Previous Post
Next Post

Jon Stokes has a post up at Politico this morning, A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works. He’s noted the post-Parkland climate that’s seen states like Vermont and Florida put new restrictions on firearms purchasing and ownership, as well as proposals to repeal the Second Amendment or outlaw all semi-auto firearms and is proposing a fix. A grand bargain that’s designed to satisfy both gun owners and gun controllers by getting each side to give up something.

His big idea: create a federal gun owner’s license that would enable anyone who goes through the process to possess semi-automatic firearms. Once you’re licensed, you no longer have to undergo a background check when you buy a gun. Private sales included. No matter where you live.

A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:

1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.

2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.

Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they’re easy to regulate.

Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.

Don’t want to submit to federal licensing? Fine. You can still buy and possess bolt action rifles and revolvers, but would have to fill out a 4473 for each purchase. He’s a little fuzzy on the status of lever action rifles and pump shotguns, but swing with it for a minute.

If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony. Don’t have one on your person, or in your car or home. As for taking possession of the types of guns you could have without a license, then it’s universal background checks and FFL transfers for you—basically the status quo, in most states.

In exchange for this new regime, all states will have to drop their “feature-based” bans on guns like AR-15s, “high capacity” magazines and the like. In other words, if you live in Pennsylvania and drive across the Delaware with an AR or a 17-round magazine in your trunk, you won’t be risking a few years in a New Jersey jail. If you’re hired by a California-based company and need to relocate, you can take your AK and and your full capacity G17 with you.

What if you own semi-automatics now, but don’t want to go through federal licensing? Again, he’s fuzzy, though he throws out a possible three to five-year “grace period” during which you could presumably sell or, uh, turn in your semi-auto guns (barring any unfortunate boating accidents, of course).

Gun controllers would give up their state and locally-based gun control laws. All legal firearms would be legal in all 50 states. But the anti-gun side would get, effectively, universal background checks. A full-blown, probably TSA-Pre-level check for the federal semi-auto license, and standard NICS checks on all firearms sales, including private sales, for non-licensed individuals.

Stokes’ plan, such as it is, leaves much to be decided.

There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license. Gun control advocates might want any gun that can fire without reloading included in the licensing regime (pump- and lever-action guns), and gun rights advocates might want current federal restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles dropped. These types of issues could surely be ironed out, as long as we can agree on the basic framework of trading all federal and state bans and registries for a national semi-auto licensing regime.

Oh, and about the requirement for that federal license . . .

Yeah, we’re going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.

I’m not sure where that optimism comes from.

What about New Jersey’s ban on hollow point ammunition? Dunno. That would have to be “worked out,” too. Would SBRs and suppressors be de-regulated? Dunno. Maybe.

What if President Shannon Watts pushes through a may-issue regime, effectively putting an end to anyone obtaining a federal gun license?

This would be a concern, but it’s already a concern. We may have to rely on the courts for protection. The gun control side is mistaken if it thinks it’s going to immediately begin to dictate entirely new terms of American gun ownership unilaterally in November. President Donald Trump is in the process of packing the federal courts with conservative judges, and he may get another Supreme Court pick before he leaves office. So even if gun controllers can get Congress to move their way, there’s no guarantee that new laws will survive the inevitable court challenges. (Justice Clarence Thomas recently hinted that he thinks state and local assault weapon bans are unconstitutional.) Plus, there’s no possibility of a gun registry under this scheme, so no matter how bad it gets there’s even less of a threat of confiscation than there is under the current system.

I don’t think that being told to rely on the wisdom of the courts will give gun owners any warm fuzzies.

Methinks that, despite an admirable effort, Stokes has drastically underestimated both the vehemence with which the pro-gun side will resist any federal-level encroachment on their rights (the slippery slope) as well as the intransigence of the gun controllers’ desire to hang onto the strict prohibitions they’ve put in place in states like California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.

Plus, even assuming this or a similar grand bargain can be struck, the next time an Adam Lanza or a Nikolas Cruz does what it is they do, all bets will be off. Whether or not the shooter was federally licensed, you’ll hear all the same calls from all the same people to rid America of the scourge of these weapons of war.

Or am I too cynical?

Previous Post
Next Post


      • The commies weren’t out in force in 1994. This time, they’ve shown their hand and we’re far more heavily armed.

        • I keep hearing politicians and gun grabbers say — ” We want X , Y, And Z new laws , but we will … ALLOW YOU … to keep Z ….. if you just GIVE UP Rights X and Y. ”

          As Chief Ten Bears would say ….. ” These thing you say we will have .. we ALREADY HAVE ”

          We are not GIVING UP any more appeasements ….. N.R.A. does NOT speak for all 150 Million gun owners.

          Why not all WRITERS ask for a ‘ permit ‘ to print their silly articles ? …… It’s just common sense , give up the 1ST Amendment , I want a ‘ compromise ‘

        • exactly!
          “compromise” means that BOTH parties bring some-thing to the table….
          so…what are the gun-grabbers bringing to the table?
          if that’s not the format, then, it ain’t compromise, its surrender!

          but….let’s play along with this nice little fantasy…..
          semi-autos are ALREADY covered under the 2A and have been affirmed by not one but two SCotUS decisions….
          so…let’s say….such a federal infringement..ermm!…..sorry!…”law” were to pass….
          and..if i’m a US gun-owner…my first question is: “what’s in it for me”
          apropos Mr Ten Bears……
          answer: nothing!
          OK…then….let’s see such a ‘license’ also giving me the right to posses FULL AUTOs and “destructive devices” like, say, Lahti 20mm cannons and hand-grenades……
          now….that is some-thing that i currently cannot get from a standard Form n° 4473 ……
          if you were a gun-grabber….then….you would be “bringing some-thing to the table” and i would be making a legitimate concession instead of a surrender of my pre-existing rights!

          these gun-grabbers need to learn ‘the art of negotiation’ b’fr MOUTHING off!
          i recommend a reading of both “The Prince” and “The Discourses” by Niccolò Machiavelli

      • “We didn’t get a civil war after the 94 AWB passed”.

        I commonly see this posted, and it’s commonly very wrong. Do any of you who spout this actually read what the democrats have been pushing since then? They’re not pushing a 94 style AWB, it’s far more aggressive. Unlike the 94 ban, the bans being pushed for now look like this:

        2013 ban Fienstine pushed after sandy hook.

        1. Have no sunset clause.

        2. Have no grandfather clause.

        3. Go far beyond the “features” ban, which was the core principle of the 94 ban.

        4. Bans specific firearms by name.

        5. Is actually a “blanket ban” on *ALL FIREARMS* that are not *exclusively permitted* in the bill, subject to deletion from the “permitted list”, on the whim of the ATF.

        Other bans proposed outside of fienstines ban since then include:

        1. Blanket bans on semi autos.

        2. Using liability lawsuits to force all gun makers to close.

        3. Using liability insurance to make legal gun ownership too expensive.

        4. Making all semi autos NFA items.

        5. Forced registration.

        6. Forced confiscation should you refuse to comply.

        These measures very much would spark a war. They go far, far beyond the 94 ban.

        • “These measures very much would spark a war. They go far, far beyond the 94 ban.”

          The central government launched two, maybe three armed assaults on assembled citizens. Why did that not spark revolution? The NFA, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1994 AWB ban directly harmed no one. Yet, after Waco, Ruby Ridge (and possible Bundy 1) the people sat idly by and allowed the central government to attack and/or kill citizens.

          Legislation permanently banning semi-auto firearms will not ignite a peoples’ revolution.

        • I think the failure of the population to react to the massacre at Waco and the murders at Ruby Ridge had more to do with the limitations of personal mass communication and social media.

          Imagine if Randy Weaver had been able to live stream (especially after his wife was shot) or if the folks in Waco had been able to show the world what was happening. The government controlled the narrative at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

          The Bundy incident is a sign that personal mass communication will reduce the likelihood of future government massacres (but not elimate them). How many people read about the brewing stand off and traveled down there? I have no doubt that the government troops would have massacred the Bundy family if they had been able to control the narrative.

        • “had more to do with the limitations of personal mass communication and social media.”

          CNN was the most watched non-stop news outlet. The internet wasn’t new. Email was a big thing already.

          The issue wasn’t poor communications capability for the public.

        • Sam, incorrect again. When you say “ban”, you seem to be referring to “no further sale”, the thing is, since 13’, the antis have been on the, “no further sale *or possession*” that’s the key. I garuntee you, what happens after that, is war.

        • Please read my comment again. I did not say such “ban” legislation exists today. I took the Californication drift, the Feinstein legislation proposal, and synthesized a full-ban legislation possibility. And that if such legislation were introduced, or passed, revolution would not ensue.

          If you believe Demoncrats will be the minority in congress and the presidency forever, you will be wholly shocked when the Feinstein legislation is passed, then later “improved” by removing the “sales going forward” limit. Indeed, you will be struck immobile if Demoncrats retake house and senate in 2018 and offer “full ban” legislation, bypassing the “going forward” version.

          And the day really is coming.

        • These measures very much would spark a war.

          The most extreme of them….many incidents of violence, certainly. An actual civil war? Color me skeptical.
          But an expanded AWB that doesn’t confiscate grandfathered weapons certainly won’t.

          (And Feinstein’s updated AWB bill, as bad as it is, does in fact allow grandfathering. See:

        • And CNN was toeing the party line like they always do. Mass media made martyrs out of the federal agents killed at both Ruby Ridge and Waco and couldn’t have cared less about the innocents murdered by the government. It wasn’t like they were willing to send a camera crew into the Weaver’s kitchen and the government wouldn’t have allowed them to. The ability to livestream your face and story can not be under estimated and might have changed the outcome of Waco.

          The American people would have a harder time swallowing the idea that dozens of children deserved to die in a blazing inferno if they had been introduced to the children through a livestream.

        • We cannot have it both ways. CNN was the most watched….by all the demographics. Gun owners saw the event. They knew no crime had been committed by the Branch Davidians. The internet should have melted down from all the bulletinboard messaging and email traffic attributable to gun owners who believe the second amendment is important, that the government just declared war on the populace.

        • Can you not read what I’m typing? The 13’ ban, and other legislation bans the MERE POSSESION of the types of firearms banned. No grandfathering. Go find the legislation and read it. That’s what will spark a war, I garun-goddamn-tee you. When you ban the possession, that will inevitably bring in the forced buy backs and confiscation efforts. If you don’t think that’ll spark war, then your flat out delusional. Judging by your piss poor ability to read my posts, I’m guessing your not just delusional, but a full blown retard. I suggest you take some reading comprehension courses. Good god man. What is wrong with you?

        • Hal, then the legislation has been changed. Because fienstien was openly pushing for no grandfathering on the AWB. She made this very public. Either way, further legislation that has been pushed for by the DNC has included no grandfathering in a number of states. Trust me, they will include that in the next go around.

        • “Imagine if Randy Weaver had been able to live stream (especially after his wife was shot) or if the folks in Waco had been able to show the world what was happening. The government controlled the narrative at Waco and Ruby Ridge.”

          Mostly you are correct. But there was a large crowd of citizens gathered at the road blocks at Ruby Ridge, observing as much as possible. What saved Weaver’s life is when Paul Harvey took up his banner. That brought the Feebs attention they did not want. Gritz and others getting Gerry Spence to agree to defend was major too. Spence didn’t even put on a defense in defeating the Feds in court.

          As for Waco. It has long been the rumor that serious men whispered the words “No more free Wacos” into Federal ears. Notice they have not committed the mass murders on our soil since.

        • Can you not read what I’m typing? The 13’ ban, and other legislation bans the MERE POSSESION of the types of firearms banned. No grandfathering. Go find the legislation and read it

          Ok. Here’s the link to the ’13 ban:

          Quoting: “Excludes from such ban any semiautomatic assault weapon that: (1) is lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of this Act (grandfathered weapon)”

          Judging by your piss poor ability to read my posts, I’m guessing your not just delusional, but a full blown retard. I suggest you take some reading comprehension courses. Good god man. What is wrong with you?

          What’s the phrase that comes to mind? Something about glass houses….

        • “CNN was the most watched….by all the demographics. Gun owners saw the event. They knew no crime had been committed by the Branch Davidians. The internet should have melted down from all the bulletinboard messaging and email traffic attributable to gun owners who believe the second amendment is important, that the government just declared war on the populace.”

          Ummm, no. On the day the building was burned by the Feebs the lies and slanders about the Davidians were still going full force. The drugs and child molesting charges were still believed by many. I can remember being in a gun store that day and hearing talk about “Koresh and his followers getting what they deserved”. The truth took a bit to come out. It took a lot of digging by many journalists to get the truth out.

        • I was stationed in Texas during the Waco massacre. I watched the whole thing unfold via video. The “narrative” was drowned out by the fact that the federal charges were bogus. Texas had jurisdiction over all the “crimes” outlined by the feds. I knew that. So did many others. I also saw LEO in Waco, on camera, asking why the feds assaulted the compound, when the locals could have easily had Koresh in for questioning.

          At best, my conclusion is that all the other gun owners and second amendment people were just glad the raid wasn’t happening to them, and let the whole thing go by.

          As I mentioned in an earlier, maybe even different, discussion line, it is curious that the alleged and much heralded 100million+ lawful gun owners are not rising up even politically to put an end to suppression of the second amendment. Think those tens of millions are unaware?

        • Once again you still cannot read. At this point the effort is futile. Look, you can sit there and think whatever you want, but I garuntee you when the eventuality of dem controlled Congress comes along, we will get real bans. Not just bans on further sale. There will be confiscation. If you don’t think that will lead to war, then your flat out high.

        • Once again you still cannot read.

          Strong words, given that you are demonstrably incorrect about the ’13 AWB bill.

          Don’t you even have the integrity to admit that you were wrong?

        • I can’t believe that in this entire back-and-forth, no one has mentioned that the AWB was enacted 24 years ago – an entire generation. While the old Fudds of yesteryear were clearly too timid, stupid or left wing to fight for their rights, it’s clear that things have changed a lot politically. While we’re still stuck with a lot of the sackless legacy Republicans representing us, the younger generations are significantly more polarized on just about everything (you’ve got a bunch of Tide Pod-eating gender-benders on one side and what some studies are saying is the most conservative generation since WW2 on the other). If a new draconian law gets passed like the AWB, do not be surprised if the generations younger than boomers do what you should have.

        • I can’t believe its been 14 years since the AWB expired, an entire generation has grown up without it.

        • “You obviously have never heard of the 1994 mid-term elections.”

          Did that put an end to infringement of the second amendment? Repeal all the gun control laws everywhere? No?

          Not a revolution.

        • First, I was replying to the assumption that there wasn’t a ‘civil war’ not ‘revolution’. Second, the party that had been in power for 40 years was shown the door in what is often called the ‘Republican Revolution’*, and third, the ‘American Revolution’ and the adoption of the Constitution with it’s Bill of Rights didn’t stop the infringement of our rights, so why would you think that any revolution is permanent?


        • Did not a similar outcome evince in 2010?

          What changed for gun owners? 1994 did not secure an overwhelming majority of pro-2A politicians. 2010 did not.

          Political civil war? Been going on since the beginning: Hamiltonians; Jeffersonians. Large government vs. small. Ruling elite (monarchy); people trusted to best run their lives. Powerful central bank; no central bank.

          Teddy, Woodrow and Frankie did more damage to the Republic than Republicans did to correct for it in 1994 and 2010.

          And…what sort of political revolt is it when you get Dumb and Dumber facing off against each other? The 1994 and 2010 “revolts” were simply changing the faces on the same policies; big government, big spending, no reversal of ruinous policies that were the opposite of the founding principles.

          The Russian secret police went from Okhrana (Czar), to GPU, to GUGM, to NKVD, to NKGB, to MGB, to MVD, to KGB, to FSB (Communist). The names changed, the people in power changed, the secret police remained. Same with Demoncrats and Republicrats.

        • To pessimistic Sam I Am. We have shall issue CC in every state except for a few like CA, NY and NJ. We now have 13 states that are Constitutional Carry. The general public is over a majority in believing the 2nd amendment in an individual right. And the NRA is more trusted than Congress or the main stream press.

          Women are the fastest growing demographic in getting CC licenses and black people, especially black women, have had a sea change in embracing gun ownership. Women accepting firearms as being needed for self-defense will be key in maintaining our gun rights.

          Regular women, not just police women or women soldiers, in movies and TV shows, are shown using guns effectively defending themselves against the bad guys.

          In spite of isolated incidences of increased gun control
          in s some states, I propose we are winning the culture war of the acceptance of the 2nd amendment and gun ownership as a right and as something beneficial to society. This latest pusch by the leftists elitists in government and the media with the Parkland shooting for more gun control is a desperate attempt by these statists to regain control of the narrative. I believe they will fail.

          I guess we will see in November..

        • While individual gun grabbers, and their organizations, may represent a minority (which I submit is actually a near-parity) of voters today, the full extent of the movement will be manifest when the sixteen year olds of today reach voting age. (yes, I am pessimistic).

          As it happens, the congressional representation of the anti-gunners is likely a complete majority (demoncrats and republicrats). With a one vote majority in both houses of congress, we will see a scary gun ban passed (in parallel with impeachment of the president). We really do not know what Trump will do with such legislation.

          But the most threatening movement is the banking and retail segment. If enough private entities begin to outlaw guns and ammunition, the noose tightens. I speculate that none of the commercial entities will be allowed to charge unconstitutional discrimination in providing a “public accommodation”.

          The “minority” of anti-gun voters are solidly represented in the central legislative bodies. The “minority” has power all out of proportion to their demographic. I will be “optimistic” when I see that the 100millon+ gun owners are out “in force” voting for pro-gun initiatives, successfully pressuring their legislators to reverse the trend of gun control, and overturn existing regulations. 100million+ should be an insurmountable majority (but they are not. why?)

        • Well, Sam I Am. If what you say is true, then an AWB would have passed, it hasn’t; Constitutional Carry states would not keep increasing, they have; there would have been a repeal of the shall issue laws and a return to may issue licensing in many states, there hasn’t been, not in even one state.

          Even Bill Clinton said the reason the Dems lost the house and the Senate in the ninties was because of those 100 million gun owners that stepped up and voted the Dems out in reaction to the AWB.

          Even when they had Obama as the president, there was never a serious attempt to pass a new AWB. The Dems know the cost of truly trying to do something more than just talk about gun control.

          We will see in November, but I am looking to history that those same 100 million gun owners will step up and vote their enlightened self interest and love of freedom.

        • The left, the anti-everything but me gang was not mature in 1994. The have become rabid since. They don’t just try to kick down the doors, they attack from all directions, simultaneously. The AWB was not extended because of politics, not principle. The votes simply weren’t there. Change the make-up of congress, and you will get a different answer. You are currently overlooking the heavy and widespread use of Alinsky rules 8 and 10. Evil never rests. “Good” people eventually tire of the unpleasantness. Not only is 2A under constant attack, so is everything else these days. The worm has turned. Time we understand the strengths of the opposition.

        • “Even Bill Clinton said the reason the Dems lost the house and the Senate in the ninties was because of those 100 million gun owners that stepped up and voted the Dems out in reaction to the AWB. ”

          Today, there are only ~130million voters for the two major parties. The claim that 100million gun owners suddenly showed up to vote, and all of them voted against the AWB, even CNN would still be talking about it.

          What we need are 100million gun owners to rise up and declare through their votes) that they will not vote for any party that does not have removal of gun controls at the top of the agenda. That might settle the hash. Since that did not happen in 1994 (or after), I must doubt Slick Willie’s claim.

          In 1994, only 54 (10%) House seats changed hands. Only 8 (8%)Senate seats changed hands. 100million gun owners should have been able to gut the Democrat party for good.

    • Dan you communist, I’ll see you in hell. It’s time for 2A day when all gun owners arrive in every state capital with one voice. No more

        • The *problem* with the proposal is that the recent shooters all (?) *passed* the background checks, and pressed their thumbprints on the 4473s they signed when they took possession of the rifles.

          And then flipped out.

          The proposal in effect changes *nothing*.

          Including what will happen after the *next* whack-job ‘goes to town’. The feigned shrieks of horror, etc. The demands that ‘something be done’.

          I have a better solution. Deal with the shooter, not the gun. If you are a prohibited person in possession with a gun, the law cracks down *hard* on your head. Minimum sentences, etc.

          Make people who are prohibited from gun ownership think twice before picking one up…

        • You do understand that there is no federal requirement for any print on a 4473. Some states have a requirement for prints, but that is not a federal rule that you think you’re talking about.

      • Because for decades they successfully subverted the founding principles without igniting an armed response. We are so far beyond what the founders would have permitted, that people of “first principles” are seen as , “Blah, blah, blah” and not organized and committed. What’s to fear?

        We have a Supreme Court that ruled keeping product from the market place is interfering with national commerce, and thus a violation of the constitution. We have murder of the unborn supported, endorsed and promoted. We have criminal rights superior to citizen rights. We have treaties that prohibit settling disputes in our court system. And so on. Why would anyone on the left believe we would resort to violence over anything?

    • I guess this guy doesn’t understand what “Shall Not Be Infringed” means. It’s always interesting how some self-professed “gun nut” uses a weaselly apology to completely discredit a constitutional right, turning it into a government-license that is subject to the arbitrary whims of petty bureaucrats. This is exactly what our founders were against. And this guy has the balls to claim that he’s one of us? No, he isn’t. He pose all he wants to, but he is most definitely not a member of our tribe.

      • Maybe the author of the proposal is trying to find a way to reduce infringement beyond chanting slogans. While I know that mere legislation is no more effective a tool than is the constitution, the proposal seems to be aimed at a trade: “gun rights” for “safety”. The proposal itself reverses all the gun control laws. But in “exchange” for something the gun grabbers profess is their goal – reduced “gun violence” (they really want zero “gun violence” in their safe spaces, not a care toward the criminal element).

        In a world where people can be trusted to not seek invasive power over others, the proposal might accomplish its intend: compromise in equity. As it happens, the author is really proposing a “deal” with people whose only principle and desire is unending power and control of everyone else.

        I would have found the proposal more compelling if the weakness of any legislation had been taken into account. Specifically the ability and likelihood of warping “the deal” with subsequent legislation. The author seems to make the mistake that the anti-gun movement is fine with RTKBA, just wanting to make society safer along with it.

        If the constitution cannot protect our rights, legislation is really a poor substitute.

    • Oh, be nice. Just a few modifications and I could get along with this easily. For example, I have no problem with the severe restrictions on semi-auto, but the exchange should be repeal of NFA, replace your semi-auto with an unregistered, suppressed machine gun. That seems reasonable.

  1. It’s not a terrible idea, except for the part that turns current gun owners into felons.

    Really, no “compromise ” will ever work. Gun owners (perhaps rightly) fear the slippery slope, and anti gunners think a compromise is not banning all guns.

    • Compromise means, losely, that both sides get something they want but not everything. As usual i dont see anything that gun owners get, and a whole lot they give up. Now start talking about national cwp reciprocity, silencer and sbr deregulation, and opening (permanently by removing tax stamps and registration) the machine gun registry and you finally be talking about a real compromise instead of just one where gun owners only lose there freedom a little at a time intead of all at once

      • We have already seen that the second amendment is the most court-approved limited of the “natural, human and civil rights”. If the constitution presents no barriers to restriction by legislation or court fiat, what hope would anyone have that simple legislation “protecting” gun “rights” would be any more meaningful/effective? Legislation means “mob rule”.

      • I saw a lot offered to gun owners- Nationwide concealed carry and all the various bans on magazines and features removed. Did you read the article?

        The anti gun types would never go for that, though.

      • Hey, here’s my suggestion for “gun control that works”. If our supposed problem is use of semi-auto weapons with hi-cap mags in mass shootings, simply pass a law such that if a person intends to murder more than 3 people, he has to leave the hi-cap semi-auto at home and go on his little mission with revolvers, bolt action, etc. If anyone thinks he sees something wrong with that, I suggest he refer back to the original, because all his objections apply to that, as well.

  2. Um, No. I’m pretty sure a federal licensing process is “infringement” so, no.

    People have already suggested adding semi-autos to the NFA, and this is essentially the same thing, and my response to that is, no, as well.

    Here is my proposal: Leave me and other gun owners alone unless we harm someone and if we do harm someone then prosecute us for the harm caused and leave the tool out of the conversation.

    • A license is by definition:

      “special permission to do something that is otherwise prohibited”

      Owning and bearing arms is a fundamental human right.

      For the same reason, we shouldn’t have marriage licenses (and historically we didn’t), because marriage is a Divinely ordained and defined institution.

      • “For the same reason, we shouldn’t have marriage licenses”

        No one in the US is required to be married, no one is required to get a license. It is only to obtain certain government and contract benefits that marriage licenses/certificates are necessary. If the state of marriage is not sufficient for a happy life, then one must get permission to obtain all the other things that, when coupled with marriage, make one happy.

  3. I’m a fan. I’ve been advocating for something like this for years. It’s the only reasonable compromise. And it’s funny that everyone keeps claiming that this is a step backward. Maybe in a state like Florida… oh wait… maybe it’s a step back in a state like Vermont… wait…. Washington st? Nope… Oregon… Colorado…? Anyone else seeing what I’m seeing? Gun control is no longer confined to a the left coasts.

    Sorry, the frog is already in the frying pan, and the heat is at least half way up. We are losing at the state level. This is a federally protected right like it or not. There will be no rebellion to stop the steady advance of gun control because we are fragmented into 50 different regimes. Better to start over, draw a new solid line in the sand and then dare them to cross it.

    • Yeah… I don’t see what we get out of this. If this license included a repeal of the NFA and a preemption of all state and local bans, we could talk. Otherwise, they can throw their little temper tantrums and pass whatever laws they want. I’m not complying with anything.

        • ” and gun rights advocates might want current federal restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles dropped. These types of issues could surely be ironed out”

        • Will that license be classified as a “may issue” or a “shall issue”. Because I have a feeling there will be quite a few people that will never see a license.

        • “It’s just a permit to own and purchase.”

          Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Whew. Just a permit. Just.

          Watch that first step. Its a doosey.

    • Yeah, keep your Zumbo-esque opinions to yourself, or go over to huffpo where you can find like minded gun grabbing individuals.

      Stop trying to sell us out.

      And you say it’s “just” a permit to purchase. Just like it’s “just” a “common sense” ban on “assault weapons”.

      • Good luck man. In the mean time they will just kill us with death by 1000 cuts. Freedom is quickly unlearned. Live in the real world brother. Idealisms only go so far. If you know how much time I spent every year advocating on behalf of gun rights you’d take your words back… or not… no compromise right?

        • I’d rather stand and fight than just cower like you and Mr. Zimmerman here seems to be doing by pushing this stupid idea that’s been floated since the 1990’s.

          All you do is give the antis the blades they need for the 1000 cuts by compromising.

        • And what have you advocated for?

          NFA repeal? Hughes repeal? Constitutional Carry?

          Or have you advocated for things like fix NICS and the Brady bill where we don’t lose all of our rights right now?

          I’d like to know, because I’m sick of seeing “our side” talk a big game every time we win an election or get some big gain and then all we end up with is more infringements, and then people just call it “living in the real world”.

        • Have we in the gun community NOT been compromising for the last century?

          Compromise needs to be a two-way street.

          And considering its a compromise on a constitutional amendment, it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    • Your line in the sand, as a last “don’t you dare cross it!” line, is not that. It wouldn’t be a line in front of you that prevents any new infringements. Rather, it would be a line BEHIND you that locks in the grabbers’ gains and prevents any return of already stolen freedoms.

      All this would do is move the ball further in their favor, then give them a new set of downs with which to keep trying to move it more. The end zone for them is NOT lower crime or an end to spree shootings or reduced accidents ir anything like that. Their one and ONLY goal is complete civilian disarmament.

      Every offer, proposal, demand they make is an explicit reduction in our freedom, with not even a hint that this latest rights snatching will be the one infringement to rule them all. They will keep coming and coming and coming until they’ve confiscated all of our firearms. Then, if London is any guide, they’ll start coming for our knives.

      • I agree 100%. We keep giving the Progtards more stuff and lose more stuff in return.
        End game is all gun and knife confiscation and and a New World Order.

    • “Better to start over, draw a new solid line in the sand and then dare them to cross it.”

      That’ll have about the same effect as Obama’s red line. Once you do it once, they’ll persue. If you think they won’t keep coming for guns after this so called compromise, you’re wrong.

    • This would be a step back in Indiana.
      Stupid idea.
      Semi-auto is more “dangerous” than a pump or lever action? Really?
      More reasonable and sensible gun safety legislation.

    • Actually, I’d rather engage in a genocidal Civil War and the liquidation of 10’s of millions of Liberal Terrorists™️ before giving one more inch, let alone this abortion of a “compromise”. I say, let’s get to killin’

        • Allow me to clarify –

          “Wow, so your go to would be Stalin, Mao, and Hitler level purges.”

          Those fellows took out the *conservatives*. The ones going up against the wall will be the Leftists.


          The Leftists are the ones who are all about needing “break a few eggs to make an omelette”. We’re just using their Alinsky rule book, the one that insists the rules be applied *fairly* and evenly to both sides…

        • unfortunately going all the way back through history (not just the history of firearms but right back to club and spear and stone) that has been the only way liberty has been restored from those who would remove all rights and liberty. yes it may be nasty but if they win guess who will get purged (your mass genocide of an entire group)? it will be all those that stood on the side of the line that espouses liberty. to get back true liberty as much as we want to do things without killing hundreds of thousands will unfortunately require massive amounts of blood being spilt. in the words of one of the founding fathers “the tree of liberty needs watering from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots or it will wither and die”. sorry i forget who it was that actually wrote that, but unfortunately it is true no matter how far we move forward as a peaceable society. if we end up viewing it as too great an anathema then you may as well get your tombstone ready now “here lies _______ along with liberty, too much love for all humanity to do what was needed to right the wrongs being committed against society”. there are many headstones throughout history that could and should read exactly that and in all those cases liberty was lost to be one back by their great great grandkids after their kids and grandkids had suffered under tyranny. in all cases tyranny was only defeated because those great great grandkids had grown the balls to fight back, crack as many eggs as needed to regain liberty 🙁 sad part is the longer it gets left the higher the blood cost. do it early before they really gain traction and power and control and the blood cost is much lower

        • Wow, you folks really missed out in history class if you think the Holocaust and the Red purges had anything to do with Conservative vs Liberal. Mass murder in the seeking of power rarely is as simple minded as you seem to think.

        • nope they were a culling of any linked to the previous regime more often than not. the holocaust was about an entire race of people

    • I’m not an expert in every state’s laws, but here in TX your entire argument is BS. Gun control laws have been in the process of being rolled back for close to 25 years now, I expect full constitutional carry within the next 10. And I vote in that direction, as well.

  4. No. No. And No. Asking permission for the exercise or use of rights is not acceptable.

    Bugger off.

    Nous Defions

  5. Gun control actually does work….depending on the goal.

    If “gun control” means confiscating all the guns from legal owners, and achieving a drastically lowered death rate due to firearms use, then we have evidence that “gun control works”. Looking at Eurpoe, we see that almost all the places that have “strict” gun control evince a death-by-firearm statistic that is notably below that of the US. Heck, even throw in Japan and China. Fact, lack of firearms available to residents of a nation means fewer people can conduct firearms-related killings.

    If “gun control” means confiscating all legally-owned firearms will result in a near-zero incidence of gun-related deaths, then gun control does not work.

    But if “gun control” means confiscating all legally-owned firearms will result in a lower potential for “nice people” in “nice places” to be killed with a gun, well….there you have it. “Gun control” means confiscating all legally-owned firearms so “nice people”, in “nice places, will be less likely to face unpleasantness and inconvenience.

    Maybe that could work.

    • But the homicides and suicides continue in these “gun controlled” countries.

      In Brittan, voilent crime is much higher than in the United States. Suicide is much higher in Japan than in the United States.

      Gun control doesn’t stop the end result.

      • “But the homicides and suicides continue in these “gun controlled” countries.”
        “Gun control doesn’t stop the end result.”

        I didn’t propose anywhere that “gun control” would lower the overall rates of death by use of a firearm. Which aligns perfectly with the gun grabber agenda.

        Our (POTG) problem is not dissimilar from what we accuse the gun grabber of: demanding perfection, on our terms. We look at all the “gun control” proposals as having the intent to reduce the overall rate of violent crime and suicide. We are fighting the war we want to fight, and the grabbers are fighting the war they want. We demand all restrictions on gun ownership produce near-Nirvana in levels of crime, the grabbers demand Nirvana where they live and frequent. They have no interest in anything, or anyone, else.

        • I am certain we could formulate confiscation directives that we could get behind, so we could end up with a totally gun free nation. Try this; after storing all military weaponry outside the borders of America, confiscate and destroy all LEO weapons first, and once that is complete start in on confiscating and destroying all firearms from mass murderers, then armed robbers, then all other criminals. Then ask law abiding citizens to please not shoot folks. See? It’s just common sense!

        • must say i love your idea. would put govt and criminals (but i repeat myself) back in their place

  6. What’s happened to the TTAG of the past?

    Normally this douchebag would be grilled for the idiot that he is, and some of the commenters here seem to be fully in favor of the idea. I guess the sellout is in full swing.

    This is why we lose, not because of us “no compromise” people.

    • Lighten up, Doom, it’s Saturday and not all of the usual audience is paying attention.
      I have an alternative proposal:
      Only nice people should have guns.
      We can have Good Person passes issued to people that aren’t mean – that will grant them immunity from the NFA and all of the Gun Control Acts. It will serve as a Universal Gun License in all 50 states and all territories. If you travel or live in a previously oppressive state and they try to give you grief about the M2 mounted on the hood of your car, you can simply flash your pass and say, “Nope! See? Good Guy With a Gun! Sez it right here… This Person Is Nice.”
      It might need some details sorted out…

  7. No.

    Just off the top this creates a national registry. I shouldn’t have to register with anyone to exercise a fundamental right.

    • yes it does precisely that. also if you look at the latin root words that make up regis-tration you are in fact signing your property that you paid for over to whoever is in power. that means that they can come any time they like and take it off you. unfortunately for us regular people the legal system does use words in that sort of way and makes words that they promote as being other than their root meanings to gain public acceptance. business registration, car registration etc etc. once you register something you dont really own it any more legally yet you are by fact of possession liable for its maintenance.

      licensing is very similar except that it does not remove your possessions from your ownership. what it does is removes a right and then sells that right back to you as a privilege and they can set the fee as high as they like. CCW permit is in fact a license. yes they call them all sorts of things but it does not change the fact that it removes a right and sells it back to you (a tax as every bit of money that flows from the people to the govt is a form of tax no matter what they call it) as a privilege.

  8. “…despite an admirable effort…”

    I know they will probably delete this as a flame but he seems oddly symathetic to the author of this article. He didn’t come out with the usual “Not only no, but HELL no.” fervor that I’ve come to love from this site.

    It seems like Mr. Zimmerman here is in favor of some sort of federal licensing scheme/registry, and is trying to test the waters.

    Is that what I can expect from this site now? Shilling for gun control? If so you’ve lost me forever.

    A reply would be nice but I know I’m not gonna get one. There’s elitism on our side too and us “no compromise” folks just aren’t in the in crowd. I’ll just be told to shut up, sit down and eat from the “compromise shit sandwich like I’m supposed to.

    I’m truly disappointed.

    • “It seems like Mr. Zimmerman here is in favor of some sort of federal licensing scheme/registry, and is trying to test the waters.”

      Since when does presenting something other than, “RTKBA!”, “Molon Labe !”, “cold dead hands”, “DRT (dead right there) !” equate to endorsing anything?

      • I mean back when RF ran things here, he would’ve either not given this tool the time of day, or he would’ve straight up made fun of him while tearing his “argument” to shreds.

        Now not only is this guy given a voice here with his anti-freedom bullshit, it’s being presented as a legitimate argument.

        Zimmerman seems to be going the compromise route where “we” negotiate how much freedom we lose. He doesn’t seem to be pushing for repealing any bullshit laws or expanding freedom.

        So once again, I guess the sellout is in full swing here too.

        • “Now not only is this guy given a voice here with his anti-freedom bullshit, it’s being presented as a legitimate argument.”

          I agree. This blog should not permit any viewpoint other than the hackneyed, tired, lifeless, meaningless sloganeering demanding absolute adherence to unrestricted possession of firearms. Such has been so effective that we will never hear of regulation and legislation at the local level denying second amendment rights, never hear of cities refusing to do business with gun owner organizations, never hear of state and local taxes on guns and ammunition, never hear anywhere that name brand businesses would refuse businesses with gun owners and support organizations, would never see national legislation proposed that would make all semi-automatic weapons outlaw.

          None of the above will happen if we just refuse to find new and effective ways to promote and protect the second amendment.

          “Come and take it” worked so well for the “gringos” at Goliad. Such attitude should serve us well today.


          I guess.

      • And cowering in the corner and supporting assault weapons bans, background checks, completely and forever ceding ground on machine guns in the vain hopes of avoiding worse laws is much better?

        Unless you’re for “common sense” laws too because you don’t want to have to be uncomfortable defending an unpopular and taboo subject.

        As for giving this idiot a voice, he has a voice in the entire MSM.

        Oh, and “Come and Take It” was at Gonzales; not Goliad. Read up on your history.

        • “Oh, and “Come and Take It” was at Gonzales; not Goliad.”

          I did misidentify the location. The point remains, slogans aren’t effectively protecting the second amendment. They are failing all along the line.

          It wasn’t a slogan that protected the cannon at Gonzales. It was commitment of the Texicans. Action, not words.

          If slogans were effective, all 100million+ gun owners would be a uniform chorus blasting the central government. A uniform chorus demanding legislators end the war on the second amendment. Why are there only a handful of gun owners interested in stopping the erosion of an enumerated right. The anti-gun movement believes they can “beat the NRA”. They would not even spend a brain cell thinking they could beat 100million+ gun owners. At those numbers, maybe, just maybe slogans would work.

    • Twice now you’ve suggested that Zimmerman “seems like” he’s in favor of this idea. I quote:
      “What if President Shannon Watts pushes through a may-issue regime, effectively putting an end to anyone obtaining a federal gun license?”
      “Stokes leaves much left to be decided.”
      “What about New Jersey’s ban on hollow point ammunition? Dunno. That would have to be “worked out,” too. Would SBRs and suppressors be de-regulated? Dunno.”
      “I’m not sure that relaying on the courts will give gun owners much comfort.”
      What in there makes you think that Zimmerman is in favor of this? “Seems like” he’s scoffing at it to me. Perhaps you could use some practice at reading comprehension? “Seems like” so.
      No offense meant. I’m a fellow absolutist, but if we act crazy, we give all of us a bad name.

      • Maybe I’m just used to more confrontational commentary.

        Maybe I’m used to feeling disappointed and betrayed everytime the leadership or ownership of a good thing happens and it all goes to shit.

        Maybe I’m tired of seeing the sellouts of the past year and yearn for an intellectual sanctuary where I can float ideas of expanding freedom without being told to shut up and be real about the world.

        Or maybe I am stupid, and just need to leave.

        • No, I think it’s choice number two. Hypersensitivity to everything because of numerous betrayals going back decades. I think if you read this post closely you would agree that this type of offhand scoffing is typical of Zimmerman, while Farago’s style was much more direct.
          But Zimmerman cannot become Farago, just because he left. We might wish it to be so, but that’s not the way the universe works. Zimmerman has to be Zimmerman, the same as you and I have to be what we are.
          Look at it this way, if this site sells out, then it will just fail, and then Farago, or someone like him(maybe even you… or I) will just start a new blog and continue on. Individual actors change over time, but the signal cannot be stopped.
          At stage two of the 8 stages of civilization, which is where I believe that we are(not #7, as Veteran’s Today thinks), the people gather their strength for the next step( Courage), which is the one where the people throw off the yoke of tyranny(yet again) and proceed on to liberty and abundance. Whether or not we will then stop allowing that abundance to create apathy and dependence, or just go back around the track again for lap 1234… we’ll have to wait and see.

        • Thank you. You’re right. I’ve gotten used to the past few years of a certain style of commentary.

          I apologize.

          I really am not sure where we’re at as a civilization, I think we’re constantly on the verge of being pushed over the edge to a dystopian tyranny, and I certainly think most Americans will willingly and blindly accept it.

        • “Maybe I’m tired of seeing the sellouts of the past year and yearn for an intellectual sanctuary where I can float ideas of expanding freedom without being told to shut up and be real about the world.”

          Have you been told, by Dan, to shut up and go away? Been here a coupla years, and have not read anything indicating that Dan is a “squish”.

        • Doomguy: Think nothing of it. No apology needed. You never attacked me. I just recognize where I think you are because I’ve been there as well. I hated the peanut farmer so bad that I danced in the street with Reagan’s election, who I voted for in 1980 as the first vote I was ever old enough to cast. And then watched in horror as both he and GHW Bush, with the willing help of the NRA(that was the end of my membership in that club of fudds), proceeded to gut my rights worse than the peanut farmer. And then Bubba Clinton and his horrid witch of a wife piled on yet more injuries with an uncountable number of insults. Oh yeah, I’m very familiar with betrayals and the bitter aftermaths.
          But somewhere along the way, I discovered hope. And now, we have to keep up hope, because the minion’s of the world’s controllers have stolen everything else. Keep up hope, brother… remember it’s always darkest right before the dawn.

      • “Wow. I am humbled by your reply to Zimmerman above. Seldom indeed do I have the honor to correspond with anyone willing to admit to an honest mistake. That takes a courage that is all but extinct in today’s world of snowflakes and smartphone zombies. If(or when) the time comes, I for at least one, will have your back. Unless, OFC, you end up having mine…”

        Thank you. And if/when that time comes I’ll have your back as well.

        • Thank You;
          With someone of courage behind me, I’m happy to take the point. In fact, I kind of like it. I can sort of feel it, on my neck, whenever someone is concentrating on me. It might sound like BS, but I think it makes me a good point man.

    • What did I write above that gave you the impression that I’m for this. The plan has more holes than Sonny Corleone. And it would turn a lot of law abiding gun owners into felons.

      So please, tell me how presenting this guy’s proposal for our esteemed readers constitutes support of the plan.

      • When I first read the article of yet another “gun nut” pushing for the same tired old ideas that have been around for the past 30 years and presenting it as the next big thing got my dander up and after seeing phrases like “assuming a grand deal could be struck”, just left me feeling frustrated. It’s no excuse for being an idiot though.

        Going back and having reread, I realize that you were tearing his argument apart.

        I am truly sorry for shooting my mouth off like that, and I appreciate you replying.

        • Wow. I am humbled by your reply to Zimmerman above. Seldom indeed do I have the honor to correspond with anyone willing to admit to an honest mistake. That takes a courage that is all but extinct in today’s world of snowflakes and smartphone zombies. If(or when) the time comes, I for at least one, will have your back. Unless, OFC, you end up having mine…

    • I have a crazy idea. Maybe Dan was leaving some room for you all to draw your own conclusions. Have a discussion – as you are – and hash it out.

      I don’t see a single moment where Dan gave an inch. Having some respect for a fellow writer by presenting his ideas without tarring and feathering him is not selling out, it’s the right thing to do. You’ll find I can be intensely rabid about gun rights but I try to keep my articles largely professional. Get me going and it’s all “raze the village and leave no survivors” but I try to keep the worst of my intensity outside my published work This is not a certain conspiracy theorist site which shall not be named…

      • Rabid raging about “rights” releases righteous retribution on recalcitrant wretches refusing to reply with repetitive regurgitation of rigid rhetoric.

        (Yeah, had to open a second six-pack to get through that one).

        • Man, I had to re-read that to discern your meaning, SamIAm. I am duly impressed.

          Eh, I’ll keep the raging to myself. Mostly. Ever so often a bit slips through.

        • Kat, let me get this straight. You are claiming to have RE-READ “Rabid raging about “rights” releases righteous retribution on recalcitrant wretches refusing to reply with repetitive regurgitation of rigid rhetoric.”?

  9. Dumbest shite I’ve heard SO FAR today. A permit to own a gun?A “special” license for a semiautomatic pistol? Eat me. I have a FOID in Illinois. Unconstitutional BS abounds…how about we win for a change?!? Oh and Zimmerman didn’t write it…comprehension is a thing😄

    • Well, “Muh rats!” is certainly preventing business from interfering with the second amendment.

      How ya’ liking it so far?

      The train for an interpretation by laws and courts that the second amendment is an absolute right left the station long before most of us arrived on terra firma.

        • “You assume I care what a bunch of SJW vermin in black bathrobes think.”

          You will care when it is discovered that you are a “felon” who hasn’t been caught up to now. Anyone can violate any law anytime they like. Most likely (and this is the criminal mindset as well), you will not be detected, or apprehended. But when it happens, you will most certainly care.

          The day is coming when brand name retailers and credit grantors refuse to permit use of their stores, credit cards, checks, swipe-n-go, whatever, to purchase firearms or ammunition. And then, they will refuse to do business with anyone who ever purchased guns and ammo using their commerce systems. The databases to arrange all this already exist, and are fungible.

        • The day is coming when brand name retailers and credit grantors refuse to permit use of their stores, credit cards, checks, swipe-n-go, whatever, to purchase firearms or ammunition. And then, they will refuse to do business with anyone who ever purchased guns and ammo using their commerce systems. The databases to arrange all this already exist, and are fungible.
          Geeee….that sounds like reasonable and sensible “Gun Safety” to me. I think some financial institutions are just about there.

        • Sam I am:
          “The day is coming when brand name retailers… will refuse to do business with anyone who ever purchased guns and ammo using their commerce systems.”
          That’s why gold, silver, cash, and debit cards were invented.

        • “That’s why gold, silver, cash, and debit cards were invented.”

          And that’s why government is moving so emphatically to go to a “cashless” society (it’s safer, donchano?). Gold was once banned as currency, heck, even private ownership of more than a token amount. All that is needed is for government to again legislate that precious metals are not considered “legal tender”. There goes gold, silver, platinum. And change the rules so debit cards must be issued by financial institutions, with proper identification and tracking.

          As an aside, precious metals as currency is kinda no better than any other form. The precious metal is worth what a buyer says it is. All the “doomsday” protection attributed to precious metals presumes an orderly market will exist after great social and financial upheaval. You may have a gold coin today that you can sell/trade for $2000 fiat currency. Comes the revolution, and I might demand that coin for a loaf of bread and a six-pack. And I wouldn’t be the only one. I would be speculating that there is more demand for my staples, than for your coin. I would also be betting that one day, a rational market for gold coins will reappear, and I will be enormously wealthy because i obtained so many coins for a few loaves of bread.

          Shaped copper is going to be more valuable than gold when comes the revolution.

        • samIam:
          I would try to teach you the errors in your above post, but it would take forever, and you don’t sound interested in learning anyway, but only talking.
          I will briefly address a couple errors that you already have to know about, as they are far too obvious to miss;
          “presumes an orderly market will exist after great social and financial upheaval.”
          You are aware that this world has undergone many social and trade upheavals before, yes? And that in the aftermath it is always a sound money that the people return to? You do have a little sense of history, don’t you? No, I doubt that, since you stated that a sound money(one based on value) is the same as any other(fiat, based on debts, which are human made promises). If you think that value is the same thing as debt, I doubt that enough years exist for me to correct such extreme misconceptions
          The only way for money to cease having use, is for trade to cease. IOW, for people with excess goods to no longer exist. That has never happened before in Earth’s history. Not after Ice Ages, volcanos, volcanic ash winters, the fall of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, the Dark Ages, not ever. Trade will continue for so long as humans exist, and if humans go extinct, nothing will matter to the no longer existent humans any more.
          As for shaped copper being worth more than gold, I choose to believe that you aren’t even close to serious, but just think that it might make me forget the more serious issues. Could you seriously think a copper ring would someday be worth more than a gold one? Nah, you know how crazy that statement was.
          The biggest issue of all, though, is the one of a society making gold or cash illegal. OFC they can, many have done so throughout history. The Indians have withdrawn almost all cash from their society now, a year or so ago. What happened? It drove their economy into the toilet, and created huge demand for 24K gold jewelry. Why would anyone desire .999 fine jewelry, when it is too soft to wear? To get around their Grand Poobah’s(every idiot leader is a grand poobah, whatever initials he puts after his name) restrictions on bullion, naturally. That is why one should buy the things that might get one put on the poobah’s list for cash NOW, before the inevitable tyranny and purges begin. That was what I said in the post, nothing about the future, I was referencing the RIGHT NOW, which was quite clear in the post. Chronology is a thing.

        • Of course precious metals will retain value after the destruction of the nation. Point is the value of the metals will not be determined by a rational market, but by a cut throat market. Your $20 gold coins are worth whatever the buyer says they are. I never said precious metals would become valueless. After the devastation, there isn’t going to be an economy (as we know it) to be driven into the toilet, it will already be in the toilet.

          A simple look at the economic devastation of “the great depression” should be instructive. High value properties (real estate, banks, corporations) lost enormous value. Assets were sold for pennies on the dollar to people with financial capability to ride out the storm. So it would be after revolution.

          Not saying there would be no commerce, just that supposing your horde of metals would retain their pre-revolution value is not prudent, nor sustained by history. There will be a disruption in commerce, and a reduction in the value of assets. I am not alone, and if I had the financial wherewithall in revolutionary times, I would try to ruin those with precious metals, so that I have all the gold when the economy fully recovers. I would be the one taking one of your $20 dollar gold coins in exchange for a loaf of bread. I am not alone.

          Of course, those contemplating revolution believe it would be contained within the borders, and that no foreign interference in the revolution or the recovery can take place. Another imprudent assumption.

        • samiam:
          Way to avoid the issues raised with a verbose attempt to distract attention elsewhere. Are you sure you aren’t one of bloomberg’s paid trolls? You sure follow this playbook

          very well. I’ll say this for you, you do it better than any of the others I’ve exposed here over the years. Most only can manage one or two, but you use them all, and quite well. Congrats.
          But if you can change the subject at any time, then so can I. I’ve been reading your comments on TTAG for years, and I have one single question for you. Having watched your opinions constantly fluctuate every time you post to a different page, I feel the need to ask; Is there anything you actually stand for, or is the entire point of your posts just to disagree with whatever some might be stating at the moment? Can you state just one principle that you believe in? So that I can use that the next time you post the opposite, naturally….

        • The entire point overall is to push people to think beyond chest-thumping and slogan slinging. The world is more complicated than many here apparently want to accept. The enemy is more sophisticated and variegated in their attack on the constitution. POTG are constantly overlooking their built-in weaknesses (prejudices that produce nothing). If I can cause a change of mind about the political landscape and political warfare, then it is worth it (“if it saves only one”).

          Now, I am not a “gun guy”. I don’t carry. I have only a .22 target plinker. However, I do understand politics and unarmed conflict. The enemy is committed, and has a singular goal. POTG are sometimes worse than the Taliban; fighting anyone who doesn’t believe properly (as in if you don’t think like I do, you are a maroon). POTG are politically unprepared to do battle with a determined, single-minded enemy. I will ask again…why is it that 100million gun owners have not already destroyed any thought about gun control? Where are all these gun owners when it counts? Most likely, they are self-satisfied with their little piece of the pie, interested in nothing more.

          So, for me…I am an absolutist about “the people” freely possessing whatever weapon they can afford. I am immovable that there are effectively no “absolute rights”. If there were “absolutes”, there would be a cosmic tribunal to enforce them. As it is, I deal with the reality that “rights” are what you can personally enforce. “Rights” are, indeed, subject to the political process. Claiming otherwise does not move the football. If people want to retain, maintain and enforce their natural, human and civil rights, they must put in place elected representatives (at all levels) who have the same desire. If our “rights” are jeopardized, it is the fault of the voters; voters who put some other convenience ahead of jealous guardianship of their freedoms.

          If you cannot defend the position of your opponent, you cannot adequately build the case that destroys those defenses. Doing this takes effort beyond the interest of most people. I can pretty much be on all sides of a proposition, as an intellectual exercise. You don’t sharpen steel with sandstone.

        • sam: sooooo…. Can you state just one principle that you believe in? Be it; liberty, slavery, banks are evil, banks are great, govt is evil, govt is great, guns are good, guns are evil… etc?
          Just one thing that you actually BELIEVE, rather than just one you want to argue about? Only as an “exercise” OFC….

        • Already sent one answer, but here is another:

          Return the nation to the time when “the people”, through the states, ruled the central government.

          No expansion of government unless there is a specific, non-interpreted, power delegated to the central government.

          Restricting the federal courts to only those cases involving disputes between states, disputes between states and central government. Requiring all judges to rule according to the wording of laws, not speculating on what they may mean. Requiring all Supreme Court rulings be reviewed by the Congress, to be adopted in legislation, or discarded as the elected representatives decide. Congress (the legislature) re-inserted as the most powerful of the branches of government (from Congress comes law, not courts, not the president). Abandoning any vestige of an “imperial presidency” (the president is not supposed to be the leader of the nation; “the people” lead, through Congress). Ending of all laws that punish a person for acts not directly and (not “or”) adversely affecting any other person, or person’s property. Repeal of that section of the 14th amendment to currently forces the federal constitution on the states. Complete repeal of the 17th amendment. End the judicial concept of “compelling government interest”. End the ability of governments to annex private property “for the public good” for reasons other than an instantly compelling need; ending any conversion of individual property ownership for use by a commercial entity for the purpose of granting economic favor, economic gain, or political power of a commercial entity. End the “public accommodations” laws that violate the personal convictions of people engaging in inter or intra state commerce (or apply the law to every entity that has interaction with the general public). And the list goes on.

          No, I do not subscribe to the theory that the Raison d’être of TTAG is to provide nice pictures of guns, and serve as an echo chamber for worn-out slogans. We are in an existential battle for our constitution, and talking to our belly buttons is futile.

        • sam:
          The closest thing I can find to an answer was: “absolutist about “the people” freely possessing whatever weapon they can afford.”
          Just FYI… ONE question only requires ONE response. When one goes all over the map, it seems like they are avoiding the question. As one into intellectual exercises, you should recognize that. Since you raise about twenty issues as response to one question, how is the responder to know which one you meant to be THE answer, and which you consider to just be window dressing?
          So I will just have to assume(making an ass of you and me) that it was the above statement. Now, I would need to know why you put the quotes around “the people”. Which people? Only the poorest? Only the richest? How rich? Only the politically connected? You could mean anything. Do you mean that you support an n% tax on firearms, to make certain that only those with great enough means could have “whatever weapon they can afford.”?
          In fact, let that be THE question:
          Yes/No? Please fill in the blank with either “yes” or “no”
          I don’t think I can be much clearer than that.

        • I support no encumbrances on private ownership of whatever weapon one chooses and can afford (or a group of citizens can afford). A tax is an encumbrance.

          But I don’t have to restrict myself to numbing repetition of pro-gun talking points. There are no mechanisms to achieve a goal of unrestricted ownership of weapons; that ship has already left the station. There may be such mechanism in the someday future, but POTG do not have the political capital to, as someone already wrote, make gun control a “third rail” of politics. So, between now and someday, being an absolutist is an ineffective tactic to pursue.

          I gave you more than one answer so you know I am not a myopic, single-issue voter or thinker.

        • Sam I Am, loving that you see the whole picture. it is a multifaceted war with everything our forefathers held dear being attacked on every front. the eloquence and politeness with which you write sometimes leaves others who are a little less erudite wondering, but for the most part, by reading carefully i can see where you are coming from. it is a place of a love of ALL LIBERTY not just a few select liberties as most seem to focus on. as you said if you focus on firearms to the detriment of all else including property rights then you still loose or it could be freedom of speech or any number of other liberties. you loose one you eventually loose all.

        • Thank you for understanding. Not sure about the “erudite”, though. Always thought of my self as an independent libertarian, passionately neutral about all things (even that).

          I try to take the iconoclastic approach, and am fortunate to have people here who will point out inconsistencies and logic errors.

          If something I posit gets one person to re-examine their ideas, then my efforts are successful.

        • “If something I posit gets one person to re-examine their ideas, then my efforts are successful.”

          and isn’t that part of what healthy debate and being erudite are all about?

        • Yes. Cash may be king for now.

          Governments moving to force nations into cashless societies, with only digital transaction permitted is not a fad. Indeed, it was predicted way long ago.

        • lol yes they may be moving towards that but try to stop barter whether by exchange of labour or exchange of goods. rather hard to stop that unless the govt can track every move you make via GPS and video

        • Individually, small scale, small item barter/trade will not support a sophisticated economy. Preppers might get away with it for a period, but house payments, utilities, public transportation, big ticket items would shortly go out of reach. People in urban environs, where mass transit is the norm will not be able to trade a chicken for a trolley ride to Sidney Opera House.

        • yes i quite realise that however i am talking small scale barter to get goods otherwise disallowed by the system. it happens everywhere that excessive govt control over what you can and cant buy goes on no matter what millennium it has happened in. also in these places prostitution becomes rampant as mothers try to put little things on the table for their kids that they could not obtain.

        • “yes i quite realise that however i am talking small scale barter to get goods otherwise disallowed by the system.”

          I think that is quite different from an otherwise cashless economy.

        • Assuming you could demand a $20 gold coin for a loaf of bread would quickly get you shot dead, your business taken over by someone less criminal.

        • You just agreed that a rational market for gold will evaporate come the apocalypse. As the person holding the bread, I make no demands. I tell you what I am willing to sell a single loaf for. You have the choice to pay or not; there is no coercion. However, you ripped the mask off by noting that the solution to your problem is to kill the person selling bread. Which makes my point, entirely: shaped copper will be more valuable than gold. Buy ammo, not gold.

      • All, every one, of my rights, spoken or unspoken, are absolute. My rights are not up for compromise, triming or narrowing, negotiation or withdrawal. Especially the 2nd, because I aim to protect all my fights with it.

        Nous Defions

        • Claiming absolute rights, is far different from actual, permitted rights. By “permitted”, I mean “allowed”. By “allowed” I mean those rights the exercise of which do not result in a punishing response from the appointed authorities.

          In order for “rights” to have meaning, one must be in a situation where enjoying those rights are possible. For instance, one may claim the second amendment is absolute. Good so far. Now, act on it. Go to anyone who has a legal machine gun for sale. Demand you be able to purchase that machine gun without any permission other than a willing seller. If your right to the machine gun is protected by the second amendment, the transaction should go smoothly enough.

          Even the founders knew “rights” were not absolute. Else, they would not have found it necessary to include a provision in the constitution for your “rights” to be curtailed or suspended through “due process”. Under “absolutism”, even convicted prisoners have a right to possess guns in their jail cells. “Absolute” is absolute, or it isn’t. “Absolute” does not provide for exceptions.

          A theoretical “right” is as valid as an invisible friend. You have only those rights you can individually enforce. “Effective” rights are the only ones that count. Achieving absolute “rights” are a whole ‘nuther country.

    • I never said he wrote it. I’m saying his commentary on it seems like he’s in favor of such a scheme.

      Basically I get the feeling that Zimmerman seems to be another Dick Metcalf

      • Once again I must ask: Where do you get that “feeling” from? Not from what was actually written, so ….. where? Must we all just accept whatever you say because of your feelz? sarc on/ No, you don’t sound like some anti poser out to tar with the broadest possible brush…. No, not at alllllll…. sarc off/

        • Well, I was gonna just say see my reply to your original comment, but I guess just tell me how you really feel instead.

          I’m a loud, cynical and confrontational person, I expect the worst out of everyone. I’m frustrated with where we are at.

        • Yes, I can tell. Please to see my post above mentioning the 8 stages of civilizations and tell me whether it makes sense to you or not.

  10. Horrible idea. The problem with the gun debate is that the anti-gun side is not actually interested in debate. The goal is total disarmament, and any measure short of that is simply an incremental step. So this “grand bargain” would be a concession that they would be immediately looking to defect from.

    And anyone who has observed the way the courts have treated the Second Amendment knows relying on them for protection is laughable. We may lose the fight for the Second Amendment, but this proposal is surrender.

  11. I’d be for it if and only if it meant a repeal of any and all currently existing gun laws save for that possession of a firearm by an unlawful individual. If this licensing scheme allowed anyone who had it the ability to purchase full-autos, SBRs, SBS, DDs, suppressors, and AOWs, I’d be okay with it. The avenue for legal self-defense sans license could still be somewhat available through the use revolvers and such, but this is clearly not what is being advocated, so he can shove it where the sun don’t shine. Until they want compromised, actual compromise (they give up some things, we give up some things,) I ain’t talking. And even then I might not be in a talking mood.

    • “I’d be for it if and only if it meant a repeal of any and all currently existing gun laws save for that possession of a firearm by an unlawful individual.”

      Would you be “for it” if you understood that the scheme is proposing only legislation? Legislation that depends on political control of Congress? If the constitution cannot ensure your rights, why would you depend on legislation?

      • I’m a second amendment absolutist. That was a hypothetical I was entertaining and quickly discounting based on the content of the article. Y’all really need to get a primer lesson in rhetoric.

  12. Take the same verbiage, and instead of the word “gun”, use the words “free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion”. Those are rights with the same level of protection as our right to “keep and bear arms”. Think if the government was to force you to register and submit to a background check to attend church services, or post your opinion on a public forum or blog.
    That is the level of infringement this policy would enforce.

    • Yes. It is always fascinating to take all the gun control verbiage and apply it to other enumerated rights and see what we all come up with.

      • Similar controls on the populace have been carved into the first amendment. Not only is there an exception for “hate speech”, the worst of it is the establishment of “thought crime”, as in enhancing punishment for “hate”. Liberals/leftists/statists/Demoncrats are just fine with restrictions on enumerated rights, so long as they believe they (the libs, ect.) will benefit.

        Just for fun, consider: property may be taken by government for “public use”, even if there is no public use identified. Also consider: a person may be compelled to testify against themselves. This is the exception created by removing criminal sanctions for crimes through the expedience of “transactional immunity”. This means the government may grant you immunity from prosecution and punishment, but you must testify against yourself. The theory is that the self-incrimination right guaranteed by the fifth amendment is not absolute. Government can ruin you, even if it cannot send you to jail.

        • There is no “hate speech” exception. From Matal v. Tam, decided last summer:

          [The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

        • All blah, blah, blah.

          Trump’s original ban on people from ten specific nations that harbor, sponsor and support terrorism was overturned because of “hate speech” during the campaign. The “hate speech” was rhetoric that indicated Trump was anti-muslim, and intended to prevent any muslims from entering the country. Federal courts explicitly stated a presidential candidate was not permitted to have biases, or harsh opinions.

          What, specifically, is the difference between “hate speech”, “hate crime”? A matter of the mind? “Hate crimes” do not even have to have “hate speech” involved. “Hate crimes” are the most egregious of government tyranny; punishing people for what they must have been thinking simply because a criminal action affected a “protected group”. I have a natural, human and civil right to think anything I want; one of the retained “rights” that were not enumerated in the constitution.

          Is “hate thought” not a violation of freedom of speech? Where in the constitution or natural law does it require “speech” to be written or spoken? If there is no protection for thought, none of the other “unalienablle rights” matter.

        • Hey Sam… you might want to go read up on the cases in question. All of the rulings against Trump’s ban are stayed until the SCotUS sorts it out.

        • You might want to look into what a “stayed” ruling actually means.

          The ruling is unchanged. The effective date of application is delayed. The ruling(s) remain unchanged. The “travel ban” is effectively nullified, unenforceable during the “stay”. A “stay” can be written to either suspend an act during resolution of the legal issues, or it can permit the continued action, pending existing appeals. The travel ban orders are not permitted to continue during resolution of appeals.

          The point I was making is that courts can, so far, limit free speech as they choose.

          The eighth amendment is violated constantly. Obviously excessive bail (not defined in the constitution) is set as a means of punishment, not an assurance that the accused will show for trial.

          Even the thirteenth amendment has an exception written directly into it.

          No “rights” are absolute. The founders knew this when they inserted the amendment process into the constitution.

    • Those are not the same levels of protection, or RKBA would be part of the 1st Amendment. 1A’s protection is from CONGRESS making laws, 2A’s protection is from any laws being made. As in, by anyone.

  13. Again with the national licensing thing. They never mention how they’re going to get criminals to apply for a license

    • “They never mention how they’re going to get criminals to apply for a license”

      Is that because they believe criminals will never be armed in numbers great enough to present a challenge to all-pervasive control of the populace?

      • Well, that’s delusional. If you believe that can’t happen, then I’d refer you to a couple little countries known as Mexico and Brazil.

      • They seem to think that the criminals will follow any new law they pass because they are passing the laws to “do something for the children”.

        And if they don’t follow the laws, then they just need to make more laws, because it’s obviously all legal gun owner’s fault the criminals committed the crimes in the first place.

  14. The antis would just push to make this license exorbitantly expensive. And once they find out how fast you can work a lever or pump action they’ll push to add those to this licensing scheme. Have another University of Texas-style shooting and they’ll push to add your granpappy’s bolt action because it’s practically a “military-style sniper rifle’. Added bonus: your name is now in a federal database. No matter what you compromise now, you’re still going to have a stepwise push for total disarmament of the “unenlightened hoi pollloi” for the greater good by the antis because that is their ultimate goal.

  15. Common Sense Journalism reform.

    Given the damage fake, fraudulent and deliberately misleading Journalism does to the very fabric of our society, it time for common sense Journalism reform. Bad journalism destroys lives and careers every day in this country. It time to put a stop to it.

    We need a federal Journalism license to keep the News Media out of the hands of bad actors and in the hands of responsible Journalists.

    Perhaps the only way to make the screaming hysterics in the Anti Gun Jihad recognize the total idiocy of their position is see how they would like it to be applied to their Constitutional rights.

    • They don’t care. Communists don’t have standards. All they want is the absolute power to shove their utopian BS down your throat. Take a look at what the UK is doing with “socialized healthcare”… The entire DNC needs to be tried for treason.

    • good point, however most dictatorships have such licensing in place only problem is that it only allows those journalists and writers that tow the govt line to publish anything. in fact you write and distribute a leaflet without that license and you are thrown into jail (for life if it is a dissenting view which for the most part it is).

    • “I will not comply.”

      You are fortunate, Jon.

      You can afford to, *far* easier than many.

      Others are not as fortunate.

      Tell me I am wrong on that assessment…

      • Define afford to? if you will not make a stand now when the fighting is easy and it may only be financial loss or a few years in jail, how then will you make the stand when it is your actual life on the line and they will kill you for your crime against the state

  16. It’s like a prize fight. The anti-gun boxer has the 2A boxer against the ropes and is punching for the knock-out. So, the 2A boxer compromises? “Oh, wait. Time out. You can only hit me in the face every third punch. You can only hit me half power and you have to wait 5 seconds between punches.” When the hell are our politicians who are pro 2A and the NRA going to counter punch and get the 2A fighter off the ropes! And fight without having to use appelate courts and the SCOTUS. There never seems to be any counter punching from our 2A fighter. 2A fans start to think we need to compromise because our 2A boxer is getting his ass handed to him. We can’t trust the courts to back us up. They are changing. We need to get support now. And it needs to be VISIBLE to ALL CITIZENS. Not hidden away in the courts. Meanwhile, lets all discuss the importance of a few people using bathrooms and other issues that, in no way, are as important to the masses as 2A. Our 2A boxer needs to get his priorities straight and start counter punching, not compromising.

  17. Natural rights do not depend on a government license to be exercised (Imagine if we needed a government license to speak freely… it defeats the purpose)… the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and exists whether or not the government deigns it to be so. In short, his proposol sucks as it presupposes that the 2nd amendment is merely a legal right granted by the government, which is incorrect.

    • “Go ahead and say ‘then we will lose’. ”

      What evidence to the contrary?

      What does “victory” look like? If there are multiple definitions, our efforts are doomed.

      The grabbers have defined success: total confiscation from legal gun owners. They have unity of purpose. The pro-second amendment tribe is fractured as to outcome, thus diluted in effort. Having no unified definition of “victory”, we continue to squabble and lose momentum. While I do not support the proposal of the Political article, at least the author defined success: end of all gun control laws, everywhere (except, apparently, convicted violent felons).

      With no destination, travel becomes the goal. POTG are running in all directions, simultaneously (100% power; full flaps).

      • You are not wrong on this. Our side has no clear goal (except desire to be left alone) and that’s probably why we keep catching up and always playing defense.

        As for unified definition of “victory”, what about making it so terrible and unthinkable to even mention gun control, that it would be only whispered about in close circles of like minded grabber wannabes. Behind locked doors. After dark. With lights off. And with heads under blanket. 😊

        How to achieve such victory is another discussion altogether. First step is to make gun control the political third rail again.
        Make the public to see through grabbers lies and propaganda. We need to change public wiews so, that it would not be okay for banks and big companies to push for disarmament of said public. They have the mainstream media on their side, so it’s not going to be easy task.

        NRA might consider cutting off the branch of ILA that takes donations from the gun industry and renaming it. (Take a page out of handgun control Brady bunch.) That will disprove claims of NRA being only lobby for gun manufacturers and not caring about shot victims as long as gun sales are good. (“We take zero money from the industry and we STILL fight against disarmament!”)

        • I like the tactic, but the unified, rally all goal remains undefined. “To be left alone” is a characteristic of the non-leftist/statistist/liberal, but it so indefinite that such a concept is a hard sell.

          One piece of information we lack is a reading on now many people outside POTG believe that the second amendment really was designed to keep the central government in check, and how many believe that such a corrective force is ever likely to be needed. If what we really want is simply to continue to possess guns for self-defense, it the original purpose of the second amendment relevant? If not, what happens when the fundamental element is obsolete? Are we then left trying to sell the idea that the only purpose of the second amendment is to protect the right of people to self-defense? And is success at that (correlation with declining violent crime) actually hurting us?

          It is a bit of a struggle to look at declining violent crime and recognize that an armed citizenry serves as a deterrent to violent crime. It is easier for most to look at the decline and conclude it is no longer necessary to be armed, because society is safer already.

          The anti-gun crowd has two thrusts, disarm the public so that government faces no threat of armed revolt, and feel safer that “good” people will not be subject to some “nut case gunning down everyone in sight”. Not sure any amount of effort by POTG can overcome that fear.

  18. Terrible idea. The courts are a fierce enemy, in existence to rubber stamp whatever the state makes “law”. I am willing to compromise however, not being too unreasonable: If a person has a concealed weapon permit, or is otherwise allowed by state law to carry a firearm, then that person can purchase or possess a semi automatic or automatic weapon and any ammunition, magazine, or accessory made to function with that firearm. Additionally, they will be able to carry any handgun with its magazine(s) and ammunition anywhere in the country not prohibited by federal law. And SBR’s and suppressors will be taken out of the NFA. Finally, there will be penalties for state agents who refuse to recognize the new law.

  19. “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” George Mason I left the link there.

    The second amendment also says, somewhere in there, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. These “weapons of war”, which really aren’t that at all, are exactly what we are supposed to own.

    We have seen enough socialism and marxist/ communist “representatives of the people” who are just itching to take all the rights he is willing to surrender which it seems is all of them. That Clinton woman stood on a stage and told the entire country she would be taking some of our rights away “for the good of all”. Whatever that meant. Probably something like Obama’s hope and change garbage. Wasn’t Jon Stokes paying attention? Or was he too young to be paying attention when she said it? The second amendment is not in support of sport shooting and never was. If he had attended a real school, he would have learned that as a young boy. Any law these crooks write can, and will, be changed to meet their desires for control of all people. The only thing they can’t seem to totally erase is The 2A. Trump’s idea of reciprocity makes more sense for all those who already have passed background checks for purchase and or carry of weapons. What would the difference be? A new fee and who knows what else.

    The federal government has provided us with enough of a police state as it is and by the looks of the news, a crooked police state at best. The last thing any legal gun owner should ever have to do is register his weapons. Mr. Stokes sounds like he lives in Chicago, New York or some other oppressive place. I won’t insult him any more than to say that.

    He needs to start thinking about standing for his rights instead of “ironing something out.” It has already been exhibited as to what some states and communities mean when they “iron something out”. The only federal permit we should ever have needed was written long ago, The 2A. Anytime you fill out a form and send it in, the government has it. We all go through background checks now. So this fellow simply wants to add another layer of stupidity to an already overbearing system.

    This is The Bill of Rights we are talking about, not some negotiated tax rates or spending bill. These are basic rights already “ironed out”.

  20. Nope, completely stupid idea. I am sick and tired of giving up my constitutional right one infringement at a time. Whatever the Fed gives, it later takes.

  21. I’m pretty sure that the reason that we have a Second Amendment is to protect us against the kind of government bvllshit that the author is proposing.

    • +1

      The only way I’d go for this is if Trump gets another 6 nominees to the SCOTUS. Then all the unconstitutional bits would be struck down. Otherwise, for the other side, there’s no way any of this happens without a repeal of the 2A first, so I don’t see that getting much support from the left.

      • If you haven’t noticed, justice Thomas is getting up in years.

        Another Leftist will be president in the non-distant future, appointing *new* dedicated Leftists justices.

        If you also havn’t noticed, blue disease is *spreading* and infecting otherwise red states. Leftists are bailing out in mass droves from California, New York, Conneticut, New Jersey, etc.

        They are moving to states like Florida with low taxes, but they are bringing their Leftists voting habits with them. Florida and Texas will soon turn. Even *Wyoming* is being infected with the vermin.

        You *do* realize what this means, do you not, with regards to national politics and who appoints SCOTUS justices in about 20 years, Gov?

        Do you?

        • I wouldn’t hold my breath about Texas if I were you, we’re headed the other direction.

  22. I have a licence. Its the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Why would I ask for permission to do what is already legal? And, from whom do I ask permission? A bureaucrat? Who has empowered them to grant anything?

    • Then strap on, external carry your firearm into a police station, and tell them you are exercising your second amendment to possess a “weapon of war” ,as a reminder to the police that the public retains the right to use deadly force to stop unconstitutional government overreach.

      You will retain your God-given natural, human and civil right to carry “weapons of war”, but you will be deprived of the benefit while you walk your 9X12 fiefdom.

      Reality is less fun than sloganeering. Better to be prepared for reality.

      • Sammy,

        Check you response for logical clarity. You may have something meaningful in your rhetorical assembly, but as it stands it just doesn’t click.


  23. Here Is my compromise: the NFA is repealed, the gun control act is repealed, state level gun control laws are repealed, the gun free school zones act is repealed, the sporting purposes importation regulations are removed. In exchange we will allow you to keep FFL licensing in place (with no licensing fees imposed by the government) and require NICS checks on some types of firearms purchased through an FFL.

  24. As we all know, Oceania ( former Britain) is treating knives like guns.
    I can order all sorts of knives through mail order and be delivered to my door step
    We used to be able to buy guns through mail order and have them delivered to your door step.
    So why can’t I buy guns through mail order and have them delivered to my house?
    Any one else see the contradiction?

  25. The best thing that could happen is peaceful break up of the current empire into at least 5 (or more) different nations. If we do not have Czechoslovakia in 1993, we will have Yugoslavia 1992. It is coming, peaceful is better than internet tough guy bluster.

  26. Wow…the stupid is strong with this one…..and how fast does he think that process will become so arbitrary and expensive that normal people will no longer be able to buy any gun? No sir, no thank you….screw that….not one more gun, bullet or magazine…..we need to go out and vote Republican to keep the Senate so that Trump can replace ginsburg, kennedy and breyer in his term and protect the seats of Thomas and whoever else, hopefully Roberts, resigns….

    • “the stupid is strong with this one” Pretty ironic coming from someone who trusts the Republicans not to bend him over and use him like a $2 prostitute.

    • This is another dumb idea. We do not need a permission slip to use our second amendment rights. This would be handing over our rights to a bunch of crooked politicians in D C [ damned criminals ] to do as they wish.

  27. We don’t need new laws! Gun control is incremental, and this is proof! They want to outlaw all semiautomatic weapons now, not just so-called “assault weapons”!

    Also, per his definition, double action revolvers are also semiautomatic. Never fall into the trap, democrats are full of crap.

  28. That is a whole lot of words in one place that don’t say anything. And many of the words actually contradict the authors claimed intent.

    This was the bit that threw me solidly into the Nope side of the debate….

    “…Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process,”

    Who gets to decide what is Thorough enough. And who gets to decide what is Reasonable?

    I will bet you a nickle that current gun owners are not going to get invited to that committee meeting.

  29. It is a great idea for the racist gun controllers. Just like in “may issue” states and counties, it gives too much power to a few in regards to the licensor of the people that want to own modern sporting rifles and even not so modern handguns.
    Now, the rich white guys and L.E. that have time and money to go through class(no matter if they already practice proper gun safety) will be the ones that get licensed. This is designed to keep cheap semi-autos out of the poor people’s hands(like the High Point), which they may want for protection. There are many people in this country that the cost of a new High Point, hopefully a lock box, and the extra fees that the state requires, is a big deal for something to stay near their bedside that they may never need. Let’s have the cost triple for this privilege.
    The people that stress gun control will never go for it, because even though they say they are not saving lists of the people that apply for gun purchase, they do have them for every gun that has been purchased from an FFL and most used purchases in the last couple of decades. They will never go with the idea that a licensee can just go out and buy a gun without registering said firearm. They want to know where every gun is, so they can grab it when they are able to do so.

  30. I appreciate the effort of anyone who has an idea to offer. However, I’m unpersuaded by this idea.

    First, let’s wrap our heads around the ostensible problem. If ZERO people were killed or injured with guns we wouldn’t have a problem. If the number were in single digits we could handle the problem. But the number killed is in 5 digits. So, we are a long way from home.

    How might this proposal make a dent in the 20,000 suicides? Probably not much. So, it’s really hard to see the 30,000 total coming down much due to a reduction in suicides.

    How might this proposal make a dent in the 10,000 homicides? Most of these are with handguns and are 1-on-1 or 1-on-few. At best, we might hope that we could reduce 1 or 2 mass killings, but that wouldn’t reduce the count of homicides.

    How about accidents?

    So, if we can’t move the numbers by much then how would we expect to dampen the howls for “We must do something!”

    What do we imagine would constitute some sort of extra-super vetting of applicants for this new license? Suppose you make the fee very high, take a few years to process, require membership for 10 years in a gun club, etc. then you could reduce the number of licensees to 100,000 or 10,000 or so and that would really cut-down on the haystack that contains a few needles. But, if you imagine that anyone who now lawfully owns – or could buy – a semi-auto rifle would be able to do so under this new license, then the haystack would be about as large as it is now. It would contain about the same number of needles as the current situation.

    Tragically, if we want a nation where “Let every man be armed” then there seems to be only one viable solution to homicides: shoot back.

  31. No.

    No. No. No. No. No. And, just in case I am being ambiguously unclear…


    Notwithstanding that, were such a ridiculous scheme implemented, there is zero evidence that this gun control “would work.” How? What does it purport to accomplish that justifies such an egregious infringement? “Keeping guns out of the wrong hands?” Based on the article I just read above: Doesn’t seem like it would change anything whatsoever for criminals and determined murderers. So why should the rest of us endure this nonsense? “Common sense?” To appease people who don’t like guns– that is a fail.

    This comment section is chocked full of meaty discussion above… so there’s no point in reiterating the base arguments against. But, just in case the bone-obvious is somehow glossed over… Guns are tools. Some people do bad things, like using tools to hurt others. There are laws against people doing bad things. Freedom in a free country means that the People have civil liberties and civil rights. The right to defend one’s homestead, person, and family, and to contribute to the defense of life is natural. In a free country, bad people sometimes abuse their civil liberties to do bad things. When they do that, they can be arrested, prosecuted and tried, and then punished. The rest of the law-abiding behaved People ought to have the freedom to utilize tools that aid and encourage the protection of their natural and civil rights. People who do not like guns do not have to own or use them, and that is their right to choose. These people have no moral standing or rational argument to exercise their desire to control others’ civil liberties and rights merely because they don’t like guns and don’t want to exercise their natural rights. The state is not your mommy. The state is not your big brother to beat up people you don’t like. The state represents us all as individuals who comprise a team (or, it ought to), which is why we have a Bill of Rights.

    Short of all that… what is there to talk about regarding guns? Leave me and my firearms alone, and go binge on Netflix or something. Go tweet about Kanye. Go wear a pink knit hat. Go do something, But for the love of all that is decent– leave us alone. We don’t care if you don’t like guns– there is nothing you can “do” about the rest of us owning them and using them, regardless what insanely ignorant hysterical and hypocritical laws you might get passed. We won’t change, we won’t comply, and we won’t yield to bullying and shaming. So… leave us alone.

    There is no gun control “that works.” The very idea itself is a broken one. Be safe.

  32. Sure – I could go for that, if the license was issued to every American citizen automatically, lasted forever, could be revoked only in the case of criminal conviction by a jury of ones peers and allowed a citizen to keep and bear arms equivalent to those used by the military. What would we call this license tho…. it’s on the tip of my tongue.

    Oh yeah – how about the second amendment?

  33. bottom line

    you simply can’t ‘compromise’ with gun-grabbers….they will NEVER back down until they have achieved their clearly stated goal….total civilian disarmament and the abolition of the 2A;
    today….its just hey! all we want is “x” and that’s only common sense ….
    tomorrow its: now we want “a”, “b”, “c”, “d” and “e”
    the day after that its: now we want every-thing!

    “Australia and the UK”
    those are the only TWO WORDs you need to shut up and shut down the gun-grabbers in the US ! 😷

    • ” “Australia and the UK”
      those are the only TWO WORDs you need to shut up and shut down the gun-grabbers in the US ! ”

      Not following your thinking, here. Australia and UK are precisely embody the end game of the gun grabbers. How does achieving their goal “shut up and shut down” the gun grabbers?

      Hhhmmm. I guess if the grabbers get everything they want, there would be no need to agitate for more gun control. Which, one might suppose, would result in the grabbers shutting up.

      • its not so much what the gun-grabbers want, its the results of the gun-grabbing;
        apropos Prfssr John R Lott, those results have been catastrophic with sky-rocketing violent crime rates part. armed, violent home invasions;
        most people in Austrl and the UK now live in fear 24/7 ;

        • Still, no. Hillary advocated for laws similar to Australia and the UK in her bid for the presidency just 18 months ago. Their current situation is a freaking GOAL to our grabbers, just saying “Australia and UK” will cause them to break out in cheers.

  34. We can easily test this idea. Make concealed carry reciprocity National, all permits shall issue, and remove NFA requirements for license holders and see what happens. Concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding group of Americans, so this should be a no-brainer. Of course after that the results will obviously be contested, since the anti-gun side cannot accept the idea of responsible gun ownership (to them anyone owning any gun is irresponsible) so this “expanded NFA” idea would die in committee.

  35. OK…so one set of prints…one photo…one deep background check and we can buy or make ANY firearm we want…full auto even. Full reciprocity for all guns in every state. Legal carry in every state.
    Suppressors are included.
    Criminals will still get any damn gun they want without any of it…

  36. Recently I was talking, hypothetically, compromise with a liberal, vis-a-vis firearms. I mentioned that we could have some common ground, but that I wanted a repeal of the NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment. She offered me the ability to keep, SOME of my items, for the time being. She said that the only compromise would involve an out right ban on EVERY firearm. She wasn’t being HYPOTHETICAL.

  37. I though of a universal weapons card concept before with the idea being you could get one an carry anywhere and purchase guns or have them shipped to you, even NFA items without a stamp. This is all sour grapes anyway this is not the gun control the left wants and some Reps are pensive so this a pointless discussion.

  38. Regardless of whether you like his proposals or not, any regulations on firearm ownership need to come from firearm owners. In an ideal world, we could keep guns out of the hands of the evil, the crazy and the really stupid (you know the type…they leave their loaded pistols on the kitchen table with kids in the house, etc..). But this is not an ideal world. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about problems and consider solutions.

    Discussions need to take place. If not, we will see another useless assault weapons ban. People are quick to criticize Trump and the NRA for any compromises, but they understand the reality that elections are won and lost by independent voters. Anti gun loonies were salivating after Parkland and were ready to capitalize.

  39. The best “gun control” is to hit what you’re shooting at.”
    That aside, National Registration??? I would rather go through a background check for each purchase (like now) where that information is NOT kept by the government for more than 30 days before being discarded.
    Imagine a NATIONAL REGISTRY of every LEGAL gun owner. Then “Uncle” decides to bang on your door at 3 A.M. and take everything! Smacks of Stalinism and Nazi-ism to me.
    There’s nor many Holocost survivors left any more. Go find a few and see what they think about it.

  40. I just love it when a self described “gun nut” still gets it wrong. Fact: Full background checks already exist. Fact: Nikolas Cruz’s information on his criminal activity and mental problems were intentionally suppressed by government officials, agencies, and law enforcement. So the value of background checks isn’t even debatable when officials have the ability to manipulate the availability of records.

    Slightly Off-topic, the efforts, such as record suppression, on the part of the Left that consistently allows unqualified individuals to obtain, or re-obtain firearms (just give the guns back to the father) could easily be suspected as intentional to create exactly such mass shootings, to provide crisis after crisis providing ammunition (oops, a pun?) to attempt suspension of the Bill of Rights (Yes, not just the 2nd)?

    Additionally, regardless of ANY federal law (which the 2nd Amendment already is) states like California, where I live now ( with a back ground of having CCW permits in two states in which I previously lived, currently in possession of a non-resident CCW in one of those, and am a NRA Basic Pistol Instructor) will not make any change that might allow greater numbers of residents to own or carry guns. This state currently has a 10 day waiting period on ANY gun purchase; requires a full background check for every purchase (with fees), and limits the frequency of purchase.

    As long as the state is run by a Progressive Democrat super-majority, there will NEVER be a concession that removes the harassment-intended regulation of People’s Republik of Kalifornia of the states gun owners.

  41. So what if the gun control trash makes a million new bills, hahaha! You gonna just sit on your ass and hand over everything?
    There are things worse than death. The entire left, liberals, and the democrat party are the enemy. Just remember that.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here