• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Owners: What would you give up for reciprocity?

I think reciprocity is pretty important. When I take a driving vacation, I always take my handgun. In some states, I'd be arrested. Illinois is a classic example.

What if states didn't have reciprocity on drivers' licenses, for heaven's sake.

Well, if that's the case, then I'm unwilling to sacrifice anything for it. If you don't lose your free speech rights from state to state, neither do you lose your RKBA.
 
In this instance, nothing is preferable. Do you really trust Eric Holder to write the regulations for background checks? The same guy that has adamantly pushed for weapons bans and confiscation? The Fast and Furious guy? THAT guy? Are you kidding?
The fact that Eric Holder isn't sitting in a prison cell for the rest of his natural life for Fast & Furious, obstruction, failure to prosecute certain federal criminal cases, and other offenses is in itself offensive.
 
TBH, mandating a background check for all sales doesn't freak me out all that much, as long as we use the existing NICS system and nothing is changed, other than I'd be okay with adding "has been involuntarily committed" to the system as well.

The only concern I have is that is amounts to de-facto registration, in the longer term, which I don't like.

But at this point I see no reason to compromise and allow it, unless offered something REALLY GOOD in return... screw national reciprocity, I want National Constitutional Carry! (open/concealed, no permit required, all states, no gun free zones other than gov't buildings).
I think when we get rid of the old guard it's time to undo their legacy of ****. It's time to walk back the NFA, GFA, they may keep parts of Brady but we are going to restrict felonies and other prohibitions to violence(including mental illness) and we are going to protect individual rights. I'm sick of government officials assuming they can just pass whatever the hell they want and the people/constitution be damned. The NICS is fine, but I won't sacrifice property rights even on UBC to make a few people feel better.
 
No gun control measure has been passed nationally for the last decade.

Uh, that's not a + for the 'gun lobby'. See, there's this little thing called the 2nd Amendment, which means there should be no 'gun control', period. Try again.

The open carry movement has grown by leaps and bounds.

Huh? Open carry? Like they did from before we were a nation through the 'cowboy' days? That in many places you can NOT do any longer? Again, that's not a + on the side of the gun lobby... removing rights from the citizens is a -. Fail again.

So come on back with an actual list of what the 'gun lobby' has gotten that is a + for it, that is above and beyond the 2nd Amendment. Try not to fail again.

BTW, any number of pro-gun people on this forum could probably list HUNDREDS of things that the 'gun lobby' has given up, or has had taken away from them from the anti-gun folks. Which are the only ones that have received what they have wanted in any 'compromise'...
 
;) can't ever be accused of not doing the Right thing. I mean who actually wants to be about doing wrong things. Or go about doing things that are wrong?
f_whistle.gif

There are some words in our language which are spelled alike but have different meanings. The word RIGHT is one of those. But I think you knew that going in.
 
I think reciprocity is pretty important. When I take a driving vacation, I always take my handgun. In some states, I'd be arrested. Illinois is a classic example.

What if states didn't have reciprocity on drivers' licenses, for heaven's sake.

Except the vast majority of Americans don't much travel out of state. Or do so very rarely.
 
Uh, that's not a + for the 'gun lobby'. See, there's this little thing called the 2nd Amendment, which means there should be no 'gun control', period. Try again.

The Second Amendment does not say that. It is you who have failed right out of the gate.

Isn't it interesting that another poster took my list and was damn proud of it since it showed the gun lobby has been winning. That pretty much shows I hit it out of the part.

Huh? Open carry? Like they did from before we were a nation through the 'cowboy' days?
I see you do not dispute my example but try to pretend it has always been that way. Sorry but you are clearly wrong. We have gone down this path before and you should remember you lessons better. Plenty of old west towns confiscated guns at the city limits. And where was the Second Amendment then?

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

Today’s anti gun control forces count their strongest support among society’s leaders from the states that once formed part of the Old West.
The actual Old West pioneers of historical fact viewed matters differently, however. They would certainly hail the campaign to protect an American right to bear arms, but the record puts them behind "moderate, common-sense measures" for gun control—the very kind that President Clinton has proposed.

Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don't want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.
What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness. By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated usually was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.
The editor of the Black Hills Daily Times of Dakota Territory in 1884, called the idea of carrying firearms into the city a “dangerous practice,” not only to others, but to the packer himself. He emphasized his point with the headline, "Perforated by His Own Pistol."
The editor of the Montana’s Yellowstone Journal acknowledged four years earlier that Americans have "the right to bear arms," but he contended that guns have to be regulated. As for cowboys carrying pistols, a dispatch from Laramie’s Northwest Stock Journal in 1884, reported, "We see many cowboys fitting up for the spring and summer work. They all seem to think it absolutely necessary to have a revolver. Of all foolish notions this is the most absurd."

Cowboy president Theodore Roosevelt recalled with approval that as a Dakota Territory ranch owner, his town, at the least, allowed "no shooting in the streets." The editor of that town's newspaper, The Bad Lands Cow Boy of Medora, demanded that gun control be even tighter than that, however. Like leaders in Miles City and many other cow towns, he wanted to see guns banned entirely within the city limits. A.T. Packard in August 1885 called "packing a gun" a "senseless custom," and noted about a month later that "As a protection, it is terribly useless.”

Old West cattlemen themselves also saw the need for gun control. By 1882, a Texas cattle raising association had banned six-shooters from the cowboy's belt. "In almost every section of the West murders are on the increase, and cowmen are too often the principals in the encounters," concurred a dispatch from the Texas Live Stock Journal dated June 5, 1884. "The six-shooter loaded with deadly cartridges is a dangerous companion for any man, especially if he should unfortunately be primed with whiskey. Cattlemen should unite in aiding the enforcement of the law against carrying of deadly weapons."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

It indeed is tough when reality destroys myth.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it does. Pure and simple language a middle schooler can understand. So why don't you?

That must indeed be the problem. If one looks at it with the intelligence and education of a middle school sixth grader, then they might see it as you do. Sadly for you, I have a Masters degree, taught American Government and History for over thirty years and have gone way past that that rudimentary understanding decades upon decades ago. :roll:

I imagine the middle school mind could indeed fail to comprehend actual reality. Its part of the age I guess. ;)
 
The Second Amendment does not say that. It is you who have failed right out of the gate.

Isn't it interesting that another poster took my list and was damn proud of it since it showed the gun lobby has been winning. That pretty much shows I hit it out of the part.


I see you do not dispute my example but try to pretend it has always been that way. Sorry but you are clearly wrong. We have gone down this path before and you should remember you lessons better. Plenty of old west towns confiscated guns at the city limits. And where was the Second Amendment then?

Adam Winkler: Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?


Seperate but Equal used to be law in many states too, and was upheld by SCOTUS for most of a century.... that doesn't mean it was right either.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Hay, Arbo.... behave. Let's skip the insulting each other's intelligence and discuss the issue pls.
 
Seperate but Equal used to be law in many states too, and was upheld by SCOTUS for most of a century.... that doesn't mean it was right either.

Which is irrelevant in this case. My post was to show that the fiction Arbo believed in was myth. And I proved that with the historical record.
 
That must indeed be the problem. If one looks at it with the intelligence and education of a middle school sixth grader, then they might see it as you do. Sadly for you, I have a Masters degree, taught American Government and History for over thirty years and have gone way past that that rudimentary understanding decades upon decades ago. :roll:

I imagine the middle school mind could indeed fail to comprehend actual reality. Its part of the age I guess. ;)

Then why don't you understand the 2nd amendment?

And when you respond, please try to do it all at once, I see you went back to your other post and added after I had already commented on it. But thanks for giving links that show absolutely NO gun control at a NATIONAL level. Fail again.
 
Last edited:
So in arguing that knives are "safer", one is basically saying that access to weapons by those fitting the profile of a mass-attack criminal is only critical if the weapon is likely to cause death, meaning you don't really care about people being harmed so much....just people dying. Fine. That's pretty flimsy, but whatever. The fact is, (and you ignored this), there are three very specific profiles for those who "suddenly/randomly/unexpected" attack en masse. ADDRESS IT! Stop acting as though very real proposals that ambiguously and vaguely isolate those with ANY history of mental "illness" aren't a real threat to thousands of people who don't fit the three profiles. As a former therapy patient, my ability to own guns would have been severely affected by some of the legislation proposed. It isn't red herrings...it's stupid law. Don't be dishonest.

I am saying using the knife attack as a right wing whine sarcastically calling for knife control isn't helping the 2nd A argument any. Am saying the knife welding loony didn't kill anyone but wouldn't want to bet on the same low fatality rate if he had been using a firearm. Try and dismiss it all you want but the fact is the knife dude had a very poor score compared to the pistol/high cap mag dude did in the Gabby gifford case, to just use one firearm attack.

What are the three profiles of which you speak? How do we address them... it is all fine and good for the right wing rant to claim it can be done, but frankly you all balk at saying anything more than that.

if you doctor thinks you could be a threat to yourself and others I can see where your ability to own firearms SHOULD be questioned. However the right wing fights ANY attempt to come to terms with how to bell the loony tune cat and throws out massive BS claims to muddy the water. the problem with only one side attempting to get a handle on mental illness and firearm ownership is there is no balance, so instead of ranting about Chantrix and using unnamed 'victims' of confiscation, lets have some real hard data.

You can start with naming the three profiles and how they can be screened without threatening people like you and your ability to keep firearms...
 
Then why don't you understand the 2nd amendment?

And when you respond, please try to do it all at once, I see you went back to your other post and added after I had already commented on it. But thanks for giving links that show absolutely NO gun control at a NATIONAL level. Fail again.

First, its funny that you think you are wearing zebra stripes.

Second, you already admitted you approach this as a middle school kid would. Therein lies the problem.

Third, why is it that so many right wingers have to pretend that people who have a difference of opinion with them on issues of public policy either "do not know" or "just don't understand" when what they really mean is "you don't believe like I do and you don't prostrate before the same altar as I do".

Fourth, you mentioned open carry in the west and I showed you it was a historical myth and fiction with accounts from the historical record. Nobody who had to give up their guns at the city limits in those examples gives a five pound bag of manure if those rules came from which level of government. It is meaningless and irrelevant compared to the actual practice which was documented and supported with my references from the historical record.

But lets go back and review the exchange:

here is what I said

The open carry movement has grown by leaps and bounds.

and here is your reply


Huh? Open carry? Like they did from before we were a nation through the 'cowboy' days? That in many places you can NOT do any longer? Again, that's not a + on the side of the gun lobby... removing rights from the citizens is a -. Fail again.

No mention anywhere about federal versus state or local. You invent this stuff as you go along.
 
Last edited:
There are some words in our language which are spelled alike but have different meanings. The word RIGHT is one of those. But I think you knew that going in.

Not really.....when one actually thinks about it. There is only the Right way of doing things. Now that's not to say people don't have the choice to choose otherwise. Which always is happening. As should be. ;)
 
I would give up all government freebies used to import and/or purchase Liberal voters.
 
I've known some officers who were might ****ty gunhandlers to be sure, including one who pointed his Glock at me while showing it to another officer... loaded, of course.

He later had an AD in the locker room. :)
Surprise surprise surprise. One of the old managers of a pool hall I used to frequent was a retired officer, he knew a PO that had a negligent discharge into his leg in his patrol car when going off duty, he wasn't paying attention when taking his duty weapon off I guess but shot it into his leg and was fortunate enough to be in the PD parking lot. I would be humiliated if I had to call for emergency help in the parking lot............and he was.
 
Hell I will, in a heartbeat. If he wants to get bristly about it I'll tell him "Yeah, and I used to be a cop too, so stuff it."

One of my favorite instructors told me he hates to train cops, because so many of them have a know-it-all uber-macho attitude.... and he was just a special ops guy in Vietnam so what does he know right? :roll:
I think that is a young cop thing. Most of the former officers I've known said they always hated the rookies because they were the "I am the law" types, older officers would use discretion and keep things peaceful as much as possible but hated breaking in rookies because they were likely to get both officers in a heated situation.
 
Last edited:
I think that is a young cop thing. Most of the former officers I've know said they always hated the rookies because they were the "I am the law" types, older officers would use discretion and keep things peaceful as much as possible but hated breaking in rookies because they were likely to get both officers in a heated situation.


Yeah, to some degree that's true... but you still find a lot of attitude even with many older ofc's these days. Well, like any group of people it varies, individuals are individuals...
 
Second, you already admitted you approach this as a middle school kid would. Therein lies the problem.

You are twisting my words, as I never said or suggested such a thing, it is clearly meant as more attack/baiting. I suggest per Goshin's warning, you stop this line of response.

Fourth, you mentioned open carry in the west and I showed you it was a historical myth and fiction with accounts from the historical record.

Getting back on topic, good. Were the citizens of the nation more 'free' in terms of gun rights back then, or are they 'more free' now? The answer is then. A city here and there that makes up restrictive rules does not a majority of the country make. Could the courts re-visit those days, as per Heller, they would hold such bans as unconstitutional.

The entire discussion is about FEDERAL level stuff BTW.
 
Last edited:
Jesus and self-defense-> Luke 22:35-38.

I have long had a problem with Luke 22, even when I was a good Gawd Fearing youth. A man who preaches pacifism and restraint, rend unto Caesar and all that suddenly says something about swords??? The turn the other cheek guy now says to arms???

Then later around the 50's in Luke 22 a follower of Jesus, unnamed for some reason, is said to have cut off the ear of a High Official's servant- yet no record of ANY sort of punishment for this unnamed follower. You really think someone can just slice a servant of 'the man' and not suffer for it?

Anywho, it just seems way too contrived, like something stuck in the either to make the followers not appear to be complete cowards, or give the ONE passage where Jesus comes close to approving of bloodshed. Remember Peter twice denied Him.
 
I have long had a problem with Luke 22, even when I was a good Gawd Fearing youth. A man who preaches pacifism and restraint, rend unto Caesar and all that suddenly says something about swords??? The turn the other cheek guy now says to arms???

Then later around the 50's in Luke 22 a follower of Jesus, unnamed for some reason, is said to have cut off the ear of a High Official's servant- yet no record of ANY sort of punishment for this unnamed follower. You really think someone can just slice a servant of 'the man' and not suffer for it?

Anywho, it just seems way too contrived, like something stuck in the either to make the followers not appear to be complete cowards, or give the ONE passage where Jesus comes close to approving of bloodshed. Remember Peter twice denied Him.


Discussion for another time/place really.
 
Compromise gets things done. What would gun enthusiasts be willing to give up (in the way of gun control) in order to get reciprocity throughout the United States?

You treat my gun purchase like you treat birth control something to be subsidized.
 
Back
Top Bottom