7 ms·

What would they get in return? The right to own new machine guns made after 1986, and aren't additions before that that are not already in the pool of 200,000

by hga 11y ago

What would they get in return? The right to own new machine guns made after 1986, and aren't additions before that that are not already in the pool of 200,000 forbidden? Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, like with drivers licenses. Related to the above, enforcing shall issue concealed carry on the entire nation. Removing the many state restrictions on magazine size, and against "assault weapons", which the Congress has explicit, original Constitutional power to do, forget about the 2nd Amendment. Removing post-Reconstruction laws like the sheriff's permit to buy a handgun in North Carolina. In general, there's a host of "flypaper" laws that are designed to make it harder and more dangerous to keep and bear arms, and only serve such purposes, that clearing away a bunch of them would be a big thing for us. Reform the BATFE. That's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes.

ubernostrum 11y ago
But... your points all come from the stance I was talking about. You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises, you seem interested in just getting everything you want and everyone else having to deal with it.
- hga 11y ago
  Hello? That's a laundry list of possible items. Pick one, and then we can start talking about your "reasonable compromise". As noted previously, up to now all we've done is give things away in these so called compromises.
- schismsubv 11y ago
  You seem to have missed the GP's point - go scan through the admittedly silly but illustrative cartoon linked. Gun rights have been repeatedly nibbled, sliced, and cut away over the past century, all in the name of "reasonable compromises". Said "reasonable" "compromises" have progressively eliminated a large swath of gun ownership rights and put the average owner in constant risk of felony. Example: an individual may own an AR-15 lower receiver, or even machine one themselves. If, however, they drill one 5/32" hole too many in that receiver, they are guilty of a felony. If they own a pistol based on the AR-15 platform and disassemble it at the same time and in the same space that they're disassembling and cleaning an AR-15 rifle, they are committing a felony. These examples are thanks to complex rules based on "compromises". Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. That's not a compromise. A compromise is your asking me to give you half of my cake in return for half of your pie.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. My question is simply: what is the thing they would like to gain? The NRA's modern reinterpretation of the Second Amendment (and make no mistake: they are pushing a modern invention, not a historical understanding) does not appear to allow the possibility that any compromise would be reasonable. Hence anything which is not a complete and utter victory is immediately spun as a complete and utter defeat.
    - schismsubv 11y ago
      Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment. It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are insisting on complete, utter victory. I cannot begin to speak for others, but ask not for complete victory. Rather, I wish we would make steps back in what gun owners regard as a positive direction. The seven options hga gave above are not a linked list, they are several options. Even one would be regarded as a victory.
      - ubernostrum 11y ago
        I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time. So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you feel is being infringed? If there really is a possibility of compromise, then why is even the tiniest hint of the possibility of a suggestion of perhaps trying to implement a sensible background-check and registration system guaranteed to stir up such disgusting rhetoric from the allegedly "reasonable" people who oppose it? It's gone far beyond just basic hyperbole like claiming that any regulation actually consists of outlawing and confiscating all guns from all people (though that's still a popular one), and well off the deep end into suggesting that the murders of children have been faked by paid actor "parents" in order to give support to the gun-confiscating plan. Again: it's very very clear what the proposal from those folks is, and it's all-or-nothing with no compromise possible.
- gozur88 11y ago
  >You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises... That's something of a no true Scotsman argument, where any compromise offered by the other side can be rejected as unreasonable. Besides, why should we be expected to compromise on our civil rights? What other civil right could acceptably be demolished over time?
burfog 11y ago
You forgot silencers. Heck, flip the law around as is done in some countries: require them, or at least require that they be provided with all new guns. It's a health and safety measure to prevent hearing loss. BTW, the problem is the name. Silencers don't actually silence. Pretending that they do is feeding the idea that they are for assassinations.
- hga 11y ago
  Can't imagine how I forgot them, especially with neighboring Iowa just last month legalizing suppressors, and my own hearing losses over the years, which I'd like to limit going forward. In part, it's because handguns in concealed carry are now by daily bread and butter use of guns, and they're impractical in that use case, and would hinder retention in a home defense case. But, hey, a compromise where I could own a full auto suppressed P90 (a post '86 design) for home defense and the like, yeah, I could get behind that, and Henrietta would no doubt approve.

by hga 11y ago

ubernostrum 11y ago

But... your points all come from the stance I was talking about. You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises, you seem interested in just getting everything you want and everyone else having to deal with it.

hga 11y ago
Hello? That's a laundry list of possible items. Pick one, and then we can start talking about your "reasonable compromise". As noted previously, up to now all we've done is give things away in these so called compromises.
schismsubv 11y ago
You seem to have missed the GP's point - go scan through the admittedly silly but illustrative cartoon linked. Gun rights have been repeatedly nibbled, sliced, and cut away over the past century, all in the name of "reasonable compromises". Said "reasonable" "compromises" have progressively eliminated a large swath of gun ownership rights and put the average owner in constant risk of felony. Example: an individual may own an AR-15 lower receiver, or even machine one themselves. If, however, they drill one 5/32" hole too many in that receiver, they are guilty of a felony. If they own a pistol based on the AR-15 platform and disassemble it at the same time and in the same space that they're disassembling and cleaning an AR-15 rifle, they are committing a felony. These examples are thanks to complex rules based on "compromises". Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. That's not a compromise. A compromise is your asking me to give you half of my cake in return for half of your pie.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. My question is simply: what is the thing they would like to gain? The NRA's modern reinterpretation of the Second Amendment (and make no mistake: they are pushing a modern invention, not a historical understanding) does not appear to allow the possibility that any compromise would be reasonable. Hence anything which is not a complete and utter victory is immediately spun as a complete and utter defeat.
  - schismsubv 11y ago
    Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment. It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are insisting on complete, utter victory. I cannot begin to speak for others, but ask not for complete victory. Rather, I wish we would make steps back in what gun owners regard as a positive direction. The seven options hga gave above are not a linked list, they are several options. Even one would be regarded as a victory.
    - ubernostrum 11y ago
      I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time. So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you feel is being infringed? If there really is a possibility of compromise, then why is even the tiniest hint of the possibility of a suggestion of perhaps trying to implement a sensible background-check and registration system guaranteed to stir up such disgusting rhetoric from the allegedly "reasonable" people who oppose it? It's gone far beyond just basic hyperbole like claiming that any regulation actually consists of outlawing and confiscating all guns from all people (though that's still a popular one), and well off the deep end into suggesting that the murders of children have been faked by paid actor "parents" in order to give support to the gun-confiscating plan. Again: it's very very clear what the proposal from those folks is, and it's all-or-nothing with no compromise possible.
gozur88 11y ago
>You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises... That's something of a no true Scotsman argument, where any compromise offered by the other side can be rejected as unreasonable. Besides, why should we be expected to compromise on our civil rights? What other civil right could acceptably be demolished over time?

burfog 11y ago

You forgot silencers. Heck, flip the law around as is done in some countries: require them, or at least require that they be provided with all new guns. It's a health and safety measure to prevent hearing loss. BTW, the problem is the name. Silencers don't actually silence. Pretending that they do is feeding the idea that they are for assassinations.

hga 11y ago
Can't imagine how I forgot them, especially with neighboring Iowa just last month legalizing suppressors, and my own hearing losses over the years, which I'd like to limit going forward. In part, it's because handguns in concealed carry are now by daily bread and butter use of guns, and they're impractical in that use case, and would hinder retention in a home defense case. But, hey, a compromise where I could own a full auto suppressed P90 (a post '86 design) for home defense and the like, yeah, I could get behind that, and Henrietta would no doubt approve.