Gun control advocates like to paint themselves as reasonable, rational, righteous human beings. That’s why they prattle on about “common sense gun control” and “gun safety.” They support the Second Amendment but . . . they don’t. They don’t accept the Constitution’s clear and present protection for the right to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake: their goal is total civilian disarmament. Nothing less and, scarily, a lot more. So when the antis offer “a space” for gun rights and gun control advocates to agree, it’s a trap. There’s only one “circumstance” where the antis accept civilian gun ownership: the police. That’s it. Now imagine a world where only the police can legally keep and bear a firearm. Or look at Chicago. Or consider the thousands of women raped in gun-free zones. Like I said, scary. Any image that suggests liberty-minded gun rights advocates and proto-fascist gun control advocates can hold hands and sing kumbaya is incendiary to those who know the truth about guns. Unfortunately, there are more who don’t than do. And they vote. The battle continues . . .
Home Gun Control Incendiary Image of the Day: Common Ground?
Face it he a lying sack of crap. He says we want less crime I agree but his approach of banning all guns and ”reeducating” and killing all gun owners in the name of fascism is what this Lardo wants.
Never mind guns. He should be more worried about the consequences of his next bacon-double-cheeseburger. Just sayin’ out of love and concern for my fellow man.
I support re-education. Hell, it’s a more effective method of incarceration. Our prison model simply teaches the career criminals better ways to be criminals by having them shack up with other, more skilled persons in the same path.
Of course, not everyone can be rehabilitated this way. Some people are just naturally predispositioned to violence and crime. That’s why we have DGUs. And death penalties.
Well put. We need to make prison a plce they would not want to be again. It needs to be harsh, and of short duration. I personally think we should flog or horse whip first time felons, castrate or emasculate second time offenders, and hang threepeat felons. If they want to not conform to society, recycle em.
Forget long sentences. If we cannot punish them in a short span, say five to ten years, we are better off with them dead. Max sentence should be 20 years, and a combined total of 25. Just my two cents, anybody got change?
Well, be really careful about that. Who’s a “felon,” after all? I’d rather see 1,000 guilty people go free than one innocent person be executed. Or even incarcerated.
I kind of have a feeling that anyone who has never been behind bars against their will (but legally; I did break the law a little bit) can’t really appreciate the sweet, sweet ambrosia of the freedom to walk out my front door whenever I feel like it.
Forked tongue blah blah blah.
Sure, there’s a middle ground. How about “leave me the fvck alone you gungrabbing pukes and I won’t tell you to KMA.”
Is that civil enough for ya?
I’m with you.
I’m more of a ‘balloon full of pig blood’ thrown from a balcony kind of guy.
I don’t bother speaking with the gungrabbing pukes.
Funny – my JiHawg Ammo hat came the other day
There is no common ground with gun grabbers…. Period
No, there actually is. You come arounjd 100% to their delusion, and that, my friend, is their “common ground”. But the mayor? A common binge-eater.
When they say there is common ground, I agree with them. We need to prevent felons from getting guns, and the easiest way is to execute them.
We also need to keep them out of hte hands of dangerously crazy people. Make the psyche ward a gun free zone. If they are bad enough to keep away from guns, then make them a ward of the state. Only after due legal process, and quality review.
And around the block we go again. Remember that the Supreme Court ruled that there’s an individual right to own and bear arms? This means “gun-grabbing” is unconstitutional, and unenforceable. Gun owners won, “gun grabbers” lost. Accept your victory and move on.
That said, does anyone here think the safety officer at a rifle range is a “gun grabber” – or that rifle ranges with safety rules are anti-gun? Why then does anyone seeking to get some reasonable gun safety rules enacted into law suddenly get cast as a (gasp) GUN GRABBER?
Guns are dangerous – that’s what makes them useful weapons, after all. Improperly handled guns are dangerous to not only their owners, but to innocent bystanders. Is it really so unreasonable for society to seek laws to promote safe handling and use of guns before the tragic accidental shooting occurs?
Remember – the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that citizens have a right to own and bear arms. All we’re talking about now are time, place, and manner restrictions – and to pass constitutional muster, those restrictions must be reasonable and not place undue restrictions on the citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
No there is no common ground. Slippery slope and all that.
My comment above.
Slippery slope Hell – CLIFF…
Here is the gun grabbers compromise….”we will take a little bit from your now and then come back later for more, and then we will take away more, and then some more until there is no more to take”
See, the perfect common sense compromise of the gun grabbers
It only proves that compromises CAN be made. All you have to do is do all the compromising, is all.
This is why I have, for 20 years, been trying to educate the RKBA crowd to a second version of compromise.
The common version of compromise is what I like to call “I’ll stick the knife in only half-way when I stab you in the back” compromise.
Instead of seeing compromise as giving the gun grabbers only half of what they want, we should tell them “We’ll give you X… but you have to give us Y.” Then you make Y something that they will not give, no matter what. “OK, you can stab me in the back halfway, but I’ll get to slash your throat in return” is my version of “compromise.”
Here’s an example:
Gun grabbers: “We want universal background checks.”
Me: “OK, I’ll give you that, if (and only if) we get non-discretionary CCW in Washington DC and DC has to reciprocate with states so that people who don’t live in DC can carry if they’re licensed in their home state.”
Boom. Right there, I can say to the press that I agreed to “work with” the gun grabbers towards their “common sense” gun legislation. But the clowns in Congress, as well as the coke-addled home-rule thugs who run DC, will never, ever agree to shall-issue CCW in DC. Never.
Now, I look reasonable, and the grabbers look unreasonable. I only wanted DC to act like the vast majority of the states in the nation. But in asking for CCW in DC, I know I’m asking for something that they will never, ever give up – an “island” of their complete gun control agenda.
Want other targets? Pick NYC, or Chicago. But at the federal level, shall-issue CCW in DC is a very useful thing to ask for, because a) it would really help the residents of one of the most crime-ridden cities in the US protect themselves, and b) it means that the bureaucrats and political hacks that infest that city have to deal with the idea that the common citizenry is now lawfully armed.
If I was playing politician, and actually trying to make a “compromise” with the gun-grabbers, I’d probably ask for more. If they want “universal background checks” I want “universal constitutional carry in areas managed by the federal government” (i.e. DC & national parks / preserves / forests / wilderness / seashores / etc.). That way there’s room for actual compromise (e.g. it could be negotiated down to “any valid CCW permit is valid in all of those areas”).
I do see your point regarding just asking for the CCW in DC, although I think if they called your bluff and actually went for it, we wouldn’t have gotten enough for the deal.
Granted, I’m not a politician, so perhaps I’m not playing the game right. But yes, the point that the gun-grabbers idea of “compromise” is not really any compromise at all is a valid one.
Kill them all and let God, ( Am I on the right blog?) sort them out.
There are ten times as many circumstances (i.e., “should have been a DGU”) where we could say ” … that person SHOULD have had a firearm.”
As others said above, the problem is the lack of good faith on the gun control side. The 1994 AWB passed because in 1994 you could make a case that “reasonable, common sense gun control” was actually what was being proposed. You cannot make that case this time, with multiple big names on the anti-gun side on record saying that they want to ban guns entirely. They absolutely deserve the FOAD reaction they’re getting.
There is one common ground I have with them.
You shouldn’t have your gun rights while serving your term in prison and/or on parole.
That’s it. At the end of your term, gun rights (and confiscated guns) restored. In my eyes, that is the ONLY gun law there should be.
Sounds reasonably sensible. That said, as far as parole goes, I wouldn’t restrict the gun rights of any non-violent offender once they are out of prison (e.g. someone convicted of a white-collar crime or a victimless crime).
That is about the most I’d be willing to compromise as far as gun rights go – those who have proven (i.e. convicted in court) that they are a danger to others, and are still in the process of the restoration of their liberties via prison/parole.
Yeah, you’re right, non-violent felons should have their gun rights restored the moment when they exit jail.
I disagree. All felons should have all rights restored upon exiting prison. When you go to prison, it becomes an albatross around your neck for the rest of your life. You should pay your debt to society and be free. If you’re going to be a career criminal, it really doesn’t matter if you /don’t/ have your rights restored, as there are plenty of those now who don’t have issues getting guns illegally.
I agree that all felons should have their rights restored. My comment was in regards to parole. Often prisoners are paroled for economic or other practical reasons (prison storage capacity, etc etc). I think that violent offenders should not have their rights restored until the end of their parole, and therefore, their term as wards of the state. On the other hand, nonviolent offenders should be trusted with full rights as soon as they leave jail, even if they are still paroled, because they have never shown themselves to be dangerous individuals.
Regardless, at the end of your combined jail-parole term, everybody should have their rights back. If you can’t trust someone with their full rights under the US Constitution, then they shouldn’t be back on the streets in the first place.
There’s a problem with that though.
How do you define a violent felon?
It becomes easy to lump a lot of felons together as “violent” due to circumstances surrounding their incarceration. What if they end up using violence in their incarceration, does that make them violent felons suddenly?
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here for a moment and propose that any crime that a violent felon can commit is a crime that a non-violent felon is equally as capable of performing. I’m also going to propose that restricting their rights isn’t going to make them more or less apt to committing acts of crime.
I don’t agree with parole. lock them up for a set time. I agree though with a time period in shich they cannot own a gun, say double their sentence, then restore full rights.
Yup, all they want for the 2A is the death of a thousand cuts. Don’t give an inch to the anti’s my friends!
What do the gun-control advocates ever offer in a compromise? I would consider expanding background checks to in-state private sales if they offered something substantial in return, but they never will. Let me carry in the post office and buy a supressor without the current song and dance, for example.
How about swapping continuing existing background checks for universal concealed carry. Else we agitate to shut down background checks entirely. That would be a nice compromise.
My mother raised me to remain silent when I’d nothing nice to say.
But Russ, some times while it seems not nice, telling some one they are nuts, is the nice thing. Some times we would be well served to have some one slap the stupid out of us, and liberals need ot far more often. The danger of doing that to a liberal, is you will also slap the crap out of em, and they may be invisible before they are wise.
You can’t fix stupid.
– American proverb
I can tell you where compromise and “common ground” gets you: California.
Heck, we’re top on Bradys scorecard and they STILL want more.
Ammo permits, bullet button bans, extended AWB.
They don’t stop.
No compromise, no surrender, no retreat.
California is a great example of the results of compromise. They were a fairly gun-friendly state, only to see it whittled away piece by piece through common sense legislation.
Ah, this coming from Missoula, Montana. In the heart of gun country no less. This must be significant then. No, not really. One has to understand that Missoula is the Berkeley/Cambridge/Madison of Montana. Missoula is not at all representative of Montana as a whole.
Missoula is the San Francisco of Montana.
Oh wait, you said that. Shouldn’t comment here after drinking if I can’t smack POST before reading the whole comment.
Then why does the rest of Montana put up with it?
And when all freedom and Liberty is gone ,what is left but a world that is Hell, did not the Reds kill all their own people , because in the end everyone is feared in communism , these people will never learn that all socialism never works , but they will do it right.(they know better yea right) Even Russian Putin told both Bush and Obama that you can not make Socialism work , We the Russians tried with all our best and in the end all we (Russian Communism) did was to kill millions of our own…Gun control is a MAJOR plank of Communism , Wrote Carl Marx,,,That is is why we must take our kids out of public (communist)SCHOOLS at all cost,, IT can be done I worked 4 jobs to pay for private education,,, Stop cry babying and SAVE AMERICA and the KIDS!
Ok mayor, my space is that no one employed by any government agency should have access to anything other than a whistle and a radio. If a government employee thinks he needs a weapon, let him ask an honest citizen for help.
Brother, you’re on to something here.
Amen. I might not go quite that far, but I do believe SWAT teams should be composed of private citizens.
Some of the antis seriously want to disarm the police. Except for special “Armed Police” units. In other words, they want the British model of policing in the US.
Let all anti-gunners have to put a sign up saying “no guns are here”. Makes it easier for the rapists. Only condition, I get to film the “incident” and get distribution rights. Wonder how long that deal will last?
“There’s only one “circumstance” where the antis accept civilian gun ownership: the police. That’s it. Now imagine a world where only the police can legally keep and bear a firearm”.
Easy; it’s called a POLICE STATE.
i.e., the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Nazi Germany.
I saw a great movie once where only the police and military were allowed to own firearms.
It was called SCHINDLERS LIST…
I was about to say that.
I’d also say that there are certain circumstances where certain people should not have firearms: We can agree with the #nomorenames crowd on this. Where me and Mayor Lardbucket, his statist flunkies, and Useful Idiots DISAGREE is the fact that no one in any position of power for the past 30-80 years has done anything useful in terms of keeping firearms out of the hands of those people in those situations. Everything is about MY rights, what *I* am allowed to have, where *I* am allowed to carry, what *I* am allowed to defend myself with, hunt with, go sport shooting with and so on.
I am not a criminal. I don’t like being treated like a criminal, or a small idiotic child. And I sure as hell don’t like a bloated government and its bloated career politicians trying to render me and mine, by snips and bits, less and less able to defend ourselves from criminals, sociopaths, and other life threatening situations. Gun control caused Newtown. Gun control caused Aurora. Gun Control caused Columbine. For every mass shooting incident that the media harps on and whines about, there is a corresponding Gun Free Zone.
You want a good measure of what this mess would look like absent the “Common sense gun safety” sewage that they’re pushing? Go look at Utah.
This guy’s first problem is he says”I think” big mistake.How did this BOZO get elected in Montana?Oh that’s right all the STUPID California liberals that moved there.Just like cancer.
Mayor John Engen can compromise with me. He has 2 testicles. I want one of them. When the stitches heal, I will be back for the other one.
I saw a movie once where only the police and military had guns.
It was called Schindler’s List.
… and anyone else, in any and every other circumstance, can have all the guns they want, no questions asked.
That’s all it takes.