My gun control compromise

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Maccabee, Jan 4, 2020.

  1. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,500
    Likes Received:
    770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with. However, I'm also willing to compromise on certain aspects. Here are my proposals if the alternative is the current gun control position is implemented into law:

    My offer.

    1. Universal background checks that are attached to state issued IDs like driver's licenses. Prohibited persons will have marked IDs like sex offenders do in my state. This way if someone wants to buy a firearm, all he has to do is to provide his DL and the seller can see if he's prohibited or not. This will bypass the concern about background checks to exercise a constitutional right being unconstitutional. Everyone gets a background check whether you own guns or not. It's indiscriminate.

    2. Public access to the NCIS database. This way anyone can run their own background checks on potential buyers with a simple app on a phone.

    3. Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit. This way the second amendment isn't inadvertently only for the people who can afford training. The other scenario will incentivise otherwise unwilling gun owners to seek training for a tax write off.

    4. Mandatory mental evaluations that are attached to driver's licenses or have mental evaluations be a tax benefit. Basically, every proposed prerequisite to own a firearm is applied to everyone or otherwise indiscriminate to gun owners. Everyone get treated equally. Besides, there are some people on the roads that should be mentally evaluated.

    Now, no good compromise favors one side. If we're to implement the proposals listed above, here's where the gun rights advocates get in return:

    In exchange.

    1. National reciprocity for carrying a firearm. If I can get a license in Florida and drive all the way to Washington State and still be good, even though driving is a privilege, not a right, I should be able to do the same with my constitutional right that is written down on paper as a right

    2. No "assualt weapons" bans or magazine limits nationwide. Even studies supporting gun control measures state that it's not the type of firearms available to the public that we need to worry about. It's who has access is the major concern.

    3. Deregulate suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA. There's really no science in regulating suppressors in the first place. In fact, in Germany I believe, suppressors are not only unregulated, but required for certain types of hunting. As for short barreled firearms, there are so many work arounds to have a completely legal AR pistol for the general public that the short barreled rifle/shotgun catagory in the NFA is largely obsolete.

    That's pretty much it.
     
    Bondo, modernpaladin and Sahba* like this.
  2. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Best part about your 'indiscriminate' premise is that our Congress critters would be subject to some of these same litmus screenings, lol... You know damn well a bunch of them would be flagged Mental Maxine Waters comes to mind. :) Good proposal btw~!
     
    Blaster3, Ddyad and modernpaladin like this.
  3. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,867
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My gun control comprise enforce the 1968 gun law or dont say say anything any more, if we enforced the 1968 gun law 70%of Americans couldn't legally own a gun.


    But Democrats or Republicans never want to enforce it


    The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers, and the Brady Act created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

    It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

    (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

    (2) is a fugitive from justice;

    (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

    (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

    (5) who, being an alien—

    (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

    (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));

    (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

    (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced their citizenship;

    (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

    (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

    (B)

    (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

    (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

    (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
    Blaster3 likes this.
  4. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,361
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about this... anyone convicted of committing a crime with a gun automatically gets the death penalty.

    Punish the criminal, not the law-abiding who want a gun.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
    modernpaladin likes this.
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,992
    Likes Received:
    7,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm in.

    Excellent assessment and a very reasonable compromise.

    The only thing I would suggest are some 'sunset provisions.' Gun control is an extremely complicated issue requiring a hefty dose of trial, analysis and correction.

    Perfect examples (that you already mentioned) are suppressors and SBRs. Theres no data suggesting restrictions on those are preventing anything whatsoever.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    33,888
    Likes Received:
    10,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A couple of the obvious issues here:
    - Training made too difficult to complete
    - Mental "evaluations" do not provide due process

    Remember: the anti-gun side will do everything they can to limit the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding; these requirements are RIPE for exploitation.
     
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    33,888
    Likes Received:
    10,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no need to consider any additional gun controls laws until the GCA 1968 is fully enforced -- specifically, until every NICS "deny" result is fully investigated by the FBI/BATFE and all persons subsequently determined to have tried to purchase a gun illegally are fully prosecuted (that is, no plea deals) under the relevant federal statutes.
     
    Jarlaxle, roorooroo and modernpaladin like this.
  8. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    No citizen should be allowed anything past a basic revolver
    Ban on big clips

    Dems are right on this issue and all of these assault weapons should be banned

    I support shotguns , riffles and revolvers
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    21,584
    Likes Received:
    6,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If any particular firearm is suitable for law enforcement officers to utilize for the purpose of protecting the public and enforcing the laws of the united states, then the same firearms are suitable for legal uses by the private citizens that make up the public. If such is simply not acceptable, then the firearms themselves are unsuitable for law enforcement purposes, and law enforcement officers should be forced to use the same firearms as the public, no exceptions.
     
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  10. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You gave 4 to the pro-gun control side. Lets even it out shall we?

    4: After a certain amount of time after a sentence for a felon is served and restitution and parole is done then a person gets their full Rights back. Say...10 years of no other incidents. If a person is not fit to own a gun in society then they should not be allowed in society.
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    33,888
    Likes Received:
    10,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too bad about that "all bearable arms" thing, eh?
     
    Jarlaxle, Grau and gfm7175 like this.
  12. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    With a shotgun and revolver you have plenty of self defense
     
  13. PanMonarchist

    PanMonarchist Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Is this a troll post?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  14. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    33,888
    Likes Received:
    10,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Current jurisprudence:
    "...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
    This means revolvers, pistols, shotguns, rifles and 'assault weapons'.

    Unless, of course, you can demonstrate than 'assault weapons' are not bearable arms.
     
  15. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    NO

    These big mags and high powered guns don’t belong in society and the second amend does not address assault weapons and the SC needs to better clarify it
     
  16. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    A SG or Rev would stop anyone

    I support basic guns but that is it
     
  17. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This post reminds me of Nazism. Burn all books that don't belong in society. Same is basically happening in China right now with them banning certain things on their internet.
     
    roorooroo and Hotdogr like this.
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    33,888
    Likes Received:
    10,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too bad about the constitution, eh?
     
    Levant, gfm7175 and Hotdogr like this.
  19. PanMonarchist

    PanMonarchist Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Oooh boy, where to start?

    Your basic premise is contradictory, you say no one should own anything more than a 'basic revolver' (whatever that is) but then go on to say you support the ownership of shotguns, riffles (rifles), and revolvers. So which is it? You then show your ignorance by saying 'clip' instead of 'magazine' which is the proper terminology.

    To move on from the initial post, you do get the terminology correct when you say you don't support 'big mags', but the question there is, what qualifies as a 'big mag'? Some states set it at 10 rounds and others set it at 5. As for 'high powered guns' I can only assume you aren't referring to the AR-15 which is cambered in either .223 or 5.56, both of which are not 'high power' rounds and in fact are designed to result in a wound rather than a fatality. In fact, I own a gun that is over 100 years old that is more 'high powered' than most of these 'assault weapons' being manufactured today. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment does not refer to any type of firearm and the Supreme Court has already addressed it in a their ruling in United States v Miller ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller ) where it was ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected because it had no military value. Here is the short version of the ruling:

    1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
    2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
    3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
    4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
    So according to this ruling, 'assault weapons' are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    Finally, for the 'basic guns' you mention, I don't know what you mean, but I'll take a guess.

    I'm assuming you would be OK with this:
    [​IMG]

    But not with this:
    [​IMG]

    If I am correct, I'm sorry to inform you that the two images are of the same gun, just dressed a little differently.
     
    Jarlaxle, Grau, Ddyad and 3 others like this.
  20. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    9,138
    Likes Received:
    3,368
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.
     
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  21. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,500
    Likes Received:
    770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why?
     
  22. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    But one has big mags and other is bolt action ??
    I support the 2nd amend but I don’t support big clips and who the hell needs a 45 caliber or AR
     
  23. PanMonarchist

    PanMonarchist Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Really? You're just gonna brush by all that?

    Fine, no matter. ARs are good pest control weapons, .45 is a great self defense caliber, I can switch mags in under 2 seconds so it really doesn't matter what the capacity is, and no, both of the guns I posted are Ruger 10/22s cambered in .22 caliber.
     
    Jarlaxle and roorooroo like this.
  24. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    At least you sound responsible
    So if someone breaks into your home will you at least tell them to get down on the ground or is it Dirty Harry time
     
  25. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can't really speak for him but I would imagine that if given a chance anyone would shout out a warning that they're armed....however a chance isn't always given and as such you "Dirty Harry" them.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.

Share This Page