’t work and they know it. The last thing they want is for people to be reminded.

    Now that I’m off my soap box; No, gun owners should not compromise (I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘capitulate’ btw) on AWB and mag caps.

  79. avatar DJ says:

    This is the same type of logic that brought us the TSA. We have to stop giving up our rights for the appearance of security. Especially since, like the TSA, this would do nothing to increase actual security.

  80. avatar Cavalry Captain says:

    It seems clear from the majority of the responses here that I can arrive at an answer…no capitulation…ever. Believe me, I know that no laws will prevent these tragedies as they are unpreventable regardless of security precautions or disarmament. And don’t belittle or call me Neville Chamberlain. I don’t wish to capitulate. I know the statistics which prove that all gun control doesn’t work. But I also know that in situations like this facts don’t matter. So I hope the readers of this forum are right. I hope by standing our ground we can prevent any new gun laws. I hope we are all not made into felons by the flick of a pen. That said, It is a fallacy of false equivalence to say that any compromise is a capitulation that will lead to to total disarmament. It could happen, but it is deterministically problematic to say that it will definitely happen. Should the worst happen, and an AWB get passed before I can buy that Colt LE901 I’ve been looking for, I hope we don’t all look back and wish we had given a little to live and fight another day under more favorable circumstances. We could be proud that we stood on principle as we look at our beloved rifles going to the smelter, but we will have lost. Of course many of us say we will resist. We may. But understand that it would be ugly. The last Civil War, like most civil wars, didn’t turn out well for anybody. I like to think I would resign my commission rather than violate the constitution by confiscating firearms, if ordered to do so, but I don’t relish having to make that decision. I would prefer to keep my job, which I love, and keep my firearms. I hope that by holding our position we don’t lose it altogether. I sincerely do, but as one commenter wrote, we are in for the fight of our generation.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Thanks for writing this, CC. Both the initial post and this summation. I like topics that provide solid discussion and make me think.

  81. avatar Cavalry Captain says:

    It seems clear from the majority of the responses here that I can arrive at an answer…no capitulation…ever. I understand the argument, and I respect it. I dare say that it is even my preferred course of action. It is noble and I hope it is successful. Believe me, I know that no laws will prevent these tragedies as they are unpreventable regardless of security precautions or disarmament. Please don’t belittle me or call me cowardly by making the analogies to Neville Chamberlain for simply posing a question. To reiterate, I don’t wish to capitulate. I know the statistics which prove that all gun control doesn’t work. But I also know that in situations like this facts don’t matter. So I hope the readers of this forum are right. I hope by standing our ground we can prevent any new gun control laws. I hope we are all not made into felons by the flick of a pen.
    That said, It is a fallacy of false equivalence to say that any compromise is a capitulation that will lead to to total disarmament. It could happen, but it is deterministically problematic to say that it will definitely happen. Should the worst happen, and an AWB get passed before I can buy that Colt LE901 I’ve been looking for, I hope we don’t all look back and wish we had given a little to live and fight another day under more favorable circumstances. True, we could be proud that we stood on principle and fact as we look at our beloved rifles going to the smelter, but we will have lost.
    Of course many of us say we will resist. We may. But understand that it would be ugly–very ugly. The last Civil War, like most civil wars, didn’t turn out well for anybody. I like to think I would resign my commission rather than violate the constitution by confiscating firearms, if ordered to do so, but I don’t relish having to make that decision. I don’t look forward to telling my wife and two year old daughter that we don’t have money for food because I am standing up to tyranny. I might do it, but I don’t want to. No, I would prefer to keep the job I love and keep my firearms. Perhaps the support for an AWB is not as high as it appears to be right now and that, by holding our position, we will win this battle. I sincerely hope so. However, if the tides turn in public sentiment (something that is notoriously fickle and irrational) because of this, we stand to lose all of our modern sporting rifles or become outlaws, something none of us should desire. I sincerely hope we win this battle by refusing to give an inch but, as one commenter wrote, we are definitely in for the fight of our generation.

  82. avatar elnonio says:

    So, CT already had an AWB? Since the killer used an “assault weapon” that was legally owned by the mother, it doesn’t meant that AWB are useless; to a pro-ban person, it simply means that grandfathering is part of the problem. Therefore, the next AWB will do away with grandfathering (or, at the very least, will prohibit any further transfer, even through an estate.)

  83. avatar Paul says:

    No. HELL no.

  84. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened@wakeup.org says:

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

  85. avatar IdahoPete says:

    No. Absolutely not. We have seen where compromise on gun ownership leads, in Great Britain and Australia: confiscation.

    You cannot compromise on freedom. You either have it or you do not. I do not see why I, as a law-abiding gun owner, should be punished for the actions of a nutcase murderer.

    My recommendation? End all “gun-free zones”, since they are the preferred venue for mass murder. Let teachers and school employees with CWLs arm themselves and effectively defend their kids and themselves.

    And I am speaking as a veteran of the First Cavalry Division, if that will add any credibility to my comments.

  86. avatar Bugei says:

    It would be nice to compromise. But that’s not being offered. They’re not saying, “Hey, we’ll give you nationwide must-issue if you’ll give us hi-cap mags.” Oh, no. What they’re saying is that they want things and they’ll enforce them at gunpoint.
    We compromised before. And we got NFA 34. GCA 68. We got the previous AW ban. We still have it in California, as well as hi-cap bans, purchase limits, mandatory training/licensing before purchase of a handgun. And in no case was it ever a compromise, because we didn’t get anything!
    Forget compromise: it doesn’t work because we’re the only ones giving anything up.

  87. avatar Erik says:

    Because part of the purpose of the 2A was to defend against tyranny (foreign or domestic), an all-out ban of “high capacity” magazines is wrong. What kind of fighting force would be effective with a magazine capacity limit?

    In terms of what I would personally be willing to compromise, I would consider a high capacity magazine one that holds more than 50 rounds. That’s right — 50. A cap of anything less (e.g. 10 or 15) is ridiculous, as most AR/AK mags hold 30, and the civilian-legal P90 holds 50.

  88. avatar LTC F says:

    I will compromise when the following other compromises are made.

    1) All opinion pieces in newspapers, online, and on television and radio are limited to 10 words or left. After all there was no high capacity media when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and they didn’t foresee the dangers of high capacity opinion. In addition, religions that did not exist prior to 1776 are not protected. (Sorry Scienetologists.) In addition, permits should be required for any gathering of more than five people not held in full public view.

    3) When the prohibition of quartering Soldiers in private homes was enacted, the founders did not know that middle class people would someday have six and seven rooms in their homes. Soldiers shall be allowed to be quartered in all rooms exceeding the average of two rooms that existed in average homes circa 1776.

    4) When the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure where passed computers and the automobiles did not exist. Therefore I believe that the government should be able to search and seize property in any conveyance that did not exist in 1776.

    If we are going to apply the “the 2d Amendment is about muskets” rule to one right, that logic should apply to all. Otherwise, no, I will not accept a limit on one of my rights so that liberals can pretend they can prevent the next Sandy Hook.

  89. avatar JustAJ says:

    If you could prove to me that the “gun free” paradise of NYC and Chicago have no crimes involving guns then sure, I’ll agree. BUT. Since you can’t prove that, or that any of the gun laws on the books have ever prevented a single crime, I’ll stand fast and not agree to any further restrictions. Even the DOJ concluded that the 94 AWB had either ZERO effect on “gun violence” or such a small effect that it was not measurable. One would assume it would be in the best interests of the DOJ to have found some way to show some kind of positive results, but they didn’t. That should tell you something.

  90. avatar Chris says:

    In a word…. NO

  91. avatar Damon says:

    With all due respect to the good Captain, I have to answer his question with a resounding no. I am active duty military myself, I own an AR rifle and have other weapons with more than 10 round magazines. If we give in to even the slightest demand, the next time there is a horrendous event like this one, the antis will want just a little bit more, and before you know it, we have lost all our rights to own guns. Think it can’t happen? Look at Great Britain.

  92. avatar Bryan says:

    Compromise is negotiable when Barry gives up his band of merry men. They should be doing something important like guarding the Oval Office. See I do have respect for the office of the president!

  93. avatar Evan says:

    No. Not at all. We compromised with FOPA to get protection from gun registration, yet we still deal with FPID’s and FOID’s, and of course Obama’s border states long gun registry. We gained nothing through our comprimise. They banned Machine guns with their Hauge Amendment (unless of course your a cop or a millionaire) and they just ignore the illegalities of the registry laws.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Evan, buddy, clear the cache on your browser. That’s what causes your posts to not show up.

  94. avatar Evan says:

    No. Not at all. We compromised with FOPA to get protection from gun registration, yet we still deal with FPID’s and FOID’s, and of course Obama’s border states long gun registry. We gained nothing through our comprimise. They banned Machine guns with their Hauge Amendment (unless of course your a cop or a millionaire) and they just ignore the illegalities of the registry laws.

  95. avatar Evan says:

    No. Not at all. We compromised with FOPA to get protection from gun registration, yet we still deal with FPID’s and FOID’s, and of course Obama’s border states long gun registry. We gained nothing through our comprimise. They banned Machine guns with their Hauge Amendment (unless of course your a cop or a millionaire) and they just ignore the illegalities of the registry laws.

  96. avatar Evan says:

    No. Not at all. We compromised with FOPA to get protection from gun registration, yet we still deal with FPID’s and FOID’s, and of course Obama’s border states long gun registry. We gained nothing through our comprimise. They banned Machine guns with their Hauge Amendment (unless of course your a cop or a millionaire) and they just ignore the illegalities of the registry laws. No give an inch, we lose a mile.

  97. avatar Evan says:

    No. Not at all. We compromised with FOPA to get protection from gun registration, yet we still deal with FPID’s FOID’s, and of course Obama’s border states long gun registry. We gained nothing through our comprimise. They banned Machine guns with their Hauge Amendment (unless of course your a cop or a millionaire) and they just ignore the illegalities of the registry laws. No give an inch, we lose a mile.

  98. avatar Evan says:

    No. Not at all. We compromised with FOPA to get protection from gun registration, yet we still deal with FPID’s/ FOID’s, and of course Obama’s border states long gun registry. We gained nothing through our comprimise. The monitoring of Suppersors and NFA weapons.They banned Machine guns with their Hauge Amendment (unless of course your a cop or a millionaire) and they just ignore the illegalities of the registry laws. No give an inch, we lose a mile.

  99. avatar Evan says:

    No. Not at all. We compromised with FOPA to get protection from gun registration, yet we still deal with FPID’s/ FOID’s, and of course Obama’s border states long gun registry. We gained nothing through our comprimise. The monitoring of Suppersors and NFA weapons. They banned Machine guns with their Hauge Amendment (unless of course your a cop or a millionaire) and they just ignore the illegalities of the registry laws. No give an inch, we lose a mile.

  100. avatar Jonathan Linker says:

    Education (God and education has been removed from schools)
    Love and respect
    Core family values
    We on the right even blame the” kids of today”, video games, tv, etc.
    We the parents are responsible. We have let video games, tv, and other electronics babysit our kids for at least a generation.
    It has been my observation that some parents put the kids in every additional activity they can, so they can get a break.
    The left will always compare us with other countries as far as gun issues
    One of the biggest bark from the left has always been Education
    If we let God, education, love and respect back in our homes and schools we will realize we have never had a gun issue. We have had people issues.
    We will never get anywhere unless we fix the problem.
    Guns are not the problem here!
    “Anyone who would trade freedom for security, shall not have, nor do they deserve either.” Thomas Jefferson

  101. avatar David T says:

    No.
    It is a slippery slope and we are already on the downhill side.
    This is not the time for compromise, this is the time to dig in and get back that which was lost, as in “shall not be infringed”.
    That said, the fight should be done with education, information, and civility.
    Show your gun fearing neighbors that you are not crazy and the a firearm is not an evil object that corrupts all who touch it. Also spend some time teaching the idiot with guns at the range how to be safe and responsible with a firearm, they are giving the rest of us a bad reputation.

  102. avatar Gregory Kay says:

    That’s not a compromise. See, a compromise is when BOTH sides give up something; in this case, as is usual with any leftist, Obama-style compromise, we’re the only ones giving up anything, while they give up nothing. We leave with less than we had to start with, and they leave with more. That’s not a compromise; that’s a good old fashioned screwing.

    1. avatar elnonio says:

      Au contraire, it will be a compromise “Let us take what we want (for now) and we’ll let you keep something, or we’ll go after everything now”.

  103. avatar Mike Betts says:

    If we compromise on anything, the gun-grabbers will ask us to “compromise” on something else because they never stop. They play what former Berlin Mayor Willi Brandt called “The Old Salami Game”. Someone takes a little bit of your salami, just a pinch, and surely not enough to argue about – so they take another itty-bitty pinch, and again, not enough to get excoriated over. After awhile, you find that the entire salami is gone. They’ve gotten it all and you have none without a peep of protest.

    I don’t care what sort of firepower the fellow next door owns as long as he keeps it responsibly and does no harm to others with it. If he does, put him to death, put him in prison, or put him UNDER the prison – I don’t care which. Leave us who are responsible, law-abiding firearms owners ALONE to enjoy our hobby.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email