Return to “Obama May Change His Mind On Assault Weapons Ban”
mojo84 wrote:My recommendation is that WE dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and retain our rights as granted by God and affirmed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Not interested in compromising and losing my rights..We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.
Maybe you should read this again:Stripes Dude wrote:No need to be condescending. Sometimes, people have different opinions on how problems should be solved. If in your life, there are no differing opinions, then congratulations on being able to surround yourself with like minded people. But don't be rude, asking rhetorical questions. Besides, paying for a BG check to transfer a gun to your daughter is no different than paying to transfer a car title. So do you have issues with FFLs doing a background check, because you clearly do when it comes to private checks? I don't understand your logic.baldeagle wrote:It doesn't infuriate me. It just makes me shake my head. Do you realize what you are saying? If I want to sell a firearm to my daughter, under that scenario, I would have to pay for a background check. Does that even make sense to you? Because it if does, I think you need to think about it a little more clearly. Would you mind if the government checked your background before you sold your house? Your car? Any other possession? NONE of those things are constitutionally protected. Guns are. Yet you would allow an intrusion that you would never think of allowing for mere possessions.Stripes Dude wrote:Reading this eased my fears a bit.
I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)
It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.
Looks like I stirred the pot. What I am attempting to convey is that all sides need to come to the table with a solution, and my personal belief is that we won't fix the issue of firearms falling into the hands of criminals or the insane, but an attempt at doing so is what we should aim for. This is how politics work, compromise. The likelihood that things will remain as-is are slim to none. So time to think outside the box. It isn't about constitutionality, it's about being able to compromise with those who are creating legislation.
We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.
The topic of allowing CHL in 51% bars comes up a bit. And those connected to the TX legislature say it won't happen, and don't even ask for it because that would get a bill killed, and take with it all of the other things we are trying to pass. That's called compromise - lots of us want that, but won't take it forward in legislature because it has no chance of passing.
I don't want any of this. I wish it had never gotten to this point. But I'm being honest with myself and others - no one will end up in a good place by being bull headed.