Compromise on Gun Control? Yeah, Right!!!!!

[pshift]

Copied from another forum:

What would be a moderate compromise on gun control for gun owners?
Here’s an idea: you can have your red flag laws and universal back ground checks; however, in return, I want this:

1. If a person uses a red flag law to forcefully take the weapon of a person who is deemed stable and capable of having the weapon, then the person who reported the gun owner will be charged for a felony have no less than a 50,000 dollar fine AND 10 years in prison. After all, red flag laws might be used by a person trying to get back at an ex by taking that person’s weapons, or something similar. That person will also lose their ability to vote, hold public office, and to work for the government in any capacity indefinitely. A) If a person who has had their guns confiscated is the victim of a crime in which having a weapon could have been prevented. The person who falsely reported the gun owner is responsible for any damages and replacement of items that have been stolen. B) If someone losing their gun to a false report is unable to prevent a crime resulting in death or great bodily harm, the person falsely reporting shall be given not less than the maximum sentence for whichever charge of murder or manslaughter is greater, that applies to causing death or harm to another during a criminal act.
2. Weapons that are taken need to have a easy and quick path back to the gun owner after he is deemed sane and capable of having the weapon. Any weapon that is damaged, destroyed or “lost” while in custody will need to be replaced with a 25 percent up charge of the MSRP of that weapon new. If the weapon was custom, the customization cost is added in and an additional 25 percent will be added to the cost of the customization. If the weapon in question is a heirloom, collectors item, or one of a kind, and can not be priced or appraised there will be a minimum of a 10,000 dollar to 100,000 dollar replacement fee based off the weapon in question. These fees will be paid by the agency that confiscated the weapon. There will also be a verified chain of custody while the weapon is with whatever agency takes the weapon. If the weapon disappears or is damaged the last person to sign the chain of custody is liable for 20 percent of the cost for a replacement weapon.
3. No more gun free zones, as all they do is give criminals the opportunity to be the only person in that area with a gun.
4. National concealed carry reciprocity but to carry concealed you must attend 40 hours worth of training and qualify on the weapon you intend to carry you will also need to requalify every 5 years. Military members, police, and first responders, are not required the 40 hours or the qualification. If people want to conceal carry within their state without a permit that is a local government issue, and they may handle it as they please. This would essentially allow current laws on file and currently reciprocity to stay in effect.
5. Gun safety classes will be a requirement to graduate high school, offered along side drivers education and sex education. (If we can teach “safe sex" and “safe driving" we should teach “safe gun handling” too.) This will include all weapon types and will require a “range week” to familiarize weapons to every person in the nation. This range week does not require a person to shoot although they can if they are willing. However they will be required to learn trigger discipline, how to load all types of weapons, muzzle awareness, and general safety.
6. NFA no longer exists in any sense of the word. Fully auto is good to go. Suppressor good to go. Short barrel good to go. If I want a belt fed all good. 500 round mag sure.
7. There continues to be no national gun registry. The American government does not need to know who has or what type of guns a person has. It is not their business. The universal background check remains just that: a background check, and it no longer requires a serial number of the weapon to run the background check. It also need to be cheap or even easier an app for a smart phone, so if someone does a person to person purchase they can run it instantly on their phone.
8. A hearing must be carried out under speedy trial rules.
9. Hearings should fall under probate rules - most states require at minimum an advocate if not a lawyer for the accused for probated person.
10. Impound fees are paid by the state or agency impounding.
11. Criminals and their families may not sue for any death or injury that occurs while they are committing or fleeing a criminal act.
12. The victims and family’s of victims of gun crimes can NOT sue gun manufacturers over their products being used in a crime. A gun manufacturer is at no fault when a person uses their product in a illegal matter much like how a auto manufacturer is liable for someone who drives drunk and kills a family in a car wreck.
13. All gun laws state and federal upon the signing of this law become null and void. AND there will be no additional gun control laws at any level for no less than a period of 10 years in which time the provisions set by this law will be re-evaluated. This law can only be reviewed every 10 years.

If we can make that happen, then I will support your red flag laws and background checks.

 

[Jmac00]

#4 is a non-starter. One 8 hour session should be more than enough for a semi-intelligent individual to figure out how to work whatever firearm they will be carrying, and a resonable person should already know most of the laws on the books in their state

 

[SomeSoldier]

How about fuck you. You can go play a little game of hide and go fuck yourself.

 

[libertysnake]

You cannot compromise on what is just or right, only undermine it.

 

[That_FNG]

Here’s my compromise

suck my nuts

 

[thughes]

Yep, fuck you! Justification? Second Amendment

 

[prambo]

How about fuck you. You can go play a little game of hide and go fuck yourself.

Exactly.

 

[Saltwater60]

Here’s my compromise. If they want background checks and permits fine, but then I can have whatever the fuck I want. If I want to walk to the corner and buy a suppresses machine gun I can, after all you’ve deemed me responsible enough to own a gun.
There are many problems with the above posters compromises and the guns destroyed with a 25% up charge is all well and good until you figure out that all registered assailants rifles get red flagged and oh then even with your 25% increase you can’t get another one because they are banned in NYS.
Also charging the false red flagger would never happen and if so that $50,000 should go to the falsely accused. I don’t support red flags under any circumstances. If the person is doing wrong then charge them or get them help. If the authorities fail then that’s on them and not me.

 

[Vinson57]

#3 - sensitive areas would be only those protected by armed licensed security guards manning metal detectors to enforce their gun free zones.

 

[99cummins]

How about fuck you. You can go play a little game of hide and go fuck yourself.

This. “Compromise” with gun rights is always gun owners giving up just slightly less than what the antis want them to. Although, I might go along with what @Saltwater60 said- permits and background checks but I can own anything I want.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Here's my compromise.

 

[Grimscale]

If they want background checks and permits fine,

Only IF:
1) Background checks are no more than "did you become ineligible to own a firearm since the last background check you had." And ONLY for guns. NOT ammo, not "parts"...JUST guns.

2) "Permits" are nothing more than "Hey, State, I own a gun. You don't need to know what or how many, and I don't need your permission. I inform you of my ownership as a courtesy, and expect you to be courteous of my Rights."

 

[John Stark]

Personally I align with the compromise our Founders made on Arms:

"Don't be a despotic government (or some other type of criminal) that tries to steal or confiscate our Arms, or otherwise violate our God-given Rights.. and we won't rise up and shoot you bastards."

 

[dwa12479]

Here's my compromise...

Shall.Not.Be.Infringed

 

[SomeSoldier]

This. “Compromise” with gun rights is always gun owners giving up just slightly less than what the antis want them to. Although, I might go along with what @Saltwater60 said- permits and background checks but I can own anything I want.

Nope I own what I want and fuck you, 2nd!

 

[GOPerfect]

I am against any and all compromises. I do not like them at all.

If a law needs to be passed, that could possibly violate the Constitution, that law once passed will only go into effect after all of the levels of the court system have reviewed the new law.

I am not the guy that will quote the 2A and say it is absolute. I do not believe anything is absolute. Nothing in existence is.

I do not believe in the mandated use of Pistol Permits. Never have. I do not agree with background checks. I do not back the unlawful person argument either.

The only people that should be barred from owning a gun are those that are in the prison system, as well as those that are not old enough. The "old enough" would be decided by a committee.

Some will say the First Amendment is an absolute Right and I would disagree. I can come up with many examples of how the 1A is not absolute. Same the Right to vote, and the Rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Not a single Right in the US is absolute. The 2nd is no different.

I read this above compromise and I felt a bit of sickness in my gut.

 

[GOPerfect]

Only IF:
1) Background checks are no more than "did you become ineligible to own a firearm since the last background check you had." And ONLY for guns. NOT ammo, not "parts"...JUST guns.

2) "Permits" are nothing more than "Hey, State, I own a gun. You don't need to know what or how many, and I don't need your permission. I inform you of my ownership as a courtesy, and expect you to be courteous of my Rights."

Conversation only, in your Number 1, you stated, "did you become ineligible to own a firearm since the last background check you had.".

In what way would the government have the Right to deem this fact?

 

[spat]

How's this for a compromise.

They can ban pistol braces and bump stocks, we get to repeal NFA and GCA.

Oh, they don't want to give anything up ? Well, that's not much of a compromise then is it.

 

[libertysnake]

My issue with compromising is that is circumvents the constitution. We have a process for this: the constitutional convention. If they can't muster the votes, tough luck. Worth having the conversation for now about whether 2A should exist? Sure, why not. But without the support of enough states, the law stands.

Otherwise, it gives license for any state to violate any right. Then we play these games by which judges are de-facto legislators which is absolutely horse shit, with laws standing for decades before struck down. Then we're not better than a confederation of warlords with their own take on things.

Either the other states step up and acknowledge these are violations, and come to the rescue of the people of oppressive states, or they can shut their mouths about loving the constitution and caring about it.

 

[dwa12479]

I always laugh at the "90% of Americans support xxx..."

First off... 90% of Americans couldn't agree on the outcome of 2+2, so just stop.

Second off... what if by some miracle 90% of Americans did agree on something , lets say re-instituting slavery. Would that make it ok?

 

[BMF JK]

There is no compromise on inalienable rights PERIOD !

 

[SonOfSun]

suck my nuts

Don't look down.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Sounds like it's time again for this...

 

[Acer-m14]

and a resonable person should already know most of the laws on the books in their state

there are a lot of LEO that don't know the laws on the books ..

and some just make them up too ..

passing a FART could be against the law .. its in the Fireworks section .. releasing a obnoxious odor .. stink bomb LOL ..

 

[Acer-m14]

PS .. the #1 ..

i need your ID ..

 

[Grimscale]

In what way would the government have the Right to deem this fact?

It doesn't. Governments have no Rights. Individuals in Government have the same Rights as do The People, but collectively governments do not.

Losing a Right must be determined by a "jury of your peers", supported by evidence of wrongdoing.
And, like many here have said, if you're a bad enough person that your Rights must be taken away, maybe we should not be allowing you to remain in polite society.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Their idea of compromise is they get what they want and we lose less of what we want.


How about
fuck off you wankers.

 

[Saltwater60]

My issue with compromising is that is circumvents the constitution. We have a process for this: the constitutional convention. If they can't muster the votes, tough luck. Worth having the conversation for now about whether 2A should exist? Sure, why not. But without the support of enough states, the law stands.

Otherwise, it gives license for any state to violate any right. Then we play these games by which judges are de-facto legislators which is absolutely horse shit, with laws standing for decades before struck down. Then we're not better than a confederation of warlords with their own take on things.

Either the other states step up and acknowledge these are violations, and come to the rescue of the people of oppressive states, or they can shut their mouths about loving the constitution and caring about it.

My issue with the compromise is we’re always the ones giving and we get nothing. Ok so a few states got permitless/constitutional carry and that means something but I’ll bet it was damn easy to get that card there in the first place.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

My issue with the compromise is we’re always the ones giving and we get nothing. Ok so a few states got permitless/constitutional carry and that means something but I’ll bet it was damn easy to get that card there in the first place.

Exactly. I literally said the same thing earlier.

"Comprise" with a lefty is utter rubbish. It's clever word play. They give up nothing and just demand we give up more.

They demand to get what they want in exchange for us losing less of what we want.

Let's compromise on this pizza. I'll take 2/3 and you get 1/3. At least you didn't lose it all..

 

[Mr. terzmo]

any compromise on the second amendment is surrender as far as I'm concerned.