A Modest Proposal on Resolving America’s Gun Rights Debate

Disarm hate anti-gun demonstration.

Reader MO writes:

I have a proposal to solve the bump stock issue (and hopefully the entire gun debate) where both sides will win through an intelligent, non-emotional compromise. I propose a horse trade, of sorts.

Pro-gun and anti-gun people support legislation in Congress that:

1. Amends the National Firearms Act ’34 (NFA) and Gun Control Act ’68 (GCA) definition of a machine gun to include bump devices. I believe this definition should be narrow and concise. Possibly the language should be that a device other than the trigger, in which the trigger finger rests, allows the inertia of the firearm to reciprocate into the trigger finger.

2. Amends the Firearm Owners Protection Act ’86 (FOPA) to permanently re-open the machine gun registry and allow for a 180-day tax-free amnesty registration of these bump devices. This will allow the law-abiding citizens who currently own them the opportunity to stay legally compliant and not be deprived of their property.

This will also allow manufacturers of these devices to continue to manufacture them and sell them if they are willing to become type 07 firearms manufacturers with SOT/02 classification. This shouldn’t be a problem for the anti-gun people as it accomplished everything they say they want. Every one of these devices, from the manufacturing process to transfer would have to pass through the stringent background checks, fingerprinting, photographing, and ATF approval process.

All bump devices would be accounted for and those that aren’t would become illegal. It also avoids an outright ban that would unnecessarily infringe on gun owners’ rights. The NFA was successful in keeping machine guns use in the commission of crime virtually nil for 52 years before FOPA passed.

Pro-gun rights demonstrators.

3. Defines an amnesty registration period for veterans and their families. Since the machine gun registry would be open, there are several war trophies that legally came back between World War II, Korea and Vietnam but were never registered during the 300day period allowed in 1968.

A lot of them have been kept in attics and families of service members didn’t even know they were there. As these service members have begun to pass, the families have inherited these illegal guns and either did not know they were illegal, or were faced with the hard decision of turning in a family heirloom to authorities, or continue to keep it while breaking the law.

4. Approves a larger budget for the ATF to allow this more stringent system to work properly. Though some may not approve, it’s a concession we must make for both those who want more firearm regulatory enforcement and for those who want faster NFA processing times.

5. Remove suppressors from the NFA. In exchange for the pro-gun side agreeing to add bump devices to the NFA list, suppressors should be removed from regulation through passage of the Hearing Protection Act.

A suppressor, by federal definition, is already considered a firearm and is subject to background checks even beyond the NFA checks. They’re simple safety devices that muffle the sound of a gun shot and pose virtually no real-world threat to be used in criminal activity.

6. Adds universal background checks. The anti-gun side is going to oppose the HPA unless we implement some sort of universal background check system to ensure that suppressors cannot be transferred to prohibited individuals.

I don’t think there is much argument among either side that these should occur to help reduce the number of firearms falling in the hands of felons or mentally ill, but we have been at such a stalemate over all gun control measures that it hasn’t been able to happen.

But since both sides would be compromising it’s a reasonable trade in an effort to keep this pact together as long as Congress passes a bill with limited scope that will enforce background checks between private parties.

The US is a hodgepodge of gun laws...we need national reciprocity.

7. Approves national reciprocity. Since everyone will, in theory, be required to go through a background check to transfer a firearm, that means that everyone with a firearm should be law abiding. So there should be no reason why we shouldn’t have national reciprocity rights.

It’s currently too hard to travel with firearms and conceal carry when traveling between states as the various laws are constantly shifting. It’s extremely difficult for law abiding to keep up with the range of laws governing their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. With universal background checks for every firearm transfer, and licensing systems for each individual holding a concealed carry permit, it’s a compromise anti-gunners should be willing to make.

I see this as a fair solution to the problems America is facing today concerning civilian ownership of guns. This would satisfy the anti-gunners’ drive to “do something.” On the pro-gun side it would also be be less infringing overall to our right to bear arms. It would allow those of us who wish to exercise our Second Amendment right, to have more freedom in what we own and where we can carry it.

That said, I believe that both sides are too polarized for this kind of radical compromise. Both sides would try and modify the deal to their advantage. Both sides are probably too entrenched in their respective positions to actually have an intelligent conversation about guns rights and “common sense” gun control.

For America to heal and move forward on this issue, we need to be willing to compromise and take emotion off the table. Can we do that? I’m not so sure.

 

comments

  1. avatar henry bowman says:

    IT was 30 days, not 300. It was originally going to be 90 days.

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      The idiot that wrote this tripe needs to be committed! GUN LAWS DO NOTHING TO PREVENT GUN CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All we need is a “FAST TRACK” to executing all of those jerks that commit VIOLENT CRIMES – not 15 years in jail then parole, not 15 years on death row, ……… try, convict, execute!

  2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Not just NO, but HELL NO.

    Shall not be infringed….

    1. avatar Joe in NC says:

      This ^^^

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Exactly.

      Do you compromise with a rapist? With cancer?

      Watch this video of moms demanding action to see what the people you want to compromise with believe in: a national registry, a total ban on all semiautomatics, a ban on standard capacity magazines, and a total ban on carrying outside the home. It’s also pretty interesting/sad to see how ignorant they are about things like how guns work, how buying a gun at an FFL works, or any proposal more specific than do something!

      The gun laws mentioned were all compromises. They were all supposed to be the last compromise necessary. But each time the gun control activists come back for more. They want nothing short of absolute bans and total confiscation.

    3. avatar Frank says:

      It’s been a steady erosion of our rights from the get go! There is NO LAW you can pass that will stop what we have seen in America in the past 2 decades! NONE!! If you think that I will give up even ONE BULLET to appease the anti gunner movement your insane! I don’t pack my weapons around with me and I hunt when I need food and I fish when I need food Period. I watched as California banned smoking in restaurants and bars across America and then I watched as they banned it in ALL public buildings and forced their will to even private clubs. They weedled their way into every nook and cranny to take away yours and my rights. They now have spread across the USA because a handful of people wanted smoking banned. They have no problem however collecting SIN TAX to the tune of 8 Billion a year in California! If your so against smoking then BAN the SALE of them in California! Now they are doing the same thing to weapons in America if you give them the bump stock then it will be the supressor and then it will be something else till you are back to throwing rocks and beating each other with sticks to defend your family! My comment to this is GFY!! Come and take them we will not give ONE INCH! NO MORE EVER!! You want my gun you better not miss the first time when you come to take it! I don’t care if it’s a black powder or a machine gun you aren’t taking it until I have taken a dirt nap!! I have never intentionally hurt another human being in my life but the line is in the sand now and I don’t play fair. I will bring every creature God put on this planet to fighting you if you come for me and my weapon! The best thing you can do is leave this old geezer alone till I die of natural causes!

    4. avatar Frank says:

      Yes, This ^^^^^
      This is a another guy named Frank

    5. avatar Cliff H says:

      NO FVCKING WAY!

      Not one more step in THEIR direction. Not one more COMPROMISE.

      Shall not be infringed means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      You want ANYTHING more, MOLON LABE.

  3. avatar henry bowman says:

    6 is a deal breaker, they will use it, abuse it, and then justify a national registry.

    Not one more foot, not another inch.

    1. avatar Pasifikawv says:

      Yep. MO lost me at the UBC. #6 must be off the table.

      UBC will do nothing to stop the felons who knowingly break existing law smuggling guns across state lines to sell on city street corners to gang members and drug dealers. UBCs will turn licensed and law-abiding hunters into felons for swapping shotguns at deer camp. UBC will make it a felony to store your guns in a friend’s safe while on vacation. UBC could make many training activities, safety practices, and range rentals illegal. UBC is unenforceable without a national registry of gun owners and every firearm that they own.

      1. avatar michael says:

        But would you consider a background check that didn’t collect any information about the gun? The gun has no background, only the person trying to purchase the gun. Also I’d like anyone to be able to run the background on anyone else. I can think of a lot of situations where having a go/no go on firearms ownership would be useful information.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          This is the only possible way UBCs could be acceptable.

          A simple go/no-go response that doesn’t require input of any info about the transaction itself (no info about the type or # of guns or whether any were actually transferred). And open to EVERYONE, not funneling people into a chokepoint where the government controls who has access. All it would verify is that two particular people were both on the right side of the law. Nothing more.

          But maybe not even then…because nobody should have to ask the government for permission to do as they wish with their own private property.

          I like to refer to the “loophole” that UBCs would close as the Yard Sale Loophole. If you wouldn’t ask the gov for permission before decluttering your garage, why would you accept its intrusion into a constitutionally protected civil right?

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          If you concede that the government that the Second Amendment was intended to allow you to protect yourself from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, HOW WILL YOU KEEP YOUR NAME OFF OF THEIR LISTS?

        3. avatar JSW says:

          Brief answer to your question: “NO!”
          Long answer: “NO! HELL NO!”

          Next question?

        4. avatar Ragnar says:

          So, I would have to prove my identity and validity to be entitled to my constitutionally protected right?

          Saying the same thing about voting is considered racist.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Without a registry, why in hell would *ANYONE* comply? A gun has gone through 10-15 owners, is used in a crime, WTF has your UBC accomplished? Billions of dollars, absolute zero result. OH!!! Wait! If we had a REGISTRY … The goal is a registry, always was and always will be, do not lose track of that goal, which immediately precedes confiscation.

      2. avatar JSW says:

        “Mo” should have lost every reader at the word ‘compromise’ because ‘Mo’ is just another liberal Fudd whose agenda is to disarm gun owners by seeming to be ‘one of us’ with a willingness to sell more of the Second A to the lowest bidder.

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      The way that Illinois does it accounts for background checks but not a registry. You get a transaction acknowledgement and the buyer/seller keep the paper work for up to 10 years. No ledger stuff at an FFL. Yes they know who the gun owners are, but they don’t know what was transferred.

      Personally I am a believer in the idea of ghost guns and full autos being in the hands of civilians. As I said previously, the M4 should be the contemporary musket of our era.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I keep hearing BS about IL. How about explaining the ENFORCEMENT? No registry equals why the hell would anyone comply? How about I don’t keep the paperwork for 15 minutes? Concept is completely without value, regardless of multiple references, until you explain just exactly HOW THE FUCK you would get anyone to care about such a stupid and unconstitutional law without ANY enforcement mechanism, which is IMPOSSIBLE without a freaking registry. “OH! What happened to the gun I bought 35 years ago? Who the fuck knows? Who the fuck cares?” Go ahead, your turn.

    3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Imo, a UBC is worth burning the country down in a civil war. There will be no peaceful surrender of my Constitutional rights. Period.

    4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Not only is it a deal breaker, but the fe deral government does not have the constitutionally authorized power to regulate intrastate trade, which is why it wasn’t implemented in 1968. Any SCOTUS with a shred of honesty wouldn’t let it stand. (I’m guessing it’s a 50/50 proposition with the current high court.)

    5. avatar Maine Constitutional Carry says:

      No way on #6 — Universal Background Checks.

      We just beat this back here in Maine in November 2016 when Bloomberg tried to ram this down our throats via referendum.

      The last thing we would want is for the Federal government to impose this freedom-killing policy on us.

  4. avatar The Punisher says:

    “I have a proposal to solve the bump stock issue…I propose a horse trade, of sorts.”

    No.

    Shall Not Be Infringed.

    There, fixed your whole article for you.

  5. avatar MrBob says:

    Ummm, nope.

  6. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

    No trades, I want the pie back. Repeal NFA and GCA and give nothing in return but the ability to enjoy the rights we’ve all had infringed for so long.

    1. avatar G says:

      I think the point being made here is that we arent ever getting the pie back, and we need to compromise now while we still can.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        I think you’re right G, and I really object to such a defeatist view.

      2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Or, conversely, we can literally wage the civil war that’s been necessary to save our Constitutional Republic, instead, WHILE WE STILL CAN.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Oops, that’s what I was trying to reference 🙂

  7. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    How can you register a non-serialized attachment?

    And you think the left will agree to open up the machine gun registry in trade for bump-fire stocks becoming an NFA item?

    1. avatar binder says:

      What about all the machine gun owners, their value will go to zero.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        You can’t seriously say we should keep the machine gun registry closed to protect the investment of the (relatively) few people who have bought since 1968.

        Wow. Liberty. Shall not be infringed. Etc.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          I could easily be reading it wrong, but I took that as “won’t they resist this” rather than “their investments should be protected”.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Anybody with $20-50,000 invested in one machine gun will probably celebrate by spending a like amount on 20 more, with a shit-eating grin the whole time.

        3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

          Larry:Lets not forget that they can buy things that have come out since 86 that cannot be bought legally at virtually any price like a full auto Tavor.

      2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

        That the values would drop to zero is hyperbola. For instance FG42s aren’t going to drop to $2,000. That many would drop quite a bit is fine. Speculation is a dangerous game and everybody knows that going in. Do you own some guns who’s value is mostly based on the fact that they are automatic?

  8. avatar P-dog says:

    What if #6 did not involve a registry? For example, if the NICS check system were opened up for non-FFL dealers, then we could technically have a requirement for BG checks for every sale. Then I would probably support what you suggested. But a registry? Most gun owners won’t stand for that.

    1. avatar Chad says:

      Haha, you don’t think NICS is a national database???

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Without a registry, such a law would be unenforceable. Eyewash, IOW, why bother? With a registry attached it would actually help with only one thing, confiscation. Show me something else.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      A background check system without a registry is basically the honor system. Sure, I’d check, both because I don’t want to sell guns to felons, and because of the slight chance the buyer is an undercover ATF agent, but do you think Bob the blackmarket arms dealer, who sells stolen guns to help gangs defend their crack trade is going to?

    4. avatar DavoMoto says:

      The only UBC I would ever support would work like this: Guy 1 wants to buy a gun from Guy 2. Guy 2 types Guy 1’s name into a free UBC search engine that only has prohibited persons on it. If Guy 1 is not on the list Guy 2 sells him the gun. If Guy 1 is on the list and doesn’t agree he should be there is an appeal process that would take no longer than one month to resolve. No record of the transaction should be kept beyond a receipt for proof of purchase. But then again, if there are people walking around on the street we don’t trust enough to have a gun – why are they on the street? Things that make you go hmmmm…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        COOL! Are there unicorns and rainbows involved? Because why in the HELL would anyone in the known universe try to work their way through the 45 minutes of electronic menus instead of just completing the transaction? COMPLETELY impossible without 1) a registry and 2) severe penalties for noncompliance.

    5. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      “But a registry? Most gun owners won’t stand for that.”

      There IS a registry already in place, it’s called the 4473. Yes I understand the logistics of centralizing the data, but why do POTG ignore this fact??

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Because the 4473 isn’t a registry?

        1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

          Really? It ties a specific person to a specific firearm which the government has access to anytime they want. That’s a registry to me.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          A 4473 isn’t a registry, no matter how hard you squint your eyes.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Of course the 4473 is a registry, but try to use it in a court and you’ll discover it is not exactly, since that registry is illegal!

      2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        As someone who worked at a gun store and conducted background checks on a 4473 it is more like a record rather than a registry.

        Now depending on your state laws, you can sell your gun privately without a background check or sell to someone out of state making another 4473 for the new buyer. This system can only determine who owns what at the point of sale, not current ownership. What happens when someone decides to sell their entire collection privately or out of state to another buyer? The government will only know of the individual who purchased the guns originally, not the new buyer unless the first buyer decides to give them the information which is not required. The burden on proof is on the government, not the seller. Therefore the 4473 is hardly a reliable record for who owns what depending on your state law involving selling and transferring of guns. Heck even states that have universal background checks based solely on a 4473, not their own paperwork, are hardly reliable either since those laws are unenforceable and routinely ignored.

        Also when doing the instant check, they only know if it is either long gun, pistol, or other like a receiver. They don’t know exactly what gun it is or the serial number unless they physically comb through the records at the FFL or ask for a trace since all records of the NICS must be destroyed within 24 hours after the proceed from the government has been given. Records over 20 years old can be destroyed meaning guns bought prior to this date in 1996 are eligible for destruction.

        So while I am in favor of this going away it isn’t as reliable or as readily available as one would think.

  9. avatar aaron says:

    They already took to many slices of the salami, they won’t be happy till we are left with just the string

    1. avatar Bob says:

      They just called…. they want the string….

      No thx. Not willing to concede any rights or items at this time.

  10. avatar Jim B says:

    How do you register a stock? It doesn’t have a serial number. Are you proposing that we number every stock? That will become a nightmare.

  11. avatar strych9 says:

    No flaming from me but this comes across as a bit naive.

    I’m gonna have to say “pass”. Too much room for tomfuckery.

  12. avatar CZ Peasy says:

    In exchange for all the traitors in these United States being allowed to keep their citizenship, residence and property I propose that all firearms laws be repealed and that any government agent infringing on the 2nd amendment face the death penalty. I think we can all agree on that.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      Dilly Dilly

    2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Amen

    3. avatar Get Freight says:

      Yes, this. No more compromise period.

      We need to right the ship so to speak. No legislation is valid. Shall not be infringed means No Legislation. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Never. Ever. Ever ever.

      I hope that was clear and got the point across. No negotiation, no legislation, no compromise, no discussion, no conversation, no way, no how.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    Workable Compromise Suggestion:

    1) You dig the hole (after Fing yourself with something sharp and heavy)

    2) We’ll bury you in it.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Speak for yourself. I’ll let them rot in the street until the buzzards consume them.

  14. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “..I have a proposal to solve the bump stock issue (and hopefully the entire gun debate) where both sides will win through an intelligent, non-emotional compromise. I propose a horse trade, of sorts.”

    Thank you for your offer but I will decline.

    Your ‘trade’ asks for more than it gives and I have already given more than I wanted to.

  15. avatar James in AZ says:

    You lost me at universal background check

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I agree on the UBC point.

      I think we should always CLAIM to be open to discussing a “trade”; but, the only “trade” we should ever be willing to make is one that is tactically and strategically strongly in OUR favor. By this definition, the Antis would never agree. So, no trade is ever consummated. Thereupon, we hold that the Antis asked for X, all we asked in return was Y. They wouldn’t budge on Y. So, we wouldn’t just give-away X for free.

      The gun-control/-rights debate is moving – very slowly – in OUR direction. We don’t need to be desperate to accelerate the pace. Whatever we can get sooner for free (without compromising anything) is fine; but, the handwriting is on the wall. Wrenn means we will have Right-to-Carry within a few years.

      By similar reasoning, we should be able to challenge the silencer tax and 12-month waiting period. Why should I have to pay a tax and wait 12 months to get a health-safety device?

      Eventually, enough citizens will embrace the right to bear arms for self-defense that Congress-critters will no longer resist the advance of the rights guaranteed by the 2A. Thereupon, much of the NFA will be whittled-back.

      E.g., we could envision repealing the Hughes Amendment. Repealing the AOW, SBS and SBR provisions. Amending DDs to allow one to acquire X permits to maintain an inventory of X DDs of a designated type. E.g., a half-dozen hand-grenades. Blow-up a couple of your grenades and you can make a couple more.

      We need not concede much – if anything – while things are going in our direction.

  16. avatar CZJay says:

    Hmm… I wonder if the anti self preservation and anti private property crowd are not liars. They wouldn’t lie to trick you into giving something up would they? There is no way someone would want to oppress you and gain ultimate power. There is no such thing as a con artist, a charlatan, a manipulator, a politician, etc.

    You can trust everyone, even the NRA.

  17. avatar Eli2016 says:

    I concur with the OP. Maybe I shouldn’t considering the comments so far. But in fairness to BOTH SIDES there has to be compromise. The more one side entrenches themselves in their beliefs – right or wrong – the more this issue is going to grow until at some point, government WILL step in – Big Time. Maybe not right now, maybe not in 7 years but it will happen. As much as I love my right to carry what I want I also know that there can be no peace in this country until we go to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith. Do I trust the Dems? No. But our side has it’s issues also. If the Dems refuse to compromise it’s on them. Then and only then can we take our case to the nation. Right now, no one trusts anyone. It’s time for this to stop.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      The government has already stepped in. If we keep Obamaing our line in the sand they’ll just keep adding to the infringements.

    2. avatar Matt says:

      I’ve been hearing this same tired argument for decades. No, we don’t have to “bargain in good faith” where a Constitutional right is concerned. We stack the courts with constructionists and we strike down every foolish “common sense” idea they serve up.

      Compromising our right leads to further compromise down the road until we have nothing but fond memories. No, we fight every battle, we drain their war chests defeating and demoralizing them along the way.

    3. avatar The Punisher says:

      I’m sorry but this binary view of looking at the world – squarely in a Democratic vs Republican or left vs right paradigm is the problem they’ve trapped us into believing is true or the only way to look at things.

      Why do you surmise that we MUST compromise? Why does the government HAVE to step in?

      This is assuming that they should have the authority to regulate any objects or any industry…which they do not and should not. We are only here because of the combination of power tripping politics and dumbed down and deceived citizenry.

      If both sides are so polarized and entrenched in their views\beliefs\worldviews – right or wrong as you say – then the answer is not government force or coercion. We must look at this as a relationship. If both parties do not see eye to eye and cannot imagine giving up any ground it is immoral and evil to force either side to capitulate against their sincerely held beliefs.

      That means the answer is peaceful political separation. We call this secession. The government and other authoritarians would have us believe that this isn’t a practical solution, that it’s impossible or somehow wrong or unpatriotic…

      I contend that it is the only practical and peaceable solution. No violence, no bloodshed. If Chicagoans believe their city needs to run a certain way to function properly and the rest of Illinois disagrees, then Chicago should become independent of the rest of Illinois. Same goes for pretty much any major city. Let them become city-states. This “union at all costs” nonsense perpetuated by Lincoln and his cronies will come to and end. The cracks are more than evident. Political bonds are breaking all over the planet. Decentralization is inevitable. This is why we need to ensure that it happens peacefully and not with mass bloodshed.

      1. avatar rc says:

        I’m becoming more and more convinced that this may be the only long-term solution.

      2. avatar James in AZ says:

        When we vote leave, there will be bloodshed.

        They lose our tax money when we leave. And that they will not allow to happen.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “They lose our tax money when we leave”

          The tax money generating areas will have to make deals with the food generating areas, so I think that’s solvable.

        2. avatar The Punisher says:

          “We vote to leave. There will be bloodshed.”

          Well, that kind of wraps things up in a nice little bow and puts it into perspective doesn’t it?

          We know we’re in a political relationship with psychopaths who will use deadly force to continue to tax people into oblivion and bomb the hell out of whatever country du jour that is on the radar.

          That we don’t have the moral fortitude to leave this relationship is telling.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Even if our separation is peaceful it will not stay that way. You vote to balkanize the US and power players from around the world will line up to gobble up chunks of, if not all of, what was once the US.

          We have too many resources and too much wealth and far too many enemies to weaken ourselves in this way. It’s a virtual guarantee that a long and bloody war of invasion will envelope our city states.

          Fortunately cooler heads will prevail. There will be no separation

          And punisher. Why do you need others to act on your morals? If you feel so strongly about this issue what stops you from showing your moral fortitude and leaving for a better place?

    4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “… there has to be compromise.”

      I agree.

      Now please explain why you think the Pro-Rights side has not already given way more than it got? What has the Anti-Rights side given up to reach anything anywhere near ‘the middle?’

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        I knew I had it somewhere….

        Here is an wonderfully illustrated guide to the Compromise that is Gun Control:

        https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

    5. avatar CZJay says:

      Word of the Day: gullible.

    6. avatar Get Freight says:

      We you do not make an argument or case that says we need to compromise other than a fear of, “what if”.
      Maybe we should compromise on our other rights because, maybe, one day, they’ll try to infringe on all our rights, so we ought to give them some of them now to appease them and maybe they won’t try to take them all later.

      Makes absolutely no logical sense. I truly hope you are not serious.

    7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      But in fairness to BOTH SIDES there has to be compromise.

      Why?

      Why MUST there be yet more compromise on the exercise of natural, civil, constitutionally protected rights by the law-abiding?

      Screw that. Not another inch.

    8. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I have a compromise! If you stop fucking with my RIGHTS, I won’t kill you. I believe that is a quote from 1776.

  18. avatar Matt says:

    Nope, you weren’t too bad until you hit universal background checks. They sound innocuous but they are not. In order to enforce a universal background check system, all guns must be registered, at least that’s the theory of our opposition. They don’t care about universal background checks, they care about a universal registry.

    A registry makes confiscation infinitely easier which is why they must be opposed.

    Personally, I’m at a point where giving them nothing and chipping away at their infringements makes me happy.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Not true, look at the Illinois law

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        While Illinois law may be a method of implementing UBCs, it is unenforceable in terms of guns that changed hands before that law was passed, or changed hands in other states.

        It would be naive to fail to understand that the goal of any national UBC law is to gradually get every firearm in the country into an ownership database.

  19. avatar The Dotted Line says:

    If I were an anti-gunner I would accept your modest proposal. Then I’d implement your proposal with some squishy language that sows the seeds for future reinterpretation. And I would be happiest about the way that number 6 guarantees that nobody slips out of the spacious noose that you just slipped over the necks of gun owners. Brilliant!

  20. avatar Terry In Oregon says:

    Hardline “Shall not be infringed”. Only compromise is a universal background check with the following guidelines for private sales.

    1) Allow private sellers access to NICS database. (Either fix the broken system or scrap it)
    2) Check buyers information against NICS database and responds with a simple yes or no
    3) NICS check provides also a unique transaction ID per request
    4) It is up to the buyer and seller to provide their own bill of sale with serial numbers and transaction ID approval.
    5) None of the information of the bill of sale is forwarded to any government agencies.

    The current system for records FFL side remain in place. This allows for firearm traces under the current system (by serial number from manufacture, through FFLs, to the end user). End user has a fall back to show an approved background check was performed and approved of by the government. Include end user who performed a background check to enjoy the protections of the PLCCA.

    Does the system above solve gun crime, of course not there is no way to legislate away crime. Does it protect end users doing the right thing, yes. Does it allow law enforcement to trace firearms used in crime, same as before. Does it prevent an illegal federal database, sorry can’t fix that possibility.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “It is up to the buyer and seller to provide their own bill of sale with serial numbers and transaction ID approval.”

      Approval. This isn’t the worst idea I’ve ever heard (by far) but that’s infringement, my friend.

      Are you an engineer by any chance? What you describe is similar to some cryptographic authentication systems.

      1. avatar Terry In Oregon says:

        Yes I know its still infringement, can’t quite get around that. I’m not an engineer but I did work with crypto while in the Marines. My idea for the storage of the request works like this

        1) The seller initiate a check on the buyer, providing similar background information as on a 4473 (hey the ATF could even provide a separate 4473 that could optional be used for this purpose.
        2) FBI runs the NICS check same as it would for a FFL but no firearms serials are required, (Just a straight up and down prohibited / not prohibited) and a unique transaction ID is generated
        3) FBI sends back approval or denial with unique transaction ID (no penalty for denials or delays, delays have a three business day maximum before auto approval)
        4) Buyer and seller create their own bill of sale with unique transaction ID (or on a print of private seller 4473) and no copies are necessary to be forward to the government.

        In the event of a crime law enforcement run a trace as under the current system by serial number of firearm used in a crime. Come to end user who purchased it from an FFL, provides law enforcement with a copy of a bill of sale proving that they can poll FBI database that shows yes an approved background check was run before the fire arm was sold.

        Downsides to this approach: Bill of sales can be fabricated after the fact. Upside: give the average person a FREE way to run background checks that does not create a registry then people will use it. Prosecute gun crimes as stated under the current laws and see what happens. But all of this hinges on the government not being corrupt and enforcing the current laws. I can’t stop the government from arbitrarily enforcing laws to generate outrage so people give them more power.

        Sorry for the long explanation but as far as the protecting the database, just use the same protections as the NICS database, I haven’t heard of anyone hacking that.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Don’t sell yourself short, I think that system could be fairly secure against after the fact counterfeits. The gov’t would have their side of the ticket to check, after all.

          Anyway, didn’t intend to overly criticize as your idea is probably the most reasonable I’ve heard for background checks.

        2. avatar P161911 says:

          I could live with this. Especially if it meant scrapping the Hughes Amendment. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED has gotten us where we are now. Right were taken away bit by bit. We can get them back bit by bit.

        3. avatar Andy says:

          My comment on the background check question is: Why would we want to expand on something that the Fed, the states and the state police (OR) cannot/will not fund what it takes to follow up on the denials and rejections. OR is funded to have 20 SP officers to check these out. They have four live ones working. The state has used the monies for other policies! Ever see the SP at an FFL to follow up on a lie on a form? Ever seen one that was tried and convicted of attempting to purchase one from an FFL? No? So why would we want to give the gov’t more money and power over our lives so they can be even more average and inept?

          Less government is better than more!

        4. avatar Terry In Oregon says:

          Andy,

          I use to work at a gun store in Oregon so I have stories about OSP and am very familiar with them. And while I agree that less government is better than more I make this proposal that no anti-gunner would accept it. Not because it doesn’t address the anti-gunners grievances about universal background checks but because its a solution that potentially could work and provides legal protection for those who follow the law.

          This system if seriously proposed and if it could be written to replace or supersede various state law the anti-gunners would never go for it, they don’t want compromise, they want outright confiscation of everyone else’s firearms under the guise of gradual compromises over time.

          This idea though being far from shall be infringed is still a better one than the current system in my home state and allows law enforcement a reasonable (firearm recovered in relation to a crime) means of tracing its ownership from manufacture to criminal action. Ideas like this that offer practical (in the sense of protecting lawful use) protections and highlights the anti-gunner hypocrisy and actual motivations.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          All very dutifully complex, but leaves 2 problems. First, what you are describing is a REGISTRY! The *only* way you can discuss all this wonderful “tracing” is if the .gov knows exactly who (legally) owns exactly what gun(s). That *is* a registry, however you try to disguise it, or pretend it is something else. Second, WTF has BC or UBC *ever* accomplished, other than furthering the march toward confiscation? We have spent $BILLIONS on this intrusive and unconstitutional infringement, and it has changed nothing. THINK!!

          And given that every Dad would use this system to find out who’s dating his daughter, how much would it COST? And who would be paying those costs?

        6. avatar Terry In Oregon says:

          LarryinTX,

          I have to disagree it is not a registration. My argument is now spread across 5 or 6 posts but the simple answer is what the government has.

          Under my ideal system lets assume that the government is not abusing the literal interpretation or spirit of the law. All they have is on a certain date, this certain individual, requested a check against the prohibited list of NICS whether they are eligible or ineligible to have a firearm, and a unique generated transaction ID for that event. So serial numbers, or number of firearms, or type of firearms, or even if the transfer occurred. And all this does is protect the seller in a private sale under PLCAA.

          I have had to comply with ATF trace requests when I worked at a gun store in the past so let me briefly walk through it and insert the addition I proposed.

          Local law enforcement recover a firearm used in a crime > local law enforcement initiate a trace request with ATF tracing office providing Make|Model|serial number of firearm in question > ATF contacts manufacture about said item specifically > Manufacture replies with FFL number of which distribute received said firearm > ATF request information from distributor > Distributor replies with FFL number for LGS > ATF request information from LGS > LGS sends copy of on file 4473 pertaining to said firearm > ATF sends information over to local law enforcement > local law enforcement may or may not interview user based on information.

          Now here is what my proposal allows. End user who sold firearm can provide a bill of sale which contains that transaction ID, law enforcement can verify that yes a background check was conducted in relation to a sale on that day and they move on down the chain. I propose this is reasonable for a trace
          1) because it allows law enforcement to follow the path of a firearms journey used in a crime as rule of evidence allows.
          2) the background check system mirrors the current system used for FFL to FFL and FFL to private individual
          3) the current system if the ATF honors the spirit and letter of the law (big if I know) does not have a registry database. This system does not authorize its creation but makes the tools available to FFLs more accessible to the private individual to utilize or not utilize.

          I’m not going to delve into possible abuse scenarios or current conspiracy theories all laws or systems have that potential.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          TerryinOregon, you do not seem to understand, here. I keep no records and perform no BGC. The sheriff’s department has no clue whether I sold the gun in question last week or 30 years ago, nor how many times it has been sold since. Thus, any records whatsoever are proof of nothing. “I don’t remember such a gun”, or even “I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me” bring any investigation to a screeching halt. Absolutely useless, unless there is a universal registry, the need for which will *suddenly* become apparent the day after such a “UBC without a registry” law takes effect. You are drinking the Koolaid! All this would accomplish is spending huge amounts of money and getting that nose a bit farther into the tent. Reconsider the concept of UNENFORCEABLE. Because without a nationwide registry UBC is unenforceable.

    2. avatar aircooled says:

      And what happens when a future administration “forgets” to pay the electric bill for such an approval system? No more legal person to person transfers. Grandad’s old Winchester gets melted down or goes underground. This is gun confiscation without confrontation. Within a couple of generations, there are no legal firearms in private hands.

      1. avatar Terry In Oregon says:

        I Should have been more specific. Under my ideal system private sales are not required to use is, but in the event they do they enjoy the protections of PLCAA. So the government incentives it use. If I had a system that showed yes I made every reasonable effort that even the government agrees this person is not prohibited then I could imagine people using it. Hey I’d even pay $10 (the background check fee in my state for gun purchases) to enjoy legal protections of PLCAA. Ultimately for an anti-gunner to deny this system forces them to admit they want confiscation, or at the very least registration that leads to confiscation.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, and if we were following the Constitution, there would be *zero* of these threats you are claiming to avoid through subservience to our masters, why do we not simply say “I will not comply”? Are we all that afraid of the supposed secret and illegal lists .gov has of what we own? Those lists, ‘scuse me, are ILLEGAL! We need to pretend, as they do, that there are no illegal lists.

        2. avatar Terry In Oregon says:

          LarryinTX

          I do believe in our Bill of Rights recognizing our enumerated rights as bestowed on us by our Creator. I just question the logic of presenting “Shall not be infringed” as our only counter to anti-gunners arguments. I know I can’t convince them but those who are in the middle who want to do something when they see our side only say that same old argument, many will be drawn to their side because lets face it most people don’t understand the constitution, nor its gun laws, nor how those “compromises” over the years have eroded our rights.

          I plan on playing the long game, how can we convince the middle the current system is flawed. With little by little changes that move the pendulum back to less government through supplemental legislation, repeal and replace, and repeal where we are able to win those battles. It may take 50 to 60 years to get us back to that ideal but I believe that is possible when we provide a solution and put the other side on defending their end goal as their only talking point,

        3. avatar Get Freight says:

          To reply to those who commented on this post (cannot reply to them directly).

          Here is an idea, for every infringement gun owners have to endure. Non-gun owners must relinquish one right of our choosing in the Bill of Rights. Or a portion there of, in direct relation to the one we are asked to compromise on.

          This should reinforces what is meant be, “shall not be infringed”.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          TerryIO, I bought a Win Model 77 semiauto .22 rifle in or around 1961. I sold it to an acquaintance in or around 1968. If it was used in a murder last year, WTF do you think your plan would be able to do about it? You like to talk about your expertise as someone who worked in a gun store, are you even old enough to have any idea what you are talking about? I didn’t work in a gun store, but I’m guessing I bought guns in several before you were born. There are hundreds of millions of perfectly serviceable guns in the US which are not subject to your “voluntary” (since unenforceable) UBC plan, what would that plan be able to accomplish? I, for one, simply will not comply, because the requirement is unconstitutional. How do you think you could *force* me to comply?

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      What do you hope to accomplish with implementation of background checks for private transfers? That is, other than appeasement of those who hate us and our exercise of our rights, what public good do you possibly hope to achieve?

      Seriously: what do you hope to accomplish, specifically – and how will background checks on private transfers accomplish that end, specifically?

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        They won’t. Michigan has had UBC on pistols for over 90 years. It hasn’t helped one bit!

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That’s just it: help… what, exactly?

          (That is a specific question that I would like the proponents of background checks for private transfers to answer.)

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          That is a specific question that I would like the proponents of background checks for private transfers to answer.

          It will be amusing to see them try.

  21. avatar Tom says:

    Who wrote this Diane Feinstein, with the help of Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin and Waters?

  22. avatar Specialist38 says:

    No…4 and 6 .

    Also 7 – Not sure I want the Federal Government involved in CCW.

    Right now many states have agreements – If states can be force by the federal government to allow CCW from anywhere – then states can be forced by the federal government to (insert dystopian subject control here – registration, etc.)

    I don’t want to give up certain things to “get” certain things – compromise is when everyone loses.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The feds just have to do the same kind of hook they used to get national reciprocity for driver’s licenses, which was to condition highway funds on passing reciprocity legislation at the state level.No reciprocity, no money. Here, they could condition federal law enforcement moneys on reciprocity, and we all know that that is a LOT of money. And this way, the fed is not in the business of issuing CCWs.

      1. avatar Terry In Oregon says:

        I looked into that argument in the past about national reciprocity on drivers license as a legal precedence. The federal government has minimum standards for a CDL but on legislative level there is no document for national reciprocity on drivers license. No state wants to be the first to say another states drivers license is not good here that every other state in response bans them in turn. In reality its mutualy assured destruction that ensures a de facto national reciprocity.

  23. avatar rc says:

    I still don’t understand why some folks think we need to give up any portion of our constitutional rights just because some mass-murdering criminal (who was not us), killed a bunch of people. It’s irrational and unjust.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      ^^^ This right here ^^^

      You don’t punish 10’s of millions of law-abiding citizens for the acts of a madman. It’s unjust and we must not accept it.

  24. avatar DrewR says:

    “This shouldn’t be a problem for the anti-gun people as it accomplished everything they say they want. ”

    The key word here is “say.”

    Whenever we have given the antis what they say they want, they always push for more, every single time.

    The amount you are asking us to give up because of a device that has existed for 7 years and has only ever been used in one crime is unreasonable.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Absolutely. How many times have you heard them say that “no one is coming for your guns,” yet every time there is an incident such as Vegas or Aurora, that is the first thing they want to do. Hillary, among others, is all for Australian style confiscation. As DiFi infamously stated, “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it.”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Back in that day, during the ensuing war I would have hunted her down, along with her family. Now, I’m too old and weak.

  25. avatar Darkman says:

    The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to give We the People Rights. It is to insure that no government can abuse the Rights of WE the People. Any so-called deal is not up to politicians or governments. It up to each member of WE the People. If you want to forgo your Rights that is your decision. I will remain A Free Citizen and retain MY Rights. At the point of a gun if necessary.

  26. avatar Mark N. says:

    California already has universal background checks, but it doesn’t seem to have kept criminals from obtaining firearms. No universal background check system can shut off the black market in stolen firearms. Further, although the California DOJ denies that it has a firearm “registry,” it in fact has a de facto registry: it keeps copies of ALL “Dealer Record of Sale” documents in a computer, which records list the particulars of handguns for decades, and the particulars as to long guns for about four years, as I recall. Further, a recently passed law will require retroactive registration of all firearms, especially those not previously subject to “registration,” and will require unserialized firearms to be serialized. Democrats are sold on registration, and nothing, not even universal background checks, will stop them from seeking to impose it. I wish they would take a lesson from Canada, which finally cancelled its long gun registration program after spending billions of dollars and finding out it accomplished nothing.

    As a separate comment, I do not know of any county in California that will issue a CCW without at least SOME range time. The law requires “up to 16 hours of training,” half of which is usually range time. Moreover, some counties impose a range proficiency (accuracy) requirement.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Uh-hunh. And just how many crimes have been prevented by those laws? Answer=NONE. How much money has been spent=incalculable.

  27. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Another turncoat fudd selling out and grovelling before the gun grabbers while trying to sound “reasonable”.

    I hate the phrase “we as gun owners must”.

    No. The only acceptable use of that phrase is “We as gun owners must be against and actively resist any further infringements of our rights and actively push for repeal of all draconian, unconstitutional, and illegal gun control laws.”

    Anyone who doesn’t and presents him or herself as a “reasonable gun owner” is nothing more than a sellout who does more harm than good.

    And furthermore. The anti gunners have said what they want and that is complete and total disarmament and confiscation.

    The author of this article is a fool.

  28. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I am always willing to engage in constructive debate, with regards to the Second Amendment.

    Unfortunately, I think you bit off more than you can chew. You included too many proposals.

    If lawn darts were regulated, maybe bump fire stocks could be too. I wish that @sshole would have just offed himself, without involving innocent people.

    One more PITA for the ATF to track. I perceive them as a bunch of disinterested government employees with not a whole heck of a lot of initiative. Yeah, yeah, Waco. They do seem to have a terrible track record, don’t they…

  29. avatar LarryinTX says:

    My modest additions:

    8. Repeal NFA 1934 completely
    9. Repeal GCA 1968 completely
    10. Repeal FIPA 1986 completely

    Reread 2A, and in the future it is all the “gun law” we need.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Should be “FOPA”.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      The FOPA was actually a good thing…mostly. Until William J. Hughes amended it with his machine gun ban.

  30. avatar binder says:

    It’s not hard to get “universal” background checks. Given the mess the Equafax and identity theft and Social Security Cards being used for ID numbers, I would not be surprised if a National ID system is implemented. Use of chips and reissue ID cards when stolen will make is very difficult to have fake ID. With a central ID system, the excuse to the judge that I did not know the person I was selling to a prohibited person goes right out the window. That would establish case law. All they would have to do is provide a phone number you can call to check someone’s ID. A model for that already exists with the Illinois FOID card system (just use the national ID instead instead of an Illinois FOID). There would be no national database, just a universal background check system. Of course it will not stop straw buyers, but NICS doesn’t stop them either.
    Of course the same IDs make voter ID laws very easy, so the Democrats will never go for it.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I seem to recall that somewhere along the line, this was tried but failed because no one’s computers talk to anyone else’s computers, and the cost of upgrading so that they would was in the billions of dollars.
      California has a law now that will require, as of July 2019, an ammo ID card to buy ammo—but the computer system to process the millions of applications that will need to be processed doesn’t exist, nor the personnel to run it, much less another system to record and process the millions of transactions that the law requires be reported to the DOJ starting January 1, 2018. Since this a government procurement job, I cannot imagine that it will be completed on time or within budget, even though the theoretical income from the application fees (which include a background check) will be about $500 million. Why anyone believes (that right there is a big assumption) that this will reduce “gun violence” by limiting the ammunition gang bangers can buy is a mystery.

    2. avatar binder says:

      I don’t know, It works in Illinois (still will not stop straw purchases). As for the computer system to process the applications, are you kidding me, how do they do the background checks for guns. Use the same system for the ammo IDs and don’t try to record every sale. Sounds like they are just are making 1000 times more complicated than needed.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Binder, you failed to mention exactly why anyone would *call* that number before accepting money and handing over a firearm. Without a registry, any such plan is unenforceable. Including IL.

  31. avatar FedUp says:

    I don’t think there is much argument among either side that these should occur to help reduce the number of firearms falling in the hands of felons or mentally ill

    If you mean that everybody agrees that your proposals won’t do a thing to reduce that of which you speak, then yep. we’re all in agreement.

    But that makes us wonder why you think any of it should be done, other than to give up our rights in exchange for recovery of fewer other rights.

  32. avatar Mark says:

    No. Fuck the left. Fuck the gun grabbers. They’ve always hated us and always will. We’ve given them far too much already and they can just fuck off already. To compromise on a God given right is anathema. Not one more picometer! (for those of you who always say not one more inch!)

  33. avatar WKL says:

    The big problem with this proposal is that UBC will only increase pressure for a registry.

    But even if I was okay with this deal, it doesn’t matter – there isn’t a single Democrat in Congress who would endorse it.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Not to mention if they’re given weak UBC’s, even if it’s just a simple yes/no with record of what’s transferred or even if anything was transferred it will take about 1 picosecond from when that bill becomes law before they’re trying to move the bar on UBC’s to make them more intrusive.

  34. avatar Ryan says:

    “be less infringing overall to our right to bear arms”
    Either it’s infringing or it isn’t. Why don’t we pass laws that make it more illegal to commit certain crimes?? Instead of picking and choosing what Rights we ought to give up how bout we just stick to “Shall not be infringed”.

  35. avatar RockThisTown says:

    “Let me infringe in exchange for . . .”

    Stop right there. No.

  36. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    We have a Republican Congress, a Republican President, Neil Gorsuch on SCOTUS and RBG on borrowed time.

    Remember, Congress couldn’t pass a UBC bill or a new AWB in 2013. They sure as hell can’t get anything done now. Read what Schumer said.

    Now is not the time for compromise. Now is the time to aggressively destroy unconstitutional infringements, one at a time, through any means possible. Asking for compromise is a tactic only suited for those who realize they are bargaining from a position of weakness. We don’t fit that description today.

  37. avatar Doc Samson says:

    At this point, anyone who believes that the gun grabbers will ever be satisfied with anything short of total confiscation (of only ALL legal guns) is living in a world just short of fantasy and, yeah, I ain’t listening to that!

  38. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    Question: What is compromise?

    Answer: A slow march to the gallows.

    The Jews, Gypsies and other pariahs of 1930s Germany compromised many times with the Nazis. Relinquishing their firearms, wearing markings of identification and enevitably boarding the boxcars bound for misery and death.

    This is where “compromise” will lead for those unlucky enough to be on the wrong side of the state’s ambitions. Who will the dregs of society be in the next 20-50 years? Who knows, but it is best that they be armed for their own sake.

    Backs to the wall, never compromise and never surrender!!!

  39. avatar Joe R. says:

    A MODEST PROPOSAL – INVESTIGATE OBAMA’S / HILLARY’S / MUELLER’S COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA ON THE URANIUM 1 DEAL

    1) Get Mueller to recuse himself as former FBI Director over Uranium 1 deal
    2) Throw Obastard’s DOJ’s (Domestic Terrorist) Holder, Communist Loretta Lynch, in prison due to Uranium 1 deal in prison (prosecute all other illegality while they’re in prison).
    3) Throw Susan Rice in prison (too many reasons to recite here)
    4) Throw Hillary Clinton in prison (too many reasons to recite here)

  40. avatar Joe says:

    Regarding point 6. They would be better off creating within each state, a voluntary system for private sellers that queried a person’s prohibited person status on a given date without any record of what was being transferred. A transaction number would be issued that the seller could keep with their records.

    I think many private sellers, outside of Illinois, would be more likely to sell to someone they don’t know well if they could be assured that the individual wasn’t a prohibited person.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      No, bad idea. They’ll just keep pushing for small changes to said unintrusive system until the system turns into a full blown registry.

      It would start out voluntary, then be required in certain circumstances, then be required in all circumstances. The amount of information recorded would likewise grow incrementally. You can’t compromise with non-rational actors who are negotiating in bad faith.

  41. avatar auldzalt says:

    I do not like UBC, it still only effects law abiding gun owners. What about allowing out of state handgun purchases. Still need a bgc.

  42. avatar Fred Butler says:

    ….no…..no efin way
    I believe this entire issue was created to threaten our 2nd. The shooter did what he did to create this BS.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I concur.

  43. avatar Noishkel says:

    Yeah here’s a modest proposal: how about the writer of this tripe get f*cked?

    Bargaining on ESSENTIAL ENUMERATED RIGHTS is the very reason why have these problems TO BEGIN WITH. Every single thing this mental midget behind this trash are things we’re already working now through the courts. Which is a HELL of a lot better, given that establishing legal precedent is how we’ve been able to hammer in pretty much every single major pro gun rights win in the past decade.

    And just as a personal note how about you stop working for the other f*cking team, you gorram brown shirt? Just about the entire media cycle as completely forgotten about bump stocks in favor of the latest moral outrage.

    Far as I’m concerned this ‘MO’ character is a nothing better than a FUD plant and should be driven right the hell off of this website with as much social pressure as that can be mustered. Traitors get no sympathy, nor do they get any quarter.

    1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      Gorram. Ha.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        Yeah, I never did get over Firefly being canceled. :p

  44. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Reader MO, did you come up with that drivel on your own, or did Larry, Curly, and Shemp chip in? Just sit down and shut up. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    If no one has yet posted that “Billy Madison” contest clip (not magazine), then someone should.

  45. avatar Lew says:

    Not to put a damper on a parade, but the slide indicating that CA does not require a live fire training is incorrect. You take your live fire training and class at a sheriff’s station for 8 hours.

    1. avatar kevin says:

      Absolutely agree Lou….I live here in CA and yes there is a live fire test for a CCW. Why does TTAG keep using the Trace as a material source? They are very anti-gun and are as factual as the Brady campaign.

  46. avatar TC says:

    Amend Unconstitutional laws like the NFA of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1996…really? All of those should promptly be repealed, since Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government.
    Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment. There debate is over.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      *Precisely* correct.

  47. avatar Roy says:

    This is a very good idea that would actually help prevent felons from acquiring firearms, could easily reduce crime, and at the same time would bring great things to the firearm enthusiasts of our great country. Since it’s all of those things, blinkered, narrow thinking “not one inch” 2A clowns will ruin it for all of us by acting like…well, clowns. The NRA will oppose it because it’s those same clowns who are the loudest about withdrawing their memberships and therefore pulling out money. The only hope would be getting suppressor manufacturers, who almost definitely have more cash on hand than the clowns, to get behind it as a means to get the HPA and the accompanying windfall it would bring to them, behind this raft of very good progress on all fronts.
    It’s a shame the silly fuckers who can’t see beyond “not one inch” don’t recognize that they’re not really giving up anything and will screw everything up for everybody, which is exactly how we wind up with overly broad bump-stock ban legislation in place (that would probably give states latitude to outlaw aftermarket triggers and potentially trigger jobs), while at the same time gain exactly nothing. I assure you, that’s what’s going to happen.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Way to wave the white flag of surrender and be a short sighted historical flunky.

      In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the other side is never going to stop until they’ve eliminated the 2nd amendment and have confiscated all the guns. They’re not rational actors negotiating in good faith / being honest about what they want. You’re trying to play Neville Chamberlain with Hitler thinking you can keep some them at bay by just giving them a little bit more for now.

      1. avatar Roy says:

        See? Like that clown right there. This is exactly the problem. I rest my case. Flunky, indeed. Enjoy your new gun control laws that result from pouting in the corner instead of actually participating in the conversation, buddy. And again, we give up nothing in this situation. Universal background checks would be a pain in the ass, to be sure, but are not an infringement. They just aren’t so don’t start. Ditching bump stocks…who cares? They don’t do a thing for anybody, so don’t waste my time. Think about what we get out of it. Suppressors and universal reciprocity in CC. That would be huge. Neville Chamberlain gave up a huge chunk of Eastern Europe in the hope that Hitler would be happy, and got nothing in return. Your comparison is utterly without merit. Get some perspective.

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          You’re a hopeless defeatist. You can give up your guns if you want, but don’t try to tell the rest of us the only way we can keep our guns is to constantly keep ceding ground. You’re going to get nothing. Just like Neville.

          We’ll lose nothing by holding fast.

        2. avatar Stereodude says:

          By the way, I look forward to your forthcoming book, “How to Secretly Win the War by Losing All the Battles.” I hope you can get the ghost of Neville Chamberlain to write the foreword for you.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “This is a very good idea that would actually help prevent felons from acquiring firearms, could easily reduce crime,”

      How? And since Dems realize it would do no such thing, they would give up *nothing* in order to get it inflicted on us. And we would have proven, once again, that we understand that 2A does not mean what it clearly says, since we are willing to so easily hand over our rights.

  48. avatar george lortz says:

    For America to heal and move forward on this issue, we need to be willing to compromise and take emotion off the table. Can we do that?

    Not gonna happen. The other side is too used to our side capitulating.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      *I* can certainly compromise! How ’bout I smile and say “thank you” after you repeal NFA 1934? Then, I solemnly vow to wait 10 minutes before seeking repeal of GCA 1968.

  49. avatar Scott Miller says:

    Here is my problem with giving anything to the gun grabbers, The Fire Arms Owners Protection Act was supposed to solve a lot of these problems. We were supposed to be able to travel freely as long as we carried our firearms IAW the laws of your origin or destination. Clearly, that has not been happening. To be fair, this is not the federal govt doing this, it is gun grabbing locals, case in point, Shaneen Allen. So, we ban the bump stock, who is to say that people won’t still be arrested for carrying concealed weapons in NJ, NY, or Cali? I see litigation from those same states, tying up reciprocity, all the while, the left gets their UBC and bump stock ban.

    UBC with no registery. An exception for transfers to family members. Background checks at no cost for private transfers. Concealed carry reciprocity WITH all the FAOPA protections meaning if you wander into some area of a state that doesn’t allow concealed carry, you are not going to get arrested. Silencers in exchange for bump stocks, but the machine gun registery is back open, and silencers/suppressors are not serialized or treated like firearms, since obviously, they are just metal pipes without the accompanying firearm.

  50. avatar NM Gunowner says:

    No.

    No more compromise.

    The objective of the anti-gun side is civilian disarmament. In other words, they want the POTG to cease to exist: cultural genocide. Any “compromise” they would be willing to make is a step in that direction.

    If I thought we could give up bump stocks, or even institute UBCs, and they would leave us alone forever, I’d be for it. But they won’t leave us alone. They will keep coming back again and again and again, and any “compromise” they can claim as a “win” will only increase their appetite for more.

    We have been winning for a long time. At the Federal level, we’ve blocked gun control. At the State level, we’re winning in most places (although we’re losing badly in a few places like CA). In the courts, we’re winning big. In the culture, we’re winning as gun ownership for self defense and sport is increasingly widely accepted, even among an increasing number of people on the left. We have to maintain this momentum by blocking ANY gun control at the Federal level.

    No compromise.

    “Wayne Must Go.”

    1. avatar Eli2016 says:

      “We have been winning for a long time. At the Federal level, we’ve blocked gun control. At the State level, we’re winning in most places (although we’re losing badly in a few places like CA). In the courts, we’re winning big.”

      So if we’ve been winning why take a step back and antagonize the already psychopathic, crazy left? And I don’t mean Hillary. If we can show from our side that we are able to reason – intelligently – with a completely polarized leftist community then the onus is on them. Not us. People will see them for what they are. Let them shoot themselves in the foot. Let them be the ones who won’t stand for the Anthem. Let them be the ones who do not control congress or the Presidency.

      We have our guns. Over 200 million or more. We can afford to give up bump stocks for national reciprocity. We can live with background checks for private sales in exchange for burying once and for all, all gun registration laws.

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        No, no, no, no, no…

        Lets take back our rights instead and not give up anything. As I posted below… Compromise might work if the other side were rational actors negotiating in good faith / being honest about what they want, but they’re not and they aren’t.

        So, stuff the compromise talk.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ” We can live with background checks for private sales in exchange for burying once and for all, all gun registration laws.”

        Hell, no!

        How will they verify the gun you bought used from someone had the background check made? They will look up that serial number on the background check database.

        The background check database *becomes* a gun registry…

  51. avatar Lance Manion says:

    If we’re going to talk trades, I want the Iranians negotiating on our side. That way we get everything and give nothing.

  52. avatar Nanashi says:

    You had me till 6. Aside from creating a defacto gun registry, it’s an OUTRIGHT BAN on 24% of the population owning firearms through no fault of their own and an unknown further percent being banned from owning handguns (also through no fault of their own).

  53. avatar Ralph says:

    MO (the OP) reminds me of the guy who told his date, “I’ll just stick the head in.”

  54. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    While I firmly believe that ‘shall not be infringed’ means ‘shall not be infringed’, I have a pragmatic side that understands that all my pouting about the RKBA is going to get me exactly nowhere. So I’m not against compromise in the name of political expediency. However, the left would never go for opening the registry and national reciprocity any more than most of us here are open to universal background checks. It’s just not going to happen.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Compromise might work if the other side were rational actors negotiating in good faith / being honest about what they want, but they’re not and they aren’t.

      We’re slowly taking back our 2A rights little by little. The compromise talk presumes one or both of these two things.

      1) We can pull one over the gun-grabbers and get them to give up more than they get for once. Like MO’s plan (less #6).

      2) We can win some brownie points in the court of public opinion with the squishy “middle” while we take back some rights a little bit faster by putting on a good show with a compromise.

      These two presumptions are total nonsense and as such, talk of compromise is pointless and counterproductive.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        No sense in compromising with the uncompromising. However, a compromise that might work is bumpfires for suppressors. As long as the language is clear that simple trigger upgrades are not included in the bumpfire ban. Any lefty that wouldn’t take that trade clearly knows nothing about suppressors that they didn’t learn from Hollywood and I think most or us would be happy with the trade. That’s about as far as I can see any compromise happening.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        No sense in compromising with the uncompromising. However, a compromise that might work is bumpfires for suppressors. As long as the language is clear that simple trig ger upgrades are not included in the bumpfire ban. Any lefty that wouldn’t take that trade clearly knows nothing about suppressors that they didn’t learn from Hollywood and I think most or us would be happy with the trade. That’s about as far as I can see any compromise happening.

  55. avatar Bob999 says:

    Lost me at the word “compromise”. The left does not compromise. They always pull out of their deals. We The People cannot give them another inch.

  56. avatar BDub says:

    NOT ONE MORE DAMNED INCH!

    Bump-fire stocks only exist because the NFA/GCA exist.

    I shouldn’t have to go through any more trouble to get a silencer than I do a AR-Upper. UBCs are a non-starter – simply NOPE. Let not take two steps back just so we can say we’ve taken a step forwards.

    Call me an absolutist, if you must. I’ll gladly accept the moniker. But know this – In thier end-game all of us become either absolutists or disarmed.

  57. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Counterproposal:

    Repeal the NFA. Its unconstitutional.

  58. avatar GoD says:

    When we end the illegal NFA that will fix all of those issues!

    Ballot box then the cartridge box should fix things if above fails!

    “Adjust your dope and fire again” should work

    Being #Pro2a… is about the power of the people……its the organization of people with one voice who are not all infighting … that matters… its not xyz association that matters…its the millions of people behind any organization “THE PEOPLE” that matters! We set the tone! Gun Owners need to have one message! Not one Inch MORE!!

    “Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis” finally!

  59. avatar racer88 says:

    No. No. And, no. Period.
    I’m not willing to “trade” for my Constitutional Rights, which ALREADY exist and presumably already protected. Why would I give them something in trade for something I technically already have? Give them something in exchange for them to abide by the Constitution? ***k no.

  60. avatar David Nicholas says:

    I would support every inch of this compromise. The two sides in this endless debate need to give ground to the other so both can get most of what they want. This proposal works for me.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      :..The two sides in this endless debate need to give ground to the other:”

      Firearm owners have already give a great deal of ground in this debate. From the NFA to the Hughes Ammendment to the ATF to the AWB to a seemingly limitless number of little things like ‘who needs (insert latest anti-gun whine here)”

      When is the other side going to give some ground?

    2. avatar Stereodude says:

      Way to be a naive dupe. They’re just going to turn around and come back and ask for more no matter what they’re “given”. You can’t compromise with non-rational actors who are not negotiating in good faith. They want it all and your strategy is to slowly give it to them because you apparently don’t believe that’s really their end game.

    3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      So glad if it “works for you.” You, however, can’t choose for me or anyone else. Nor can any number of other people choose for any individual but themselves.

      I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

      Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except mala en se. I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  61. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Yes!!!! Finally a raise!!! I ain’t had a raise since 1989!!!! Love that part of the plan as for the rest no way in hell I ain’t doin no extra work! I do enough just pressing proceed, delay, and deny!

  62. avatar former water walker says:

    Am I the ONLY one offended by the “increase the budget of the ATF”?!? No…get rid of that abomination. And Illinois denizens PLEASE don’t use Illinois’ BS FOID as a model to emulate! Nearby Indiana has no problems without such unconstitutional infringement. Illinois does NOTHING right😡

    1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      “Am I the ONLY one offended by the “increase the budget of the ATF”?!? No…get rid of that abomination. ”

      HERE HERE!!! Bravo! Or at least rename it the “AT” and get the “F” out!

  63. avatar stateisevil says:

    How about we get 10% of gunowners to call their reps or stop by their offices on a certain week of the year, get NFA repealed, get national reciprocity passed into law, and give the totalitarian anti gunners a shit sandwich?

  64. avatar Chris says:

    How about
    1. No
    2. No
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No
    6. No
    7. And, wait, let me think abou, No.

  65. avatar joetast says:

    Holy pages of discontent, Yes I will horse trade. For a horse.

  66. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Who here believes that you can negotiate with liars? Does anyone believe you can negotiate with a zealot? What is the anti-gun left but a bunch of liars and zealots? Even if you could arrange some grand compromise what is to keep them from coming back when they have control of the government and screwing us? Remember how we got Obamacare?

    Never give up, never surrender, and never, never negotiate!

  67. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I don’t think there is much argument among either side that these should occur to help reduce the number of firearms falling in the hands of felons or mentally ill..

    Well, the first three words may be accurate.

    You offered six proposals. Please explain how each proposal will specifically accomplish the goal of reducing the number of firearms falling in the hands of felons or mentally ill.

  68. avatar DerryM says:

    Since when did “modest proposal” become a synonym for “abject surrender”?

    How about this outrageous proposal?
    1) Repeal NFA 1934 and the FOPA 1986 add-on forbidding the sale of new Machine guns.
    2) Repeal GCA 1968.
    3) Repeal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
    4) Get SCOTUS to declare all local and State infringements null and void, open or concealed carry legal in all States and localities and no “gun Free Zones” permitted.
    5) Enact Federal Laws that mandate a Death Sentence for anyone committing homicide with any sort of firearm, mandating 50 years prison for anyone wounding another person when committing an unlawful act and five to ten years for threatening or brandishing a firearm to intimidate any other person(s).
    6) Congress to enact Laws that mandate Public Schools to offer voluntary firearms safety and live-fire marksmanship training to all Students who wish to participate and provide Federal Funding to School Districts and Private Schools to facilitate this program.
    7) Congress to provide funding for the construction and maintenance of Public Shooting Ranges in all States.
    8) Congress to explore and create a system for restoring gun-rights to convicted Felons who served their time and were released with a good behavior record (or some such indication that they would not return to criminal activity).

    It’s time to stop penalizing those who keep and bear Arms without doing or intending any harm to other people for Recreational purposes, Marksmanship Competitions, and, of course, Hunting and Fowling as well as Personal Defense and drop the sledgehammer on those who use firearms to commit crimes and intentionally harm others. If we are a Free People, it is time to start acting as such and making it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate willful violence of any sort in our society and that we are prepared and willing to defend ourselves and our society against those who disrupt our peace and security.

    Additional suggestions solicited. No doubt I missed a few things.

  69. avatar piper says:

    Remove all the illegal gun laws. It’s the only sane thing to do.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Remove all gun laws, period, they’re all illegal! Then take off and nuke’em from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure!

  70. this is what medical pot does to your brain, you start to think about giving in and being mellow, and miss the entire issue. we need to overturn the laws against us, not reclassify them so someone can read what they want to see and pass laws against us. overturn the GCA laws of “34 and “68 and get rid of the NFA , so supressers can be had by all .and then make it LAW that all 50 states MUST allow shall issue for firearms carry, and that ALL 50 states MUST allow us to own any handgun, rifle carbine , shotgun we want. even the AR-15 , or Ak-47/AKM types as well as others ( you know G3 , Hk33 etc). and all the high cap mags we want. and ALL 50 states Must allow us the right to have the high cap mags. then pass a law makes it TREASON to try to restrict all of that.

  71. avatar Icabod says:

    Sure. Now apply the same modest proposal to the abortion debate. How’s that going to work?

  72. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    I will channel my inner George Wallace and say (and I’m from the NY/NJ Metro Area):

    No More Compromises on our 2nd Amendment Rights Today!

    No More Compromises on our 2nd Amendment Rights Tomorrow!

    No More Compromises on our 2nd Amendment Rights Ever Again!

  73. avatar El Bearsidente says:

    There is no bumpstock issue.

    If you want to kill as many people as possible, using a device that makes your rifle unstable and inaccurate, is very silly.

    Breivik scored more kills without bumpstock and without a target rich environment.

  74. avatar El Bearsidente says:

    Btw, looking at that top image, how does one “disarm hate”?

    The Weimar republic tried that. They introduced a very strict gun registry with massive gun control. The idea was to keep the Nazis and Commies from legally arming themselves.

    It did not prevent either group from getting illegal weapons and once the Nazis had power, they used the registry to go after dissidents.

    Not quite as planned.

  75. avatar Dave says:

    You make a deal when you’re strong, not weak. Right now is the first time for awhile that the ‘pro-gun’ side has been *relatively* strong. It will not last. It never does. So everyone preening about how many conservatives are going to be put on the bench, etc, you are fooling yourself. The GOP will be routed… and soon. Politics is cyclical and this is as predictable as a leap day. So in 6 years when the democrats have the presidency and one house, is everyone going to whine that they didn’t get anything pro-gun done? If we could do what the dems do and get basically half of what we want and give them nothing, that would be nice, but talk to Paul Ryan etc about that. The GOP won and therefore won’t listen to you. If they lose, they might listen to you but Nancy Pelosi will be the one in charge. And, at very best, we will be playing to maintain the status quo.

    And I don’t care how much people bluster about a revolution, it ain’t happening. When the democrats force UBCs on you, it isn’t happening. When another meaningless ‘assault rifle’ ban is passed, it ain’t happening. All this stuff has happened either before or on a state level with zero resistence. And the real secret? Even if an Australian-style ban on semi-auto rifles comes down? It’s still not happening. About 95% of everyone under 35 is too busy on tinder to give a crap about AR-15s. No one’s revolting- you might get a standoff here or there, but that’s it. And the longer you hold on to that fantasy of Concord, the worse off you’ll be. Pull off the band-aid or go out and start it. Writing about liberty trees and blood ain’t doing anything.

    IF the pro-gun side was smarter than the anti-gun side, it would do something similar to this proposal. It wouldn’t start out with this exact proposal, of course, it would be wiser to just offer bump-stocks up in exchange for silencers, reciprocity, whatever. Because bump-stocks (a novelty at best) are worth less to almost every gun owner than the other items we would be getting. But eventually any large deal including what we want would probably look like this and, yes, would include UBCs- because they are a boogeyman to some gun-owners and would be a feather in the cap of gun-controllers. It could be managed by operating a system that still allowed the gun-controllers to say they got UBCs but disallow the sort of tracking and inventorying that gun folks are scared of. But that will ONLY happen if the system is set up, legislated, and started while pro-gun forces are strong. Feel free to try and get a deal without it, but I don’t see it happening.

    But that’s the rub. Even though the chances of any pro-gun legislation happening are rapidly falling to zero, everyone would rather see nothing happen but keep hope of some Supreme Court Justice riding in on a white horse or something. The problem is that eventually the other side will MAKE something happen. And, yes, they’ll pay for it electorally- they paid for the first AWB. But it will be a done deal and eventually will become the new normal beause they won’t make the mistake of a sunset limitation. Rght now the ‘pro-gun’ side has nothing to say, nothing to craft- you can’t win that way. Gotta do something to break the impasse.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Way to be a naive defeatist. You extract compromise from the other side when you’re strong, not capitulate to them.

    2. avatar Sprocket says:

      Unfortunately, I think you’re closer to the truth than most. There are only political solutions or violent solutions. I do not see the level of commitment and organization on our side that make a violent solution a realistic possibility. For all the folks internet virtue signaling and engaging in ego masturbation, maybe one in a thousand has a plan. The caps lock button is easy, figuring out which of your local pols needs to go when push comes to shove is a little more problematic and sobering.

      The “SHALL NO BE INFRINGED!” folks are a problem. They are willing to ride the whole flaming mess straight into the ground, all for the warm glow of moral superiority. They will offer nothing but “not one inch” till things go wrong. After that they will have nothing to offer but internet tantrums, like a toddler who’s been denied fruitloops wailing and flailing on the supermarket floor.

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        You’ve got your analogy backward. The gun-grabbers are the toddlers throwing the temper tantrum and Dave and yourself are the parents who are embarrassed and are willing to do anything to pacify the toddler and get them to stop for a while to stop the spectacle. The not one inch crowd doesn’t reward bad behavior with capitulation and are the parents who will take the toddler out of store screaming for a spanking instead.

        Strangely, you and Dave won’t be able to figure out why your toddler acts out and throws a tantrum every time you’re in the store while other toddlers are well behaved.

  76. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

    1 through 4 = NO,
    5 = YES,
    6 = NO,
    7 = YES

    No registration, that is a placeholder for a time in which the Democrats can take advantage of a killing spree while controlling the 3 facets of govt, imagine with that control and a President like Hillary or Barack in office, my guns shudder in their safe at the thought of registration being used to identify, and confiscate firearms under the auspices of security. I’ve lived far too long in California to know that these Dumbocrats want nothing less than to have the political capitol to glide down the merry gun control path to the promised land of complete confiscation and banning civilian gun ownership.

    Do NOT give gun control an inch, cause Democrats will take a mile, and say thank you, and take another mile until you are left fighting for the MANNER in which you surrender. Trust me, DO NOT GIVE AN INCH, stay resolute and unwaivering. As gun owners, we are blameless when crime occurs, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!

  77. avatar johnny108 says:

    FUCK YOU, AND FUCK YOUR ‘COMPROMISE’!!!

    All gun owners in the U.S. have done is “compromise” and EVERY time, they have been fucked over!!

    1. avatar Hans says:

      Please, delete this trash !

  78. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    The author needs to understand that 2nd A absolutism *IS* the rational position on this. We get emotional talking about it because we are insulted at every turn by people who refuse to listen to what we actually have to say, but the position itself results from pure logic being applied to the highest law of the nation, along with an understanding of totalitarian governments from history.

    The fact of the matter is that I, as a human being, have a basic right to defend myself both from criminals and from a government sliding into totalitarianism. It’s important to note here that the only fundamental difference between a basic petty criminal who breaks into your home at night with either intent to harm you or willingness to, should he encounter you accidentally, and a totalitarian government is number and organization. Such a corrupt government is intrinsically criminal in and of itself.

    Along with that basic human right to defend myself comes the basic human right to the most appropriate weaponry for the purpose. This includes, whether you want to admit it or not, fully automatic firearms. This also includes the government not being allowed to know I own them. Don’t forget that not only are guns used in defense against simple home invaders, but they are frequently used to prevent rioting crowds from looting or burning down various businesses. This happened in the L.A. riots in the early 90’s, this happened in Ferguson, MO, and recently it has happened with the fires in northern California. Some residents defied the evacuation order stood watch with AR15’s and actually turned back several looters.

    As for gun control legislation, there is no real evidence that it has ever benefited any society that has embraced it. Both the UK and Australia saw a spike in homicides and violent crime, interrupting a previous downward trend, immediately following their strict bans while the US continued that same downward trend with no real gun control legislation passed in that time. We did have an “assault weapons ban” in 1994, however even those involved in getting it passed have admitted that not only did it not have any effect, it wasn’t intended to. It’s purpose was to generate momentum for further legislation. Moreover after that law expired there was no associated increase in violent crime here in the US.

    One of the great lies on the issue is that support for gun control is ultimately rooted in reason and a desire to benefit the country. His friends and family that support gun control may very well fit that description, but the politicians driving it, Bloomberg, et al., don’t. The ultimate goal of gun control support is eventual confiscation and disarmament. The power brokers on that side of the equation have been candidly honest about this from time to time, in conversations they didn’t believe would become part of the public record. Those power brokers are also the reason this issue has been divided into sides to begin with.

    Given the track record of pro gun control groups and politicians, I am bewildered that the author believes his proposal has any chance of solving the entire gun control debate. It’s not an issue that was raised with the intent of solving in the first place.

    So, no. I reject the proposal. I reject the insistence that it is intelligent and non emotional. I reject the supposition that such a compromise represents healing and a move forward. All gun control is a suppression of a basic human right, and therefore an injury to humanity and to society. We can only heal when it is all repealed.

  79. avatar Hans says:

    MO, is delusional; Socshevikes do not compromise.

  80. avatar Sir Tri says:

    I stopped at “Modest” in the headline. NOT ONE INCH!!! Did you get that?

  81. avatar Shawn Mahood says:

    This all sounds good in theory…but the problem is that the anti-gunners aren’t rational. All that they want is prohibition and confiscation. So if this proposal were ever made…all that would happen would be that all of the anti-gun portions would be enacted and all of the pro-gun portions would be stripped and then the media would hit the general public that this is supported by the majority of gun owners.

  82. avatar Maxi says:

    Here is my very modest proposal: how bout wel follow the god damn constitution? That is what it was written for. A constitution isn’t something you change, or even worse, violate, during tough times. It is what you relate to, it shows which essential rights you must protect especially when times are hard and emotions out of control.
    How about we end the NFA, the Hughes Amendment and all the other crap.
    Make a law, or really more of a definition, that “arms” as in the 2nd Amendment means any device that launches projectiles that aren’t target seeking missiles or are atomar, biological or chemical weapons. Can’t remember any bank robberies with evil .50 machine guns so why can’t i own one?

  83. avatar Darren says:

    No. Even if this were to pass, the disarm all crowd will never stop. You can see it every time commiefornia passes an all inclusive law, time goes by and another Marxist gets elected, then the definition changes based on ignorance. Look at smoking. First separate sections, then to the bar, then a segregated room, then outside, then away from the building, then not even in the sidewalks. They never stop. So, no.

  84. avatar Oscar James says:

    No compromise, no surrender. Follow the Constitution. Any changes should restore, not restrict.

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