Obama May Change His Mind On Assault Weapons Ban

[Excaliber]

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 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.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

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.

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.

Giving away fundamental rights a piece at a time erodes them slowly but just as surely and plays into the hands of the enemies of liberty who are intelligent and patient to a point. They realize that chipping away at freedom a piece at a time while never giving anything back will escape the notice of many folks who will think each step is simply a reasonable compromise, and will fail to notice where the march of events is taking them.

A look at history reveals there have been many that came before where the approach you advocate was followed. These gave us the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, one gun a month laws, sexual groping of innocent citizens by the TSA, permits to buy a gun, warrantless monitoring of telephone calls and emails, registration of individual weapons in some states, prohibitions against carrying guns, gun, ammunition, and magazine possession prohibitions in places like Chicago and Washington DC, licensing laws that allowed newspapers to publish the names and addresses of all lawful gun owners in some areas, and laws that allow the president to order indefinite military incarceration of citizens without charges or trial.

Those "reasonable concessions" brought us to where we are today - with little remaining freedom and with the leftists demanding we give up what little remains - all in the name of reasonableness. The leftists are following the same step by step playbook as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a host of others. Only those who haven't read history think what they're seeing is new.

The hard truth is that everyone must decide for himself or herself where, whether and how he will take his stand on fundamental God given rights and compromise no more. Earlier would have been better, but the present and the future are all we have to work with.

History is replete with lessons written in the blood of those who had no such a limit and didn't stand for anything in the name of being reasonable. They did nothing and found themselves defenseless, on their knees and at the mercy of totalitarian governments who had none.

It is folly to think we will not suffer the same fate if we continue to follow the same course.

[Wes]

People saying that compromise is ok bothers me, it seems like the crack in public opinion they are looking for to open the flood gates on full 'reform'.

[ghostrider]

No compromise.
It only serves those who would take away rights.



Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[Texasrpbrock]

I'm on the stand firm side of the fence. I guess I'm getting a little older and not quite as liberal as I once was but I'm also more educated than I once was as well. People fought and died for our rights. I'm a believer in honoring their hopes for our country.

[5thGenTexan]

No way is HE changing his MIND, only the tactics. All the uproar has convinced him that at the present the left does not have the power they thought they had. So they will bide their time build up their corps of impressionable young zombies in the FEMA program to get them ready to be used ala the Hitler Youth, Pioneer youths of the old U.S.S.R. They have to have something planned for all that ammo and weaponry purchased through DHS and FEMA. It ain't target practice for CBP.You don't honestley believe the BATFE et al destroy those background check requests. You don't think when Barry and his crew tell Wal-Mart, Academy, CTD etc.. to send their files up to DC it isn't going to happen. Maybe George that has the little gunshop on Main St. in Podunk, TX burns his books along with any number of part time dealers working out of their house or the side entrance to their real job. The high volume guys that sell the bulk of guns their corporate guy's will not go to jail for principles, mainly because most of them have none.

Look out for more little things to incrementally increase their power behind the scenes, until they know they can do it with very little chance of failure. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe in History and that he who does not read and understand it will screw himself by taking the wrong fork in the road one more time, Insanity yep. Chance I'm wrong, I would hope so but as a poli-sci and history type in college many years ago I'm not betting the farm on the longshot that my gut is wrong.

[C-dub]

I asked this question once before, and I will ask it once again: what is the anti-gun side going to give to US, the firearms community, if we give up something to them? I am asking this in a concrete way, looking for specific answers. And I'll even give an example...if we are all forced to get background checks before any firearms change hands, then the anti-gun people should repeal the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and that Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986 and allow us to purchase NEW fully-automatic weapons, short-barreled weapons, and sound suppressors. See, that would be a compromise...they give something and we give something...so, would this be acceptable to you? Or do you have something else that we should gain in exchange for what they want to take away from us? Because if we don't gain something in the exchange, then its not compromise...its concession and I want no part of it.

I must have missed it the first time you asked. I was just thinking of this very thing. What if this were proposed? How many of you would be in favor of background checks for every transfer if those three things were repealed?

[baldeagle]

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 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.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

No need to be condescending.

I was not being condescending. I was pointing out the flaw in your logic. As others have pointed out, as well as me, owning a car is not a Constitutional right. Owning guns is. The first step to tyranny is to identify who is armed. I don't want anyone doing background checks when I purchase firearms, because it's nobody's business what firearms I own. Until I choose to break the law, there is no justification under the Constitution for asking me to do so, and I simply refuse to. It has nothing to with being afraid of a background check. I currently hold a Secret clearance in the US Navy. It has to do with the fear of a tyrannical government trying to steal my rights and the rights of my children and grandchildren.

"Shall", in legal terms, is an absolute. "An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually ‘shall’ used here is in the mandatory sense." "Shall not be infringed", therefore, is a command to the government that they are required NOT to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Doing background checks, denying access to certain weapons, banning certain sizes of magazines are all infringements of our right. They may seem as reasonable to you as letting someone ahead of you in the grocery line because they have one item, but they are not, because the nature of those two "compromises" are completely different. You have no basic right to retain your place in the grocery line. Your right to keep and bear arms is God given and enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be taken away by government without the use of force (either through intimidation or outright violence.)

To those who ask "why do you need" (fill in the blank), the question is irrelevant. Only I can decide what I need or want. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, I will decide what I need, not you, not my neighbors and not the government.

[RottenApple]

I must have missed it the first time you asked. I was just thinking of this very thing. What if this were proposed? How many of you would be in favor of background checks for every transfer if those three things were repealed?

I would still be against it. Background checks will not do anything to prevent a criminal from illegally buying or stealing a gun. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. What it will do is 1) make it that more onerous for law-abiding to legally obtain firearms, 2) make it more difficult to pass legal firearms to a loved one, and 3) give the government one more source of information on who legally has guns and who doesn't. Background checks are just one more method of liberal feel-good security that don't do a thing to solve the real problem.

[S_3]

I'm in favor of true compromise. In exchange for giving them background checks for all firearm transfers, we should get (1) unrestricted carry without a license anywhere in the United States that a FLEO can carry and (2) total repeal of every other Federal gun law.

[wheelgun1958]

Like my 1st grade teacher who punished the whole class because no one would turn in the kid who stole the cookie -

"You owe me for one jelly doughnut!"

[mojo84]

On second thought, I do believe I'll compromise. You leave my rights alone and quit threatening my right to keep and bear arms and I'll help address the real problems that lead to these heinous acts such as the breakdown of the family, elimination of God on society, education for helping to identify and treat the mentally ill and security in what is now known as "gun free zones" including schools.

That's the only compromise I'm willing to make. Now, are you elitist anti-gun liberals willing to compromise?

[mr surveyor]

we should propose there be a background check on all purchases of hand held/concealed carry electronic communication devices ... and a high capacity usage limit established.


no compromise!

[RottenApple]

On second thought, I do believe I'll compromise. You leave my rights alone and quit threatening my right to keep and bear arms and I'll help address the real problems that lead to these heinous acts such as the breakdown of the family, elimination of God on society, education for helping to identify and treat the mentally ill and security in what is now known as "gun free zones" including schools.

That's the only compromise I'm willing to make. Now, are you elitist anti-gun liberals willing to compromise?

Here's a better one. We'll use the leftist version of compromise: Go as far to the right as possible, and when that fails, back down 20% and call it a deal.

Example: Every citizen should be allowed unfettered access to all weapons, up to and including nuclear weapons, tanks, and grenade launchers. Then, when the libs heads start exploding, we'll just back it down to repeal of the NFA, and other gun control acts. That way they'll "win" in that we can't have nukes, but we'll win in that we'll have gotten back everything that's been lost.