doublegunshop.com - home Forums A COMPROMISE?

Who gets to pick what the "Certain" semi-autos are? And why do they get to single certain ones out over others....what standards apply...because they look scary?

WHat is to stop the gun grabbers from taking away all the others since they already got half their body in the door....and not just their foot.

THere is no Compromise with the gun grabbing freaks...they won't be happy until they take away ALL our guns...even the plastic toy guns.

We aren't compromising when we are the only ones giving everything up...we are bending over and spreading our butt cheeks inviting them to have fun at our expense....no need for lube OR condoms. Because thats exactly what happens anytime anyone gives anything to those freaks.

We loose....and they gain....thats not a compomise by any definition. What that is We lose, they win. THey walk away from the table with far more than they came with...and we leave with a lot less than we came with.


THe Definition....weapon of War....is a mind numbing idiodic demarcation point.

Italy uses that one.....Springfield Carbines...Mausers, and Garands are illegal in Italy....not just the scary looking guns popular with the Hollywood types that love to use them in films, by the same people don't want US to own them.

Thanks doc, I still wonder why Ed thinks he's got it.

Ed, would you define what 'certain' means, and why won't you explain what 'compromise' means. I offered a carrot earlier for libs, 15 bil more per month in social program wasting. You said you were going to compromise with ANTI-gunners. What would you give them in exchange.

Ain't gonna happen!
Repeal of the 68 GCA would wipe out the whole ban on private interstate sales and shipping of firearms. Even the Libtards aren't dumb enough to agree to this.
Who cares about the Assault Weapons Ban it expired in 2004 due to the sunset clause.
Jim

Ed, where have you been since 1968? The anti-gunners would never give up the ineffective things they already got for some compromise that left them with less than they had. This has been about incrementalism and the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment. Your whole argument is based on fantasy. Do you really think they'll go back to a time when you could order a revolver mail-order from Herters without any backround check? With all of the recidivist criminals and gangbangers out on the streets, do any of us want that?

Finally, why do you want to put blame on an inanimate semi-automatic gun or large capacity magazine when the problem is the criminal who pulls the trigger and then gets a plea bargain, or paroled so he can go out and do it again? And again. And again...

This thread is just crazy. FREE MEN don't give up some rights in order to hopefully temporarily keep a few.

guys:

all of the firearms used in the recent mass murders were of the center fire, semi automatic, high capacity magazine type.

so why not have universal background checks on just those firearms that meet all three of the tests listed above? this would be the trade off for repeal of the firearms acts of 1968 and 1993. that would mean the lifting of the ban on none dealer interstate firearms transfers, the elimination of dealer record keeping on all other firearms and no background check by any federal agency on all other firearms...state laws would remain in force.

ideally, the universal background check act would have the same provision as the assault rifle ban. meaning that it would expire in ten years and would require congressional approval for its renewal.

So what...All modern firearms are centerfire ...except for 22 rimfires. I haven't seen or heard of any caseless rounds in civilian weapons yet...

All rifles with a magazine can have a high capacity magazine fitted.

Do you believe a bolt action rifle couldn't kill a classroom of unarmed kids.....or a captive group of unarmed adults for that matter?


And incidently no political hack has any right..or business deciding what I have the constitutional right to own.

And coincidently.....all of those shooters shared something in common...Including the idiot that shot Gabby Giffords....they were all democrat loons with a hoistory of mental issues...and yet THEY were allowed to roam free.

Unhindered.


And what Politcal moron has any right to decide (like in NY) I can only have 7 rounds in my gun to defend myself and my family in my our house against several armed home invaders who are no hindered by any existing law.

And for that matter...exactly what right or business do the Police have with Actual automatic weapons....high capacity magazines, etc? Last I checked thats what we have the National Guard for....

bonehead: a firearm would have to be center fire, semi auto and be fitted with a hi cap mag to require the new owner to undergo a background check. if it did not meet all three of those tests, then a background check would not be applicable.

as for the rest of your comments, there has to be compromise for this to work.

Ed, you asked for an answer, and I gave you one. Yet you still want to trade something to the anti-gunners who have been nothing but disingenuous liars for over fifty years.

Free MEN do not give up rights in the hope of temporarily keeping other rights. Emphasis on the word "MEN".

keith: hey, MAN, I wanna trade universal background checks on a certain class of firearms for repeal of the two major federal acts that restrict out second amendment rights...perhaps you should google the federal firearms acts of 1968 and 1993 to fully understand the impact of what I am advocating.

Leaving aside the fact that the '68 GCA will never be repealed, ever - what you suggest is defining a certain group of firearms as deserving of tighter restrictions than other firearms. In effect, government saying "this gun is bad but that gun is OK". Which is something I cannot agree with as no gun is worse than any other, they're inanimate objects incapable of morality, either good or bad. Whether any firearm is used for good or evil is entirely dependent on the person whose hand is holding said gun. Yes, I realize government has already started this by making it extremely difficult (not to mention prohibitively expensive) to own a full-auto, but taking another step down that same road is not a direction I want to go.

Will anti-gun politicians not seek to blame double shotguns if one is used in the next mass killing? Would the victims be somehow less dead if they're not killed with a semi-auto rifle but with a double shotgun firing 00 buck? To the hoplophobes all guns are evil, and to believe that they will give us a permanent pass on hunting rifles and shotguns in return for compromising on black rifles is na�ve at best.