I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this

[Patriot3]

Hello, The topic I would like to discuss is the email I sent to the NRA. I am going to post what I said and it is just an idea I thought up this morning and I would like to hear your guys opinion. I am not a gun control advocate by any means and the letter I sent excluded ar15 sporting rifles because they will always hate us for owning them. The other thing is all the types of shotguns, handguns, and guns like 10/22's, m1a's, and tactical bolt guns will remain untouched. Those guns in my opinion can be qualified as hunting and sport shooting guns. So here we go.

hello,
I understand that the NRA takes a very firm stance on gun politics and I believe in that. I am an NRA member, a college student, a license to carry civilian, and I own a multitude of guns. I am worried about the future of the NRA seeing how the public is starting to doubt some gun legislation. I was wondering what would the NRA's stance would be if we were to come to an agreement with the liberal politicians in congress on gun reform. IF we were to support the background check system and the mental health system they want, could we in turn agree to a universal concealed carry law throughout the 50 states? and on top of that insure that the gun control lobby sees handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles as viable means for hunting, protection, and hobby sport shooting? If we could come to that agreement and get their guarantee that they will not lobby against those types of firearms would the two groups be better off? I am just curious as to what the leaders of the NRA's opinions are. Thank you and Molon Labe!

Again this is not something I am comfortable agreeing to, but at the same time I am wondering if the public is turning on us because of the media portraying us as evil and guns evil? I AM comfortable though to express this concern on this site. Thanks guys

 

[Scutter01]

I am not willing to compromise any further.

NOT ONE MORE INCH.

We have done nothing but compromise since at least the 1930's and every time we compromise, we lose a little bit more than we gain.

 

[Birds Away]

I am not willing to compromise any further.

NOT ONE MORE INCH.

We have done nothing but compromise since at least the 1930's and every time we compromise, we lose a little bit more than we gain.

...and whatever we think we've gained we lose the next time.

 

[skulhedface]

The media has always portrayed guns as evil, so what's new? The public turning.. meh. We're all public too, even if the anti-gunners don't like it. There's some truth to that, "He who builds on the people, builds on mud" thing too. They had plenty of momentum after Sandy Hook and didn't make much "progress." I'd like to think that's because we all stood our ground. Don't give up now.

 

[SEIndSAM]

Compromise Hell!!!! We should be on the attack. One who only plays defense will lose the war.

 

[indykid]

Agree, no compromise. In fact I would really love to see a full frontal attack on every second amendment infringement now in place.

And even though the NRA likes to make the point of them needing money to fight future firearm laws, when they were first founded there was only one firearm law, the second amendment, and they did just fine.

 

[Scutter01]

I'm reminded of back when I lived in Michigan. When the seat belt laws were first drafted (1985, I think), they were put to public vote with the EXPRESS PROMISE AND GUARANTEE that it would never be a "primary" offense (one for which a police officer could pull you over). It would only ever be a secondary offense. The public was very against the bill until that promise was repeatedly made. The bill passed and seat belts became mandatory. Can you guess what happened a few years later? Go ahead. I'll wait while you think it over.

I will never agree to hand over my Rights in exchange for a worthless promise that you'll never ask me to hand over any more of my Rights in the future.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I am not willing to compromise any further.

NOT ONE MORE INCH.

We have done nothing but compromise since at least the 1930's and every time we compromise, we lose a little bit more than we gain.

What he said

 

[tmfinney]

I'm pretty sure the part that says, "Shall not be infringed." was pretty clear. No compromise!!!

Scutter hit the nail on the head. It's a give and take, we give up one thing to gain another and the next time that anti-gunners b**** about something, we give up more.

 

[VERT]

Hmmm.....You mean compromising on some type of universal background check. Maybe something similar to NICS, which if memory serves was supported by the NRA as a compromise to get rid of waiting periods, and that is now being credited to the Brady Bunch? The same system the antis are beating us over the head with? NO!!! I am the NRA and I will not compromise. And while we are at it the Federal Government needs can keep their nose out of the reciprocity business as well. I suppose they can regulate interstate commerce but whether people can carry guns within a particular state is just that, a state issue. (disclaimer: I do think every state should have laws allowing carry and reciprocity agreements, but ultimately that is the decision of the voters in each area.)

OP if you need additional reciprocity apply for an out of state license. AZ, UT, FL & VA are all available.

Edit: No I don't think the public is turning on us. If you are in college it might seem that way. But I see/work with new gun owners all the time. Just two days ago I left work early to work with a lady who was scared to be in her own home because of a prowler/possible break in. The local police told her to get a gun. So happens her husband (who is out of town) had one in a bank safe deposit box. She retrieved the gun and took it to the shop to buy ammo, the shop told her to contact me. These new compromise laws that you propose would have left this nice older lady defenseless. You see the gun she had was left to her husband by her late father-in-law. The gun would have needed to be transferred and a universal background check performed just so two good, law abiding people could own a gun that was already their property. No, No, No, No, No............................................. Trust me this lady who had never shot a gun before in her life has a whole new appreciation for firearms ownership, and so does her son who came to the range with us.

 

[poppy]

I'm pretty sure the part that says, "Shall not be infringed." was pretty clear. No compromise!!!

Scutter hit the nail on the head. It's a give and take, we give up one thing to gain another and the next time that anti-gunners b**** about something, we give up more.

^This

 

[snorko]

As soon as you mentioned hunting I realized you do not understand the 2nd amendment.

 

[VERT]

As soon as you mentioned hunting I realized you do not understand the 2nd amendment.

It would be interesting to ask the the people who drafted our Constitution whether they thought Americans should have the right to hunt.

 

[cop car]

It would be interesting to ask the the people who drafted our Constitution whether they thought Americans should have the right to hunt.

Aw come on. They totally meant just for hunting. You know, the guys who used their private arms to violently overthrow a government didnt want people to have guns for any other reason than hunting. Well that and maybe looking at them on the wall

 

[cop car]

Yeah we tried this whole "compromise" thing before. They have proven that they wont be happy till they take all of everyones guns away. Personally I will not be satisfied until I can go mail order a suppressor to go on my 10 inch barreled full auto ar15 I got with no waiting period through my local gun store. And not have a single restriction on it.


If people want to live in gun free societies they should move to one of the very many countries, let alone states, that have super restrictive laws. Leave all us "gun nuts" alone to shoot ourselves. Since that's what they think happens.

 

[cce1302]

Let the antigunners compromise.

"We" have been compromising ever since we allowed the word "except" into the second amendment.



My idea of compromise is let them compromise some of our rights back to us. The arms protected by the second amendment and used by private citizens were those up to and including those necessary for defending against the government, equal to the arms wielded by the government.

Anything less than that is compromise on our part.


Background checks should be optional and informational.

You want a background check with this pistol?
-Sure.
Okay, it says here you've got 2 armed robbery convictions and a carjacking. Your crimes are going to catch up with you one of these days.
-All right, thanks for the gun and background check.

 

[Leo]

I know that the left is using the term universal background checks as a code word for "we are never going to give you permission to own another firearm".

We ALREADY have background checks in all 50 states. It is called the National Instant check system. Every retail purchase gets called into the federal govenment. If there is anything fishy, you don't walk away with a firearm.

The Left responds, what about people who go to gunshows and sell them? Here's my opinion, Buy and sell too many firearms without a dealers license, and see how long it takes for some frowning men working for the batf to find you. I would wager that far more firearms used in crime are stolen from private homes, legitimate places of commerce and police/military sources than are bought by felons at a gun show.

The left keeps talking about "reasonable compromise". They already have that, and more. The left has been changing the meanings of words at least since the 1970's. "Reasonable compromise" now means "no body can have guns except the people we hire to enslave you, suckers!

NO more compromise, no negotiations with tyrants

 

[Destro]

 

[VERT]

The Left responds, what about people who go to gunshows and sell them? Here's my opinion, Buy and sell too many firearms without a dealers license, and see how long it takes for some frowning men working for the batf to find you. I would wager that far more firearms used in crime are stolen from private homes, legitimate places of commerce and police/military sources than are bought by felons at a gun show.

Gunshows are full of people selling guns that openly claim to be "private dealers". Now I am not debating whether this activity should or should not be allowed, but the fact is it is against the law to buy and sell firearms as a business without an FFL. In spite of this it happens all the time. This is one reason I laugh at the concept of "universal background checks". Right or wrong we don't even enforce the laws we have. Oh and I agree that gun shows are not where criminals go to get guns. If we got rid of gun shows tomorrow there would still be plenty of guns in the wrong hands.

 

[LP1]

I am not willing to compromise any further.

NOT ONE MORE INCH.

We have done nothing but compromise since at least the 1930's and every time we compromise, we lose a little bit more than we gain.

"Nothing but compromise"? Let's see...
In how many states could one legally carry a concealed handgun (or openly carry) 5, 10, 20, etc. years ago? In how many states can one carry now?
What kind of semi-automatic rifles could one buy 15-20 years ago? What kinds today?
How many states were shall-issue, even just a few years ago?
How many supreme court rulings have gone against RKBA in the past decade?

I will grant that recent legislation in NY and CT has been a step backwards, but whether or not it will stand has yet to be decided.

Overall, the persecution complex is misplaced. We need to accept the fact that other American citizens, whose votes count just as much as yours or mine, interpret the poorly-worded 2A differently, and we need to have a dialogue with them in good faith. "Hell no" is not dialogue.

Advocates for gun rights have had far more wins than losses in the past decade.