“As Americans, we have a long history with firearms. We also have a government built on compromise, so here is the compromise I propose: Ban assault rifles and handguns for everyone except police and military personnel. These weapons are made to kill humans and should be strictly limited. At the same time, allow responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns. Rifles are for hunting big-game animals, shotguns are for hunting birds; non-automatic versions of these weapons should be available for those with an interest in hunting or target shooting.” – Nick Symmonds, Guns in America: Time for Change [via runnersworld.com]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: You Can Run But You Can’t Hide Edition
Another category for Ralph? FUDD types who say, “you can ban or regulate the scary stuff, just leave my bolties and pump action shotties alone.”
We have many of these in California, and they were entirely unhelpful in the recent legislative battles where the liberal supermajority were seeking ever more egregious arms control. They have this belief that the Second Amendment exists to protect their right to possess arms for recreational activity. Few have CCWs, or even seek to obtain CCWs, and do not see the need to own arms for personal defense.
First they came for the machine guns,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t own an machine gun.
Then they came for the semi-automatic rifles,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t own a semi-automatic rifle.
Then they came for the handguns,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t own a handgun.
Then they came for my hunting rifle,
and there were no guns left to defend me from tyranny.
Well played, sir!
The classic anti-gun “compromise”: ban the stuff that I don’t like, and I will “allow” you to have some of the stuff you have already been “allowed” to have for centuries.
Until…we decide you can’t even have those.
Yea it would turn into “gun violence is still an epidemic so you can still have your guns but you have to leave them with the police” a couple months later and they’re all destroyed. I worked for a jewish russian immigrant who actually said that’s how gun ownership should be. He was so brainwashed from growing up with the commie propaganda he actually whole heartedly believed the gov was truly looking out for our best interest.
He likes compromise? Ok, I suggest that he compromise and donate his left leg to the disarmament cause. He’s got two, won’t one be enough?
I have a counter compromise for him. I believe that your idiocy presents a danger to our society, so as a compromise you can only have 1 child by one woman for your entire life.
And then after you give up our handguns and “assault rifles;” they will come for your hunting rifles and shotguns because they can be used for killing humans. What a tool. The ultimate Fudd.
Exactly, we’ve already seen mass shootings in the past where many people were murdered with Bolt-action rifles and shotguns. Even if all “non-recreational” guns were banned, people would still murder each other with “recreational” firearms, because a gun is still a gun. That means everything is always on the table in gun control laws. Besides, I seem to recall the bolt-action rifle being designed explicitly for use on the battlefield as a weapon of war. Haven’t I heard the president referring to guns in that category before?
How about this compromise? We’ll keep our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms and this dingbat can keep his 1st Amendment rights to say this kind of stupid stuff
Best solution I’ve heard yet.
How these idiots don’t realize that allowing the complete steamrolling of one Constitutional right opens the door, via legal precedence, to destroying EVERY right granted by the US Constitution is beyond me. Someone should educate them (and the ACLU while they’re at it) that civil rights activism is an all-or-nothing game.
“right granted by the US Constitution”
Incorrect. Rights are rights. The Constitution enumerates the rights we have naturally. Nothing granted by a document or government body is a right. It becomes a privilege and can be denied by said body.
so… wait.. do we have the ‘right’ to drink alcohol?
@Hannibal. We have the right to life, liberty, and property. If you are not depriving anyone of any of those against their will, you are free to do as you please. This is true liberty. Liberty is power, and like power, it comes with responsibility. Individual liberty with collective responsibility.This is the point I usually go off in a lengthy description of the rights we have and the responsibilities we own up to, but most visitors on this site already know the balance between the two. Most of society already lives within the construct of a moral and free society. The criminal minority have managed to give those in power an excuse to attempt to legislate morality and punish the majority for the actions of a relative few. “For the common good”. This power grab has blossomed into the America of today. “Progress”, they call it.
I would tend to agree with you, but was just trying to figure out how the constitution (and amendments) can be merely a reflection of natural rights when so many things have been included and then excluded. Slavery comes to mind as well.
I suppose I do not fundamentally believe in natural rights except as those rights one is able to maintain by force or social contract.
@Hannibal: re:alchol, yes. The 9th amendment is the catchall that grants pretty much all the rights. As far as slavery goes, yes it is antithetical to the idea of natural rights, this was actually understood by at least some of the founders if not all, sort of depending on who exactly counts as a founder. In the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, the daft I would argue captures Jefferson’s ideology most purely for obvious reasons, includes the fact that the King allowed slavery in the colonies as one of the reasons to revolt. He even refers to it as a ‘crime against humanity’ if I remember the phrasing exactly.
So why did he own slaves? Well mostly likely because it’s the system he grew up in. Why not give up the slaves if you believe slavery is wrong? All I can say is people can be a very conflicted species.
Found the quote, I did not remember the phrasing exactly.
“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,]”
It was quickly pointed out to him that if they included that phrase in such a declaration that half of the colonies would side with England in order to keep their slaves, since it would have been damned hard to include slavery in a new country that had broken away with that as one of the reasons.
I used to have a link for a complete draft history of the Declaration, showing what Jefferson had written himself and what was removed or added at the various stages later on, like the prayer it closes with.
“grants pretty much all the rights.”
You’re STILL not getting it!!!
God granted us the rights.
The Constitution merely PROTECTS them.
Got it now?
We could always use our 2nd Amendment Rights to protect his 1st Amendment Rights.
Just add we disband all the alphabet soup, tax stamps and laws banning any weapon and we have a compromise.
Can we ban FUDDs? Or do we just turn them over to the antis and let those two hang out together?
Like it or not Fudds are usually gun owners and need to brought to our side…
They’re obviously not interested in being on our side.
I like this idea better – “Support my right to own any gun I wish for putting holes in paper and tin cans, and I’ll continue to support your right to kill harmless animals. If not, well… enjoy fighting PETA by yourself, animal killer.”
It doesn’t matter, we NEED them on our side. This guy might be too far gone, though… I don’t know many people even in the ‘reasonable gun control’ crowd who advocate “banning” handguns at this point.
@Hannibal…..I don’t know many people even in the ‘reasonable gun control’ crowd who advocate “banning” handguns at this point.
You’re such an azzwipe. However I then re-read and realized that even you aren’t so stupid to believe your own sheet….. the “at this time” was pure gun-grabber genius. I can tell you precisely “what time” it will be when they go after handguns….it will be the NEXT DAY after they successfully ban sporting rifles.
animal killer? seriously, get in touch with where your food comes from. I eat deer at least 6-8 months out of the year that I processed personally.
And of course, the bad guys will have complete access to any & all weapons because they have the special card that allows them to be exempt from the law and not be targeted by police or politicians.
what a moron. i say we ban stupidity like his from having progeny
We can only hope this tool hasn’t taken a dump in the gene pool already……..
Why would anybody care what some chump from runner’s world thinks? They are really going for the low hanging fruit with their propaganda, aren’t they?
Typical run in my town where they restrict traffic and such is all yuppies who you know don’t own firearms just by looking at them. I guess they figure if they can get “runners” to get behind tyranny it might “go viral.”
Even Runner’s World readers apparently think the guy is a tool Personally, I think the editors sought out a pretty little anit-gun piece to please the owners, who are out to please Valerie Jarrett. The real story isn’t about various goofs slipping anti posts in odd places, but is rather about a sudden outbreak of Editor Re-education Virus.
Ummmmm…did he just imply that my pump shotgun isn’t able to kill humans because it’s not a military model?
Sweet baby jeebuz am I the only one wondering what this has to do with running? Robert evidently is remiss in not offering articles on a gun blog about prevention of shin splints, shoe selection for pronators vs supinators, and the next big ultra marathon…
As a runner myself, I find this propaganda to be completely idiotic.
Ban all handguns and “semi autos”? But but but they said that nobody wanted to take my guns away!
Simple things for simple minds…
Fudds can be turned… It just takes patience. My father-in-law hated ARs it took a lot of 2A debate and pointing out gun controls slippery slope. He was a union man and always voted democrat but after a while even he got his cpl and went to the polls with the knowledge that scotus could possibly be needing a new member and if so they would be Obama’s pet.
You have a point Jeff. Just show this fleet footed meathead some pictures of Angus Hobdell and others with their team colors and their shooting trophies and he would understand. Show him some three gun.
Weapons designed for combat DO have a sporting purpose. Shooting well requires as much hand eye coordination as a sport like tennis.
If you read the comments on runnersworld in relation to this article, they are getting bashed by runners.
As they should…as an avid runner and reader of runners world, I find this article to be detestable. If I want to read about guns and gun related issues, I’ll come to TTAG. Runnersworld needs to stick to its area of expertise. I think I’ll be canceling my subscription…
Oh duh, it’s up in the article. Still on the first cup of coffee…
Even though it’s frustrating that the Media publishes drivel like this, it encourages me to see that the readers aren’t buying it. And in the case of print magazines, sometimes literally.
Yeah, he ran through a field of dog poop on this one.
Would you please c&p some here? Please? If I go to RUNNER’S WORLD, it would SO ruin my wonderful day…
Ah, yes. Runner’s World. Exactly the publication I turn to for insights into political issues. Exactly as I eagerly read each article on long distance running hydration and running shoe reviews in the latest Special Weapons and Tactics magazine.
I look foreword to the Runner’s World editorial on immigration and healthcare reform. I’m sure it will be well thought-out and meaningful.
We are one letter away from changing them to Gunner’s World!
I’d shell out a few bucks for that.
As Americans, we have a long history with free speech. We also have a government built on compromise, so here is the compromise I propose: ban blogs and non traditional media, for everyone except recognized journalistic entities. These mediums are made to spread disinformation and should be strictly limited. At the same time, allow responsible citizens to express themselves through approved means. Protests would be limited to approved First Amendment Zones. Citizens can also continue writing to recognized entities and have their thoughts expressed through them. This will ensure that people still have the ability to exercise their first Amendment rights, but will be prevented from causing disorder.
I think you just wrote out the progressive wet dream.
I believe Fienstien has proposed a law that does exactly this just recently. Careful what you wish for.
I was just about to post that very point.
Beat me to it too. Being a news junkie, I have read a number of articles on very prominent and powerful progressives trying to pass laws or suggesting they were considering laws just like that. For me, this is scary stuff, especially being a lifelong student of history.
:golf clap:….That was outstanding.
Better yet, since many of these mass shooters are copycats inspired by other mass shooters, let’s put into place laws that forbid the press from reporting on these incidents. That, more than any gun control, would work to slow the pace of these incidents.
What? First amendment violation? Well if it’s not cool to restrict the first amendment, why is okay to restrict the second?
And there lies the problem, TTAG has given the bloggers bigger voices to the anti-2A bloggers movement as real writers/journalists when they write about their negativity. Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one.
Tom, I believe you’ve accidentally dropped your /sarc tag.
Here’s the compromise I suggest Mr. Symmonds, as it is the only one we will tolerate:
The immediate and complete repeal of all gun control laws currently on state and federal books. In return, if your statist mind can’t handle a liberated America, we are willing to let YOU move elsewhere. We will gladly compromise by losing people like YOU, not our bill of rights. Those amendments are not subject to any compromise, period. Not minor ones and certainly not the freak show you’re suggesting.
Stick to writing about pink running shoes and spare us your hipster glamour shots with firearms. Intolerable, shortsighted, ignorant, simple-minded, awful little traitor.
Good luck on getting the second ammendment repealed, Mr. Symmonds. A political compromise does not involve giving in to the 25% against the wishes of the 75%.
True. And even if it were the other way around, one thing our constitution is supposed to do is to protect the minority from tyrrany of the majority.
In this case, though, there’s no clause specifying freedom from fear about what someone else might carry, own or do while exercising their rights.
I’ll go a step further, there was a massive attempt to institute bans, restrictions, and stricter regulations on a national level, but it failed.
The gun control folks wanted blood, but now after being beaten back, except in places where they already had hold, they want to extend an olive branch and claim a need for “compromise”.
It happens EVERY time.
Went to runnersworld and read the entire post. One minute and twenty-seven seconds of my life i will never get back. What a tool.
Did you read the comments?
Apparently, none of the readers of Running World agreed with Nick. They blew up the comments, it was about 20 to 1 trashing the article, good times.
Compromise… you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
+1 Princess Bride point.
I sort of agree with this guy, we should be able to keep and bear anything with a smooth bore (shotguns) and anything with a rifled bore (pistols, revolvers, rifles of all kinds).
So he is saying the right thing but he is saying the wrong way.
Smoothbores. Mmmm …. Rheinmetall ….
120mm. Wonder what a box of shells would cost for that puppy?
Also let me just say it’s pretty funny that someone writes this in a running magazine as if it’s a brilliant proposal that’s never been thought of before, with no legal issues whatsoever. I, for one, am writing Stockholm so they can get the process started to give him a peace prize for this amazing idea.
I hear they’ll hand those prizes out to anyone these days.
Ironically enough, Nobel manufactured armament and invented dynamite.
Who’s going to come and take my scary ‘assault rifles?’ The military? Doubtful. Most of us despise our current crop of civilian masters. They’d be wise to read the history of rome before they poke that bee hive.
Interesting thought… the way the Romans kept peace at home was to keep the legions involved far, far away. I wonder just how many morons in DC are kept awake at night at the idea that the US military is not actively fighting a war, or two, in far places but is instead all safe at home, and possibly getting restless. One can only wonder if it might FINALLY cause changes in the VA and other agencies to finally get their shit together.
It was the return to the UK of so many disaffected, and likely to be unemployed, veterans from the trenches in France that caused Britain to institute their initial draconian gun control measures in 1920. All the little, unintended consequences of failed statecraft…
He started off pretty good, but that didn’t last long. How about we ban no firearms but ban hunting? Oh wait that would screw over a large part of the population too…
He has the face of a NYC fresh executive so im guessing he doesn’t do anything gun related much, so its safe to say he doesn’t know shit about the subject of which he speaks.
“Allow responsible citizens” who defines who’s responsible? Oh sorry citizen #4576234, you have no criminal record but only someone irresponsible would wear that shade of green. So no gun.
“How about we ban no firearms but ban hunting?”
Or we could compromise by letting the states ban murder … oh, wait …
Let’s see, relegate the 2nd Amendment to mere sport hunting while giving up my legally owned property and civil rights, all at the of behest of some self righteous writer’s “compromise”…
Man, that compromise you got there does sound tempting, Mr. Symmonds. But, I think I will pass- no deal.
This well-intentioned person apparently has no idea where firearms came from. As if the editors of Field & Stream got tired of throwing rocks at ducks, or somebody’s bow arm was injured and hundreds of years ago a buddy of his cobbled together a Springfield ’03 for him to use during deer season.
All firearms are weapons intended to kill people, it’s why the entire category of arms exists. It took a couple hundred of years to make them better than a longbow, but we’re pretty much there now. Realistically, no advance in firearm technology was ever intended to kill deer or ducks better than the last generation. All of the R&D and innovation has been to create powders, projectiles and mechanisms useful in war or defense, and pretty much only against other humans. Hunting and target shooting are outgrowths of the killing-people mission of firearms, but to say that the firearms industry invented and developed firearms for hunting and target shooting is kind of like saying the American space program sent multiple missions to the moon in order to get Tang, Velcro and the Fisher Space Pen.
What’s so charming about the author, in a clueless-kid-with-ice-cream-on-his-face kind of way, is that he seeks to regulate something he clearly knows nothing about. The “designed to kill people” thing is an argument from ignorance, grandpa’s Mauser 98-derivative hunting rifle was sure as shootin’ (so to speak) designed to kill people. I’m pretty sure someone used to a Minie ball percussion musket would have looked at a five-shot smokeless rifle like the original ’98, saw how fast it could shoot and how fast it could be reloaded and felt his bowels turn to water to think what it would have been like to face those at Gettysburg or Antietam. “Why, this is a weapon meant for nothing other than killing people!” he would have harrumphed through his mutton-chop mustache, except our hypothetical 19th Century denizen would have then grinned and said, “I’ll take three!”
No, our author comes from a more enlightened era where ignorance is license to authority and fear is a clear signal to retreat rather than gird up one’s loins and press on. I think I’ll not take advice from him. On anything.
I agree, the “designed to kill” argument is absurd. The technology used in almost all repeating arms was originally designed for military use.
Using the example of the LAX shooting to justify his argument is also painfully idiotic. The shooter killed only one person. He could have just as easily used a bolt-action rifle. Or a bow and arrow for that matter.
Good observation and unusually well said!
No. And fuck you. Have a nice day, now.
…well that’s a really good deal. But I’ve got a better one. How about I give you the finger, and you let me keep ALL my rights?
Send him a note at runners world. I left a comment a few days ago. Of the 500 or so comments at the time, all but a few took Symmonds to the woodshed for a spanking. The other few just called him a dipshit. Apparently some runners CCW.
Shocking indeed. I run and know lots of runners, most of them carry. Woman in particular. I suppose they heard too many “getting raped while jogging” stories.
I know. Symmonds even cited the Aussie jogger shot here in the U.S. by bored teenagers. To me it makes even more of a case for carrying while running.
Yeah it amazes me that the story of someone being victimized prompts someone to suggest becoming LESS able to defend one’s self…
On another note, where is a good place to carry while running? I imagine having a pound+ of firearm hanging off of one hip cannot be doing good things to body mechanics. Small-of-back, maybe?
Belly band, sub compact like an LC9, PF9 or J-frame, 3 o’clock. Works like a dream. I hardly notice it’s even there. YMMV.
This FUDD’s statement is so full of historical, social, political, strategic, logical, and firearms knowledge fail that it hurts my head to read. Problem is, he is a useful idiot with a gun, so that MAIG and the rest will gleefully parade him in front of the media and say, “here is proof that gun owners want to ban ‘evil’ guns!”
Hey Nick, you dumba$$ that Mauser action rifle was so deadly it decimated our troops at the battle of Bunker Hill during the Spanish American war prompting us to adopt the Springfield 1903: those actions were then turned into the venerable Remingtons and Rugers many use today. Read a book once in a while.
Bunker Hill ==> San Juan Hill.
Wait a minute, the Germans didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor!
Shuddup, he’s on a roll!
Deserves a kick in the balls.
Guys, he’s right. According to Wikipedia the 2nd Amendment only allows Americans to hunt game animals. Where did we go so wrong?
And shooting skeet in limited amounts while in a carefully supervised environment with non-lethal rounds. After approved training. It’s all in there
I’m going hunting with my AR15, as will hundreds of thousands of hunters during this 2013 Oct-Dec gun deer season across the nation. I’ll target shoot and shoot competitions with the same gun. Should the need for self defense arise, the AR is ideal for that on duty and off. I cannot in good conscience deny the rest of the nation my favorite self defense and sporting firearm.
What caliber AR are you using to hunt deer? I’m going to be building a .308 to become a hunting rifle in the next few months.
You must have not read A81s posts for too long. 6.8 SPC.
I haven’t put him on my internet stalking list yet so I guess I missed his 6.8 posts.
A CMMG 16″ 6.8 SPC Spec II upper on a PSA / Magpul MOE lower. The load will be the Silver State Armory 110 Barnes 6.8 tactical load at 2650 FPS – the 6.8 version similar to what Leghorn has used in the 300 BLK but with a little more juice.
Also, the shotgun in the picture seems to be a semi auto browning a5. So he is a hypocrite as well as an idiot!
Yes, it’s almost unbelievably stupid.
It looks like an a5, which means it was probably handed down to him. A family heirloom. Let’s see him walk the walk and turn it in to the police to be melted down. Show the strentgh of his convictions. Until then, he’s just a gas bag.
When I first saw the picture, I started thinking of how many Japanese soldiers were shwacked by A5s during the war in the Pacific. What a total idiot who has no clue what he is holding.
I nearly sneezed when I saw the same thing. What a dunderhead.
As a runner and a cyclist nothing beats a handgun for protection on the road from assault. As a NRA life member I find it hard to believe this guy actually doesn’t think a good percentage of runners carry small when they run, in fact look at the Governor of Texas who carries on his daily jog. If you want to live in a country with only rifles and shotguns move to England that way the only handguns you’ll see are the one’s holding you up
Sadly, that’s also the state of play in New Zealand. We can only own a handgun if we go through rigorous training and interviewing, and can never carry said handgun, plus it’s so expensive why bother? AKs and ARs require a stronger license and safes, also expensive. We can still buy semi auto centre fires and shotguns, which are restricted in the UK and Australia. This is what happens when our Bill of Rights (1689 edition) has been disregarded for centuries. We don’t have cougars or bears, which tend to eat joggers elsewhere, but have blisters and strains like everywhere.
The comments section from the article appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of a backlash G&A style to this miss guided article. I’m thinking the editor should have ran with “The best carry method for your run” and highlighted some holsters and bellybands the runners use to carry while hitting the streets.
That’s actually a great idea for an article, it is a topic I have pondered for years.
It’s just more of “divide et impera”.
If hunters, paper-punchers, CCW holders, etc. don’t stand together to preserve the RKBA, they will all lose in the long run.
Dear Nick Symmonds,
Go to Hell…go directly to Hell…Do not stop in Purgatory….Do not collect 200 Blessings.
I have run 10 marathons and I USED to subscribe to both Runner’s World and Running Times, both Roadale Press publications. Runner’s World has previously ventured into the political arena recently and slobber lovingly all over Wendy Davis who filibustered in her “pink Mizunos” (a running shoe) to block killing babies during partial birth abortions. Then this guy comes out and speaks against 2A rights. All in a friggin’ running magazine. I sent them an e mail informing them I cancelled my subscriptions. Screw ’em.
2 words to the poster.
Let’s compromise, U.S. citizens who pay Federal Income Tax, and only those who pay Federal Income Tax, can vote for elective federal positions.
Only if we pass a consitutional amendment establishing a flat tax.
Judging the comments on the Runners World website it looks like there are quite a lot of people who will not renew their subscriptions.
I find it funny that Runners World, a website about jogging, is posting gun control articles. I think Nick Symmonds should try to go coyote hunting with his bolt action on multiple targets.
Textbook FUDD right here.
Ban sneakers. Nobody needs to move that fast. Besides, little children somewhere have to make them……
I had to look up compromise in the dictionary just in case it had changed definitions overnight. It hasn’t, they’re just using the other definition, as in “compromised bridge structure” or “compromised integrity”.
How about this compromise? Guys who look like Stifler give up their guns, everyone else keeps theirs.
In the words of Rick from Pawn Shop: Hmm….how about “No?”
Moron. You want ’em, come get ’em. Same goes for all you knuckleheads that call for confiscation. Don’t hide behind the guv’ment, you and your buddies man up and do it yourselves. I’ll wait right here.
I think what many of these writers are missing is that despite the noise there aren’t that many people committed to civilian disarmament. The break down must be something like 10% rabidly for, 30+% rabidly against and 50+% with no strong opinion either way. By misunderstand the numbers writers like this one kick a hornets nest that will garner them little in the way of support, a dedicated backlash from pro 2A readers and simply waste the time of everyone else who reads the article.
That said, stupid ought to hurt. The more media outlets feel the sting of severely and likely permanently alienating 30+% of their audience the less they’ll be willing to go with these stories and the less they can shape the narrative about what amounts to advocating the taking away of civil rights.
Typical stupid uninformed ASS!
Remember, the other definition of “Compromise” is;
“To weaken (a reputation or principle) by accepting standards that are lower than is desirable.”
I said it in my post yesterday: compromise has no place in many situations. If a strange man demands several sexual encounters with a woman and she wants no part of it, what is a “fair compromise”? Just one or two encounters?
So let’s turn it around on the fine Mr. Nick Symmonds. I demand that we ban high-tech and expensive running shoes. No one needs running shoes. Criminals always run away from victims and police. In fact we should also ban cross-training shoes because they are light weight and a criminal can run fast in those types of shoes as well. Let’s only allow people to wear big, floppy, heavy boots. They can still walk to their cars or a subway and work in large, heavy boots. And the heavy boots will provide exercise benefits as well. That is a fair compromise and anyone who disagrees is a monster.
the way he’s posed I’m inclined to believe he is very uncomfortable with that firearm and game bag (who goes hunting with an empty ammo pouch)
I think Nick Symmonds should sell whatever guns he might own. If you are a gun owner and not actively engaged in preserving our rights, sell them. He suffers from all the common tropes and traps the rest of the useful idiots do, and his “logic” is so fundamentally flawed that he ends up making no sense at all.
Another grabber who doesn’t understand that “compromise” means a meeting in the middle between two parties. What exactly do gun-owners get in his compromise? Nothing, they are “allowed” to keep a small portion of what they already can.
What would an actual compromise look like? One in which people who appreciate the right to self defense get something they want but don’t currently have, and the terrified masses get some appeasement for their irrational anxiety?
How about this: All guns have to have wood furniture, or be painted a soothing pastel color. Scary, “tactical-black” guns will no longer be okay unless you’re a member of the military or the increasingly militarized police because hey — that’s comforting.
Also, maybe we could just give up bayonets. If you want to attack someone with a large bladed weapon, you just have to do it the British way and use a chef’s knife or cleaver.
In exchange, no more minimum on barrel length (look how small and un-intimidating this shotgun is!) and no restrictions on silencers (loud noises are SCARY). Also, open-carry of any black-powder rifles or pistols everywhere, because that’s what the founding fathers had in mind, right?
I’d settle for national carry reciprocity.
I’m publishing “Speedbump News,” the magazine for runners who have been run over. And we like guns.
Does anyone really believe a potential mass killer couldn’t come up with a way to kill a whole crapload of people with a bolt action rifle and a pile of ammo?
What about a lever action rifle, say in .44 mag, and a pocketful of cartridges?
What about a pump shotgun at a Naval Institution?
What a dips**t.
A few common chemicals from under the sink can do far more damage, silently, and for a lot less money. If you look at the potential for death in society other than firearms, you really get a sinking feeling. Just be thankful current mass killers are limiting themselves to a method that requires skill, can be spotted quickly, and allows for escape when detected.
Heres my compromise. if the local police can own it, we should be able to own it also.
I’ll freely admit, which may put myself subject to scorn and criticism, I USED to be a Fudd. My thinking was, I don’t give a crap if they ban 17 round Glock mags or AR-15’s or 30 round mags. As long as you don’t touch my BPS, Auto-5, 336 30-30 etc.
Then I came to the realization that “shall not be infringed” actually meant shall not be infringed. And I NOW don’t want the government, who swore to defend the constitution, coming to confiscate my Ruger 17 round mags. And when I eventually by drop some dime on a sporting rifle or god forbid at some point in time when a rational President takes office, a Korean era M1 carbine, I want to be free of infringement. And when I finally get my Illinois CCW, I want to carry what I choose with the number of rounds I feel comfortable defending myself.
Most of the comments to this article on its original page seem to disagree with the author.
Wow, he says that, all while holding a semi-auto shotgun. This guy can lick the sweat off my balls.
Sounds like he is casting for “Schindler’s List” Re Dux.
Here is the compromise I propose:
make 2 years of firearms education part of the common core of high-school education
make ccw licenses recognized across all states
make every state a shall-issue state
remove restrictions on carrying on or near schools or other public areas
and in return, allow a minimum level of proficiency to be set in order to qualify for a license (training having already been covered in high school).
You know, about a third of my family and the chaplain for my dying grandpa basically said something along these lines after Sandy Hook: “I own guns, but there’s no reason for people to own an assault rifle. All I need are shotguns and bolt action rifles.”
Reasoned debate wasn’t getting through to these people, so one day I just started snapping back with some propaganda of my own anytime I heard that trope. The conversation usually went something like this.
ME: “Oh, you mean your high-powered sniper rifle? The one
that can murder people a THOUSAND YARDS AWAY who
will never see it coming? And shoot all the way through a
whole crowd of people?”
FUDD: “What? No!”
ME: “Throw your fellow gun owners under the bus and it will
be in 5 years. Just wait.”
I would leave it at that and walk away. Most of the time they raged. In one case someone just started stammering. Did it change anyone’s mind? Probably not, but I’d like to believe it illustrated to some FUDD how easily it is to describe their “safe” rifle a crazed murderer’s weapon of choice.
(The messed-up part? The only other member of my immediate family who actively and completely defended the entire 2A during these debates was my uncle—a cop. Then again, he’s only a detective, so he’s not quite at the sock-puppet ranks. (I’m looking at you, commissioners.))
Compromise to the left means “We only get half of what we want and you get nothing”
Compromise to the left means “We only get half of what we want and you get nothing”.
And we’ll be right back for the other half.
Right on, C!
I have a better compromise. The only guns that civilians should be allowed to own are the fully automatic M-4, M-9 handgun, Beneli shotgun and a tactical Remington 700 in either 308 or 338 Lapua.
Don’t explicitly mention specific models, that opens the door to shenannigans. Just say that if a model is in the inventory of any branch of the US military, it’s legal for civilians to own, and the design is put into the public domain (with appropriate compensation to the designer) for anyone to manufacture.
Nope. Fail. Doesn’t get it. Sigh… Only authority gets the power to kill? Compromise. Kindly FOAD. Please.
“Ban everything but bolt guns, and decades later you’re left with a country of experienced snipers.”
Tell them that next time someone suggests banning anything lol.
I don’t think these people know what compromise means… Compromise doesn’t mean you get what you want and we should be thankful you didn’t take more.
If I was so inclined, I could kill you just as fast with my pump action hunting rifle dumbass. So I’m not buying this LOS that you’d be happy to stop your banning at semi-autos..
123 comments here already…so let me be the 124th one to tell you this, Mr. Symmonds.
THAT IS NOT A COMPROMISE. That, as you said yourself in your very next sentence, is what most of the world recognizes as a ban.
If I yearn to kick you in the balls but settle for punching you in the mouth instead, is that really a compromise? Did we come to an agreement on something that benefits both of us? I’m guessing you’d think not.
A friendly suggestion, Symmonds: stick to what you’re good at. I’ll keep thinking and reading and writing (oh, and owning guns), and you can shut your damn yap and go back to shuffling your responsible citizen feet.
Imagine holding an intruder at gunpoint and calling the police. You would need three hands with a shottie or rifle.
Damn, I need a tactical, rail mount speaker phone now…
It will help exploited workers in Third World nations. They make a lot of running shoes.
It will save lives. Do you know how many runners drop dead every year? Google says “a lot.”
It will prevent crime. Criminals will no longer be able to make their escape on foot, easily outdistancing police officers with doughnut bellies.
It will save the Earth. Runners pump a lot of carbon dioxide into the air, leading to increased global warming.
It will save billions in medical and hospital costs. No more shin splints, plantar fasciitis, runners knee, torn achilles, stress fractures, head trauma, heart attacks, strokes and car accidents. We might even be able to get rid of Obamacare!
We need to do this for the children.
Running will now only be allowed at slow speeds for short distances and within the walls of your own home. No more open running. If you see someone wearing sneakers, call it in. They may be preparing to run openly.
Yep. We banned running around the swimming pool It wasn’t enough. Kids are still falling. Running is both unnecessary and unsafe. If you really want to run so much, join the Marines, tough guy.
Here’s MY compromise position: FOAD. The compromise? Not on my lawn; somewhere else, m’K?
“Here is my compromise, citizens can have handguns, shotguns and rifles as long as they are not fully automatic, don’t have suppressors and meet arbitrary length requirments (even though they can have pistols), these guns are eeeebiiillll and kill puppies so only .gov can have them(because the .gov having weapons designed to kill people isn’t a scary idea at all)”
“here is my compromise, you can hunt with a recurve bow and arrow, so lets ban assault crossbows, assault compound bows, and assault muzzleloaders”
Sorry but you’re not right on that.Citizens can have full automatic weapons and suppressors under NFA laws in states that allow it.It’s very expensive but legal.
In New Zealand you can put a suppressor on anything and it’s legal. It helps keep the noise of rabbit hunting down (rabbits are a big problem for farmers here), and shooting possums, which are protected in Australia, but which are destroying our native forests. Deer hunters have started up too. Nobody is worried that miscreants might shoot up the neighborhood “silently”. We recently had a gang shooting on Guy Fawke’s Night, so the gun shots were concealed by the large number of fireworks going off.
yeah, our media would have a fart attack if we had unlimited access to “eeebilll copkiller assault silencers”
Yes I know of nfa, tis where I got “arbitrary length requirements” from, and from what I can tell the original nfa was a ban in all but name as the stamp fee was a huge chunk of change back then. Besides the full auto registry is closed (for now)
You have to ponder a government that inflates it’s own currency so much that it negates it’s own attempt to ban without banning.
Wow.. I can’t believe how badly he was excoriated in the comments. Who knew that runners were that pro 2nd? lol.. Say hi to Dick Metcalf when you see him at the unemployment office.
It’s always nice to hear a man say that we should ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns….while he is pictured holding a semi-automatic shotgun.
Why do the proposed “compromises” ALWAYS start now and ALWAYS move in the direction toward further infringement of my rights? Why can’t the proposed compromises have stopped decades ago? Why can’t compromises proposed today expand my rights? For example, no more background checks for anyone, unless they’re buying a full auto firearm, new production of which would be available to the civilian market? Those are compromises I would willingly entertain.
It should be noted that most of New Zeland’s anti self protection legislation came about courtesy of the British Government, and later through our 1930s Socialist government (the Prime Minister then was a “conscientious objector” during WWI). Most of our Socialist (Labour) politicians had training from Comintern via their local affiliates. There is also a very British feeling of being above all the hurly burly of the bustling crowd, and that reliance on personal authority rather than enforcement by weapons is in the long run more effective. Our Police are largely unarmed. Our criminals might use weapons against each other, but rarely use them on civilians. This might seem quaint to Americans, but it seems to work at the moment. The incidence of gangster rap videos is influencing our weak minded youth, so there may be a need to upgrade in the future. Our laws at present don’t allow it. That may need to change.
N Zed has more sheep than people. US has more people who are sheep. Big difference.
Well, we kind of all get along, mostly. It’s a small country, and chances are, anyone you meet will be related to you or will know someone you know. There have been few of the OMG, Somebody’s got to do Something! moments, which fuel the gun grabbers. Most people respond quicker to fear than hope. We have lost a generation of people capable of ordinary rural skills, such as hunting and fishing, due to the global recession, unemployment, and constant screen watching. But I still love the scent of burnt gunpowder!
Saw this pile of refuse on thegunwire the other day, nauseating.
Retreading this post this guy can FOAD
Hey, Nick: the AR-15 is a non-automatic version; the AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
Thank you, Lord Nick, for allowing we simpletons to keep any firearms. Yutz. (At least his finger is outside the trigger guard.)
Yesterday, I let them know that my Runner’s World subscription renewal fee just went to Gun Owners of America instead…. and then I went out for a trail run, me and my Kahr CM9.
Well thats a good example of a fudd if I ever saw one.
Here’s my compromise: I keep my defensive armament, and you get to keep breathing! But if you break the deal, you die. It’s that simple. 🙂
This is my counter-proposal: Bite me!
Wait, so this anti gunner is all ok with us walking around with rifles on a daily basis? I think he might shit his pants and hide if every one of us EDCers started walking around holding rifles and shotguns. And really, the only change he is proposing is banning pistols, everything else would remain unchanged. What a dolt.
These gun grabbers really need to learn the definition of “compromise”.
I have another compromise. Pass all the laws you want and we’ll keep all of our guns anyway.
Libturd. F your change.