I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this

[Arthur Dent]

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.

There hasn't been any compromise. It's all been the antis taking and us giving.

 

[Roadie]

"reply with quote" is just clocking, so in reply to Roadie's comment "The fact that you curiously ignore any proof that your position is patently misguided reinforces our point. Did you read any of the links posted? Did you think about the counter points made to your position? No? So.. Who is "in a closed feedback loop" again?"...

What has been lost in all of the flaming is that I never mentioned agreeing with the original post. I do not, and never have, favored magazine limits, universal background checks, restrictions on scary rifles, etc. - there's no need to convince me on that. What I have objected to is the way that many of the posters think that jumping up and down, yelling, demonizing those who think differently, and/or backing unelectable candidates is going to be effective in making progress on those issues with our fellow citizens who interpret 2A differently. When 4 supreme court justices are hostile to 2A and a substantial portion of the general public feels that limitations will make them safer, we have a problem. Mutual respect and effective communication are needed, and that's not what I'm seeing. If the present forms of communication continue, don't be surprised when ground is lost rather than gained.

You have just proven my point, you do NOT read anything else posted, or you just reply to what you want to, and ignore those posts that offer a counter to your position.

Case in point. You said:

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded. Without the "well regulated militia" part, it would be much simpler. Legal scholars have long disagreed with what it means, and there is no end in sight. The only true fact is that nobody really knows for sure. So we are left with trying to arrive at a consensus OPINION about what it really means. When you think about it, the same holds true for everything else in the constitution as well.

I replied:

No, it is not a FACT, it is your OPINION.. Separate clauses, just like in the rest of the BoR. The wording is only unclear, if you try to twist it..

Give this article a read..
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

JetGirl replied:

[video=youtube;1KydSAKywdE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KydSAKywdE[/video]

I replied:

Seriously, to believe it is poorly worded, one has to believe that our Founders were SO stupid, than the MEANT "Right of the Militia" but wrote "Right of the People" by mistake.

(JetGirl beat me to it, lol)

You? Ignored all of it..

 

[Roadie]

 

[Tombs]

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

Maybe you need submitted for a mental health check.

I assume you're either young or out of touch with politics. The anti-gun lobby attacks anything that throws bullets, it does not matter what it is. They say they're okay with certain firearms, then the next bill they draft moves to either gimp or ban the very firearms they claimed were acceptable.

Compromise is not acceptable, and I will go to the grave before I tolerate any further legislation against my natural right.

The public is not turning on us, they are turning TO US. I don't see how you can get the perception otherwise unless you are live under a rock. Check firearms sales, check how many new LTCHs are going out. There's more people who own and support gun rights in this country currently than there ever has been at any point in history.

And what's this sporting BS you speak of? The sole purpose of firearms ownership in this country is to give the public the ability to vote with a bullet instead of a ballot when things get out of control. Sporting isn't a valid reason for firearms ownership in this country in contrast to its true purpose, as fully explained in the declaration of independence.

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded. Without the "well regulated militia" part, it would be much simpler. Legal scholars have long disagreed with what it means, and there is no end in sight. The only true fact is that nobody really knows for sure. So we are left with trying to arrive at a consensus OPINION about what it really means. When you think about it, the same holds true for everything else in the constitution as well.

I am sorry for your literacy issues. I know there's quite a few judges with confirmation bias, or literacy issues, but I will not live in fear of these illiterate tyrants nor will I tolerate their sheep.

 

[DFM914]

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.

Same here.

 

[FireBirdDS]

I have a better idea...

How about the gubmint "compromises" by first backing off on post-1986 automatic weapons thus making them legal again.

"But what do we get from this 'compromise'?" asks the gubmint.

"You get us not coming after you on suppressors and barrel lengths (for now)" says We The People. "Besides... It's for the children!"

 

[Redhorse]

To be honest, I don't think this would be a favorable compromise even if gun free zones were eliminated (for those with valid carry permits allowing the right to carry just about anywhere) in a clause in the proposed universal reciprocity compromise.

 

[cbhausen]

The fact the OP used "Molon Labe" in that letter is laughable... Does the OP even know what that means? I do not own a "multitude" of guns but I sure as hell know right from wrong here and even if I only own one, well, "from my cold dead hands."

NO MORE COMPOROMISES. NOT NOW, NOT EVER.

 

[Redhorse]

Just remember not to get mad at the OP for asking this opinion because everyone would like to see this pointless bickering about gun-control to finally come to an end. In the OP's defense, I'm a college student and I see an uncomfortable amount of people my age starting to favor gun control (which I think is due to biased media and liberal superstars). However, I also see a good deal of students who also favor gun rights. I personally feel like this sort of thing will always be prevalent in our society, some for gun rights/control, some against gun rights/control with a great deal of people in the middle who are uncertain and/or don't care. As long as gun owners always stick together and stay vigilant, then we'll always stay strong. Believe it or not, it's as simple as that.

 

[ashby koss]

NO COMPROMISE. I know that everyone here understands that concept, its the liberals and people that need to be hanging on the end of a rope that don't understand those words.

 

[reno]

Well I will say that while you are young, evidently as you stated you are a college student, I guess I could see the supposed logic of your request. The fact or the truth is there is no compromise and not from the other side either. They would have everyone believe that all they want is sensible laws and controls, which actually have existed for years. These laws and regulations are selectively enforced or not at all. This phrase "gun control" is simply a method at people control. These so called anti gunners do not fear the firearm, they fear the independence.