Gun Control: Here Is The Compromise

[Gonzo Rodeo]

1. Keep explosives regulated. I have no problem if my neighbor (I live in an apartment) has thousands of rounds of ammunition in his closet; even if there were a fire, it would have to be to the point that all of the alarms would be going off and the sprinkler system activated before any rounds cooked off an had an imperceptibly small chance of penetrating several walls and striking me. However, if my neighbor had a few bricks of C4, I'd be a little more nervous. That stuff requires actual training to handle, and while it may be fun to blow stuff up, there really is no reason to possess military grade explosives, sporting or otherwise. A fire could set off a brick before the smoke detector warned the neighbors, and could realistically level the building before a proper warning could go out.

2. Background checks for all firearms purchases. No more sales at gun shows unless the proper background check is performed by an FFL holder. This does not mean there has to be a registration.

3. Show proof of ownership of a gun safe/security container in order to pass a background check.

4. No state or municipality may exempt some citizens from their laws. LEOs are citizens. If citizens cannot open carry, police cannot open carry. If citizens may not concealed carry, police may not concealed carry. If citizens are not allowed to own or use high capacity magazines, police may not own or use high capacity magazines. This also goes for less-than-lethal weaponry, such as tazers and mace.

Pistol grips, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs are not the problem. There is nothing magical about a semi-automatic rifle with these features, other than that they look cosmetically similar to what our military uses. Mental illness is the problem; it takes a mentally ill individual to walk into a school or supermarket or movie theater to mow down innocents, and the hardware they use cannot be considered a symptom of the problem. Laughner used a pistol. Hasan used a pistol. Seung-Hui Cho used a pistol (a pair of them, a Walther P22 with 10 round mags, and a Glock 19 with 15 round mags.... the deadliest mass murder in US history, and not one 30 round magazine was used).

Let's actually address the problem, and not just outlaw stuff willy-nilly to give people a warm fuzzy.

 

[HonestJoe]

4. No state or municipality may exempt some citizens from their laws. LEOs are citizens. If citizens cannot open carry, police cannot open carry. If citizens may not concealed carry, police may not concealed carry. If citizens are not allowed to own or use high capacity magazines, police may not own or use high capacity magazines. This also goes for less-than-lethal weaponry, such as tazers and mace.

Your other points are reasonable but this is ridiculous. By extension of your argument, the police wouldn't have any powers at all. They couldn't arrest unless everyone else could ("citizens arrest" isn't the same thing), the certainly couldn't hold or interview suspects, collect evidence, peruse suspects on to private property - basically any part of their actual job.

I understand the principal behind the idea but the solution is unworkable. The police need certain additional rights to do their job because they have certain additional responsibilities (as do lots of other people). The potential risks of this should be addressed with balanced and proper regulation of those rights and responsibilities (something that varies greatly).

 

[molten_dragon]

However, if my neighbor had a few bricks of C4, I'd be a little more nervous. That stuff requires actual training to handle, and while it may be fun to blow stuff up, there really is no reason to possess military grade explosives, sporting or otherwise. A fire could set off a brick before the smoke detector warned the neighbors, and could realistically level the building before a proper warning could go out.

While I'm not arguing against regulating explosives, you're actually wrong about the C-4. You can't cause it to explode by burning it. C-4 is actually extremely stable and it takes blasting caps or special detonators to set it off. That's one of the reasons it's so popular with the military, since it pretty much only goes off if you specifically make it go off.

 

[American]

1. Keep explosives regulated. I have no problem if my neighbor (I live in an apartment) has thousands of rounds of ammunition in his closet; even if there were a fire, it would have to be to the point that all of the alarms would be going off and the sprinkler system activated before any rounds cooked off an had an imperceptibly small chance of penetrating several walls and striking me. However, if my neighbor had a few bricks of C4, I'd be a little more nervous. That stuff requires actual training to handle, and while it may be fun to blow stuff up, there really is no reason to possess military grade explosives, sporting or otherwise. A fire could set off a brick before the smoke detector warned the neighbors, and could realistically level the building before a proper warning could go out.

2. Background checks for all firearms purchases. No more sales at gun shows unless the proper background check is performed by an FFL holder. This does not mean there has to be a registration.

3. Show proof of ownership of a gun safe/security container in order to pass a background check.

4. No state or municipality may exempt some citizens from their laws. LEOs are citizens. If citizens cannot open carry, police cannot open carry. If citizens may not concealed carry, police may not concealed carry. If citizens are not allowed to own or use high capacity magazines, police may not own or use high capacity magazines. This also goes for less-than-lethal weaponry, such as tazers and mace.

Pistol grips, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs are not the problem. There is nothing magical about a semi-automatic rifle with these features, other than that they look cosmetically similar to what our military uses. Mental illness is the problem; it takes a mentally ill individual to walk into a school or supermarket or movie theater to mow down innocents, and the hardware they use cannot be considered a symptom of the problem. Laughner used a pistol. Hasan used a pistol. Seung-Hui Cho used a pistol (a pair of them, a Walther P22 with 10 round mags, and a Glock 19 with 15 round mags.... the deadliest mass murder in US history, and not one 30 round magazine was used).

Let's actually address the problem, and not just outlaw stuff willy-nilly to give people a warm fuzzy.

REGARDING
#1: Explosives are already regulated. http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5400-7.pdf
#2: Then these [private] sales will occur outside a gun show. You cannot stop them.
#3: There are many ways to secure arms, this is ridiculous.
#4: Agreed, LEOs are there to enforce the law, not receive special "arms" privileges that no one else can have. An ordinary citizen may not enforce the law, there's the difference.

 

[YoungConserv]

I agree with one as that's munitions not arms but your fear of c4 is stupid the stuff will only explode when a detonator is used fire just has it burn like petroleum jelly.

I would expand 4 to the military as well.

 

[blaxshep]

REGARDING
#1: Explosives are already regulated. http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5400-7.pdf
#2: Then these [private] sales will occur outside a gun show. You cannot stop them.
#3: There are many ways to secure arms, this is ridiculous.
#4: Agreed, LEOs are there to enforce the law, not receive special "arms" privileges that no one else can have. An ordinary citizen may not enforce the law, there's the difference.

#1 Agreed but this has been taken way too far when they started banning fireworks and people should be able to aquire dynomite for clearing land on thier own property.
#2 Instead of trying to have universal background checks because of the "gun show loophole" limit gun show sales to FFL dealers only. Leave private sales alone.
#3 This is rediculous. How I store my own gun is none of anyone else's business.
#4 Agreed and to a previous poster this does not include power of arrest or military (I am guessing).

 

[CalGun]

Back ground checks should not require an FFL. A smart phone, tablet, or computer with web access should be enough. A small fee to cover the data base administration is fine. Actual cost only! Results should say: pass = instant gun ownership, fail = no gun for you and wait = a 10 day wait because there is no history of gun ownership in the system.

Criminals and mentally I'll can be added by the justice system and mental health systems, non gun owners get a wait / cooling off, and the rest of us can get back to buying, selling, trading and having the fun we do with our hobby. The shows will thrive!

 

[HonestJoe]

#4 Agreed and to a previous poster this does not include power of arrest or military (I am guessing).

I appreciate that wasn't the intent but I see it as an inevitable consequence of the principal. Owning and carrying a gun is no more fundamentally dangerous to the freedom and wellbeing of individuals than taking and holding them against their will for extended periods of time. If you don't trust the police to have additional rights (with suitable oversight) in relation to the former, how can you trust them in relation to the latter.

 

[jamesrage]

1. Keep explosives regulated. I have no problem if my neighbor (I live in an apartment) has thousands of rounds of ammunition in his closet; even if there were a fire, it would have to be to the point that all of the alarms would be going off and the sprinkler system activated before any rounds cooked off an had an imperceptibly small chance of penetrating several walls and striking me. However, if my neighbor had a few bricks of C4, I'd be a little more nervous. That stuff requires actual training to handle, and while it may be fun to blow stuff up, there really is no reason to possess military grade explosives, sporting or otherwise. A fire could set off a brick before the smoke detector warned the neighbors, and could realistically level the building before a proper warning could go out.

2. Background checks for all firearms purchases. No more sales at gun shows unless the proper background check is performed by an FFL holder. This does not mean there has to be a registration.

3. Show proof of ownership of a gun safe/security container in order to pass a background check.

4. No state or municipality may exempt some citizens from their laws. LEOs are citizens. If citizens cannot open carry, police cannot open carry. If citizens may not concealed carry, police may not concealed carry. If citizens are not allowed to own or use high capacity magazines, police may not own or use high capacity magazines. This also goes for less-than-lethal weaponry, such as tazers and mace.

Pistol grips, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs are not the problem. There is nothing magical about a semi-automatic rifle with these features, other than that they look cosmetically similar to what our military uses. Mental illness is the problem; it takes a mentally ill individual to walk into a school or supermarket or movie theater to mow down innocents, and the hardware they use cannot be considered a symptom of the problem. Laughner used a pistol. Hasan used a pistol. Seung-Hui Cho used a pistol (a pair of them, a Walther P22 with 10 round mags, and a Glock 19 with 15 round mags.... the deadliest mass murder in US history, and not one 30 round magazine was used).

Let's actually address the problem, and not just outlaw stuff willy-nilly to give people a warm fuzzy.

I don't think any of those things are compromises.A compromise implies both sides give up something in order to get something in return.The pro-2nd amendment side is not gaining anything by giving in to a universal background check, being required to have a safe in order to purchase a firearm and explosives are not arms. The only thing number 4 does is make sure the law is consistent.This is all a gain for the anti-2nd amendment side.

Now if for example the anti-2nd amendment side banned all state laws requiring anything more than a ID and a instant background check to buy a firearm in exchange for a universal background check then that would be compromise(technically the 2nd amendment already makes those laws illegal)anything more than a instant background check and ID would be defined as registration, permission from local law enforcement, taxes higher than taxes for food, waiting periods, permits/licenses, finger print submission and ect. If the anti-2nd amendment side made open carry legal and concealed carry permit reciprocity in all the states and territories in the US in exchange for requiring people to prove they have a firearm safe then that could be called a compromise.

 

[Ray410]

NO Compromise. Why does everyone always have to compromise with the liberals? Little by little by little, they take away more and more. The only compromise is for the Liberals and the government to get the Hell out of the lives of decent people.

It's always a big mistake, when the loons start braying, to immediately look for ways to compromise with them so they're happy at last.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

REGARDING

#2: Then these [private] sales will occur outside a gun show. You cannot stop them.

Not completely that is why we need harsher penalties and stricter enforcement of the laws.

 

[rjay]

I don't think any of those things are compromises.A compromise implies both sides give up something in order to get something in return.The pro-2nd amendment side is not gaining anything by giving in to a universal background check, .....

Over 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks: poll | Reuters

The pro-2nd amendment side? Isn't that a neat and tidy way to delineate between those that would like to see background checks and those who prefer loopholes to get around the law.


So, keeping with that logic, 90% of American citizens are anti-2nd amendment. We both know that to be a falsehood. Included in the 10% that do not want background checks are
- the gun lobby and anyone they have convinced (more background checks = less gun sales = less profit)
- survivalists
- the anti any legislation that this President comes up with crowd
- the anti any legislation anyone comes up with, that pertains to guns, crowd
- criminals

Surely if over 90% of Americans want to see background checks enforced, always, then legislation that does this cannot be considered a compromise. Rather it represents the will of the people. But guess what, 90% of the people are not lobbying and paying politicians. This issue is not enough to cause a democrat voter to vote out a Democrat or a republican voter to vote out a Republican - so.... Relax, no meaningful legislation will result.

The voters in America gave up their power long ago and have lost the will to demand it back.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Over 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks: poll | Reuters

The pro-2nd amendment side? Isn't that a neat and tidy way to delineate between those that would like to see background checks and those who prefer loopholes to get around the law.


So, keeping with that logic, 90% of American citizens are anti-2nd amendment. We both know that to be a falsehood. Included in the 10% that do not want background checks are
- the gun lobby and anyone they have convinced (more background checks = less gun sales = less profit)
- survivalists
- the anti any legislation that this President comes up with crowd
- the anti any legislation anyone comes up with, that pertains to guns, crowd
- criminals

Surely if over 90% of Americans want to see background checks enforced, always, then legislation that does this cannot be considered a compromise. Rather it represents the will of the people. But guess what, 90% of the people are not lobbying and paying politicians. This issue is not enough to cause a democrat voter to vote out a Democrat or a republican voter to vote out a Republican - so.... Relax, no meaningful legislation will result.

The voters in America gave up their power long ago and have lost the will to demand it back.

With all of the hatred for obama by radical extremists more registration is needed for national security.

 

[blaxshep]

With all of the hatred for obama by radical extremists more registration is needed for national security.

So now those of us that would rather preserve our 2nd amendment rights are "Radical Extreamists" and a threat to National security?

 

[blaxshep]

Over 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks: poll | Reuters

The pro-2nd amendment side? Isn't that a neat and tidy way to delineate between those that would like to see background checks and those who prefer loopholes to get around the law.


So, keeping with that logic, 90% of American citizens are anti-2nd amendment. We both know that to be a falsehood. Included in the 10% that do not want background checks are
- the gun lobby and anyone they have convinced (more background checks = less gun sales = less profit)
- survivalists
- the anti any legislation that this President comes up with crowd
- the anti any legislation anyone comes up with, that pertains to guns, crowd
- criminals

Surely if over 90% of Americans want to see background checks enforced, always, then legislation that does this cannot be considered a compromise. Rather it represents the will of the people. But guess what, 90% of the people are not lobbying and paying politicians. This issue is not enough to cause a democrat voter to vote out a Democrat or a republican voter to vote out a Republican - so.... Relax, no meaningful legislation will result.

The voters in America gave up their power long ago and have lost the will to demand it back.

If 90% want background checks they why don't we do it the right way and pass an amendment to make it constitutional?

Come on please expalin why, if you have 90% support, you refuse to follow the constitution and pass an amendment?
Why do you insist upon violating the constitution to get what you want when you can do it the right way and end any and all debate from us "gun nuts"?

Could it be that you know what you are trying to do is dishonest?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

So now those of us that would rather preserve our 2nd amendment rights are "Radical Extreamists" and a threat to National security?

I did not say that but you did.

 

[rjay]

If 90% want background checks they why don't we do it the right way and pass an amendment to make it constitutional?

There is no 'IF' about it. The poll that was cited clearly states its findings.

Come on please expalin why, if you have 90% support, you refuse to follow the constitution and pass an amendment?

Why do you insist upon violating the constitution to get what you want when you can do it the right way and end any and all debate from us "gun nuts"?

Could it be that you know what you are trying to do is dishonest?

I am not 'trying to do' anything. I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment. I suspect you would though.

The fact is the law requiring background checks is in the books and has been for quite awhile.

The problem with the law, as it stands, is that private sales at gun shows are exempt. 90% of Americans would like to see this loophole closed.

Can I put you in the 10% column? The column that says if there is a way for criminals and the mentally disturbed to get a gun - I am all for it.

 

[Jerry]

1. Keep explosives regulated.

Explosives are not guns.

2. Background checks for all firearms purchases. No more sales at gun shows unless the proper background check is performed by an FFL holder. This does not mean there has to be a registration.

Counter offer: State CCW/CHP to run your information through NICS at least every month for the entire life of the permit, and then require said state permit to buy any firearm. No FFLs required.

3. Show proof of ownership of a gun safe/security container in order to pass a background check.

Containers have nothing to do with background checks.

Counter offer: Modify ATF Form 4473, question 11, to add new sub-question "m" to read: "Will you store all of your firearms in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into?"

Additionally, modify any of many appropriate building codes so as to require same container/room for storing arms.

4. No state or municipality may exempt some citizens from their laws. LEOs are citizens. If citizens cannot open carry, police cannot open carry. If citizens may not concealed carry, police may not concealed carry. If citizens are not allowed to own or use high capacity magazines, police may not own or use high capacity magazines. This also goes for less-than-lethal weaponry, such as tazers and mace.

Anti-gun also wants to disarm the police, so that won't work. The goal is to establish a political-army or elite-militia rule, and you can't do that if the cops are still armed. Anti-gun will accept your proposition here and say "fine, cops can't have anything either".

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Explosives are not guns.


Counter offer: State CCW/CHP to run your information through NICS at least every month for the entire life of the permit, and then require said state permit to buy any firearm. No FFLs required.


Containers have nothing to do with background checks.

Counter offer: Modify ATF Form 4473, question 11, to add new sub-question "m" to read: "Will you store all of your firearms in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into?"

Additionally, modify any of many appropriate building codes so as to require same container/room for storing arms.


Anti-gun also wants to disarm the police, so that won't work. The goal is to establish a political-army or elite-militia rule, and you can't do that if the cops are still armed. Anti-gun will accept your proposition here and say "fine, cops can't have anything either".

1. Explosives are arms. As in "armament".

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Explosives are not guns.


Counter offer: State CCW/CHP to run your information through NICS at least every month for the entire life of the permit, and then require said state permit to buy any firearm. No FFLs required.


Containers have nothing to do with background checks.

Counter offer: Modify ATF Form 4473, question 11, to add new sub-question "m" to read: "Will you store all of your firearms in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into?"

Additionally, modify any of many appropriate building codes so as to require same container/room for storing arms.


Anti-gun also wants to disarm the police, so that won't work. The goal is to establish a political-army or elite-militia rule, and you can't do that if the cops are still armed. Anti-gun will accept your proposition here and say "fine, cops can't have anything either".

No one is suggesting disarming the police.

 

[Jerry]

1. Explosives are arms. As in "armament".

The name of this forum is Gun Control, not Arms Control. Pro-gun is talking about 30rnd mags and semi-auto rifles, not explosives. Even repealing the Hughes Amendment wouldn't affect explosives. SCOTUS allows reasonable restrictions; regulating explosives does not mean you get to limit mags to 10 rounds. Just because we want the Armalite rifle doesn't mean we want ICBMs. Just because we want 30rnd mags doesn't mean we want grenades. Please stop being hysterical. There's a world of difference you don't seem to understand.

If anyone needs more guidance on how to tell the difference, just say the word.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The name of this forum is Gun Control, not Arms Control. Pro-gun is talking about 30rnd mags and semi-auto rifles, not explosives. Even repealing the Hughes Amendment wouldn't affect explosives.

If anyone needs more guidance on how to tell the difference, just say the word.

Yet the second ammendment says "right to bear arms" not "right to bear guns".

 

[Jerry]

Yet the second ammendment says "right to bear arms" not "right to bear guns".

The forum reads "Gun Control", not "Arms Control".

You have a right to life, too, but if you enter the Abortion forum you are focusing that that aspect of the right to life, not Capitol Punishment.
You have the right to Liberty, but if you enter a forum or thread on Same-Sex marriage then you are focusing on the marriage aspect of Liberty, not small business or free travel or anything else.

No one is arguing to de-regulate explosives. FFL's can't sell you explosives even if you can pass a background check, because FFLs are not authorized to sell explosives. ATF Form 4473 cannot be used to buy or sell explosives.

The issue of explosives is just a straw man.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The forum reads "Gun Control", not "Arms Control".

You have a right to life, too, but if you enter the Abortion forum you are focusing that that aspect of the right to life, not Capitol Punishment.

People who oppose gun control always point to the second amendment to back up their arguements. " the right to bear arms" does not solely mean " right to carry a gun". It could also be interprated as the right to defend oneself with a arm. As soon as you explain when exactly did explosives stopped being classified as "arms", the grounds of this argument will become clear.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Here is a proposal in Missouri.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

"4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."