Forum Thread

Gun Compromises.

onscreen 1,661 268 February 9, 2013 at 06:36 PM
One of the phrases I've heard a few times in the discussions on this forum and in the media is the need to compromise on the gun issue. However, it seems that most of the time the suggested compromises are one sided. For example one side might say we need to limit magazines to 10 rounds. The current "limit" is the sky. One could argue that the compromise is 20 rounds. But that is basically one side giving (a reduction in magazine capacity) for nothing the expectation no one will later say we need a further reduction. This is the same as asking a man with money to compromise and split his money with a man who has none.

So what I'm wondering is what are things that might strike a real compromise. Certainly gun advocates aren't happy with all the current gun laws. For example some states have may issue carry laws. Others like NJ have, arguably, excessive AW laws. So, if we for discussion sake assume there will be no slippery slope issues, what might make for a good compromise? What pro-gun changes might make up for some of the laws the gun control people want?

One I think might be a reasonable "pro-gun" offer would be expanding concealed carry. Perhaps we could have a federal level CC permit. It would be harder to get than a state level permit and might have more hoops to jump through (more rules and checks and cost) but it would be a shall issue (after more extensive BGC). With this permit you can carry in every state and in any gun free zone that doesn't currently have armed security.

Another might be some federal mandate on the minimum/maximum level of gun restrictions allowed. For example, we might decide that safety standards beyond the federal standard are not allowed thus CA's safe gun list would be abolished. Another might be a rule that states can not have magazine limited less than the federal level if one is established. So while some states might find them selves facing stricter gun laws with new federal laws, states like NY, IL and other might find their gun laws are relaxed.

A true compromise means both sides get something. What do people think would make for a true compromise on this issue?


5 6 7 8 9

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Dec 2006
L10: Grand Master
8,739 Posts
1,140 Reputation
Quote from riznick View Post :
Most of those aren't compromise though... One side wants to take. That's it.
Whenever someone says "compromise" when talking about guns it's like this,...

"You're going to jail for 20 years"
"WHAT?!!! that's not fair, I haven't done anything"
"Ok, let's compromise, 15 years".
"I am not going to jail, I haven't done anything"
"I can't believe you're not willing to compromise, that is really telling"
"Look, I haven't done anything, you're not being reasonable"
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jan 2009
L10: Grand Master
8,059 Posts
3,446 Reputation
One less gun to worry about

Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Apr 2011
L4: Apprentice
373 Posts
53 Reputation
The most crucial thing everyone is forgetting is that the right to bear arms is in the U.S. constitution. While people are having a discussion about gun rights, they completely ignore that gun rights are SUPREME LAW. Not "guns, except for _____ & _____ and only _____ amount of bullets"

The federal government has been caught red handed smuggling weapons to criminals, like during the fast & furious operation.

Now the federal government wants to take away the legal right of citizens to have certain types of weapons. They can't force us to give up our 2nd amendment rights, that's why they have to convince people to give them up voluntarily, and a lot of people are being scared into doing it and are trying to force their decision on others.

During the waco siege, the government killed 70+ people, much more than Sandy Hook

More recently, the LAPD shot at innocent civilians during their manhunt for Christopher Dorner.

The Supreme Court ruled the police have no duty to protect you.

Why should U.S. citizens lose their rights because of a crazy man? Lunatics will always exist, but you don't lose your rights because of lunatics. This implies that the gun caused the crime, when it didn't.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by RPGROB February 16, 2013 at 09:36 PM.
Page 9 of 9
5 6 7 8 9
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
Copyright 1999 - 2016. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard