Thinking about options

[Rhino]

Religious discussions are not allowed per forum rules.

Please the the code of conduct in the Forum Rules section for more info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, let’s ignore historical context then that I was providing a footnote / reference for. Even the Declaration of Independence appeals to our Creator for being endowed with inalienable rights. Sigh.

 

[IT4me]

I don't live in Kalifornia! So it has no impact on me. I've been there only once (I kinda' had to go .......Ft. Ord in 1967).

The point I was trying to make is that if magazine size restrictions are imposed, they can also impose other "reasonable" restrictions like the BB. Thus if you are limited to 10 rnd mags, and have a mandated BB restriction, you cannot reload almost as fast as using a 30 rnd mag. Don't give an inch, they will take a mile... all in the name of being reasonable

 

[easy rider]

The point I was trying to make is that if magazine size restrictions are imposed, they can also impose other "reasonable" restrictions like the BB. Thus if you are limited to 10 rnd mags, and have a mandated BB restriction, you cannot reload almost as fast as using a 30 rnd mag. Don't give an inch, they will take a mile... all in the name of being reasonable

Since the bullet buttons were required, I wonder how many mass shooters in California actually had bullet buttons on their rifles. Criminals wouldn't break the law, would they?

 

[45tex]

Since the bullet buttons were required, I wonder how many mass shooters in California actually had bullet buttons on their rifles. Criminals wouldn't break the law, would they?

That's his point. you and me get a stupid bullet button. Criminals and the government get another advantage. And that's reasonable?

 

[SQLGeek]

The San Bernadino shooting helped usher in the end of the bullet button. Rifles equipped with those had to be registered as assault weapons and the law was changed so that the definition of a fixed magazine is now one that requires the action to be opened.

So now you have to buy crap like this if you want a pistol grip, flash hider or collapsing stock on your rifle.

https://jtactical.com/products/ca-compliant-ar-mod-kit-featureless-ar-alternative

Hell, compared to that, the bullet button sounds somewhat reasonable.

 

[Sublime]

I floated some ideas that friends of mine have discussed, I don't want to lock my mags up nuclear style any more than you do. And yes, I'd say if we're going to have a legislative discussion, bargain for that training, for sure. My whole point was to bring up a discussion about what options we have for legislative negotiation.

I don't want to negoiate my Bill of Rights. F them. We are so far off from the form of govt. The Founders envisioned. For god's sake, we have a certifiable communist running for President and both parties are ok with it and about 30% of the population wants it.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[Texasgordo]

The San Bernadino shooting helped usher in the end of the bullet button. Rifles equipped with those had to be registered as assault weapons and the law was changed so that the definition of a fixed magazine is now one that requires the action to be opened.

So now you have to buy crap like this if you want a pistol grip, flash hider or collapsing stock on your rifle.

https://jtactical.com/products/ca-compliant-ar-mod-kit-featureless-ar-alternative

Hell, compared to that, the bullet button sounds somewhat reasonable.

The bullet button also let the gun shoot super fast making it extra deadly.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[45tex]

The San Bernadino shooting helped usher in the end of the bullet button. Rifles equipped with those had to be registered as assault weapons and the law was changed so that the definition of a fixed magazine is now one that requires the action to be opened.

So now you have to buy crap like this if you want a pistol grip, flash hider or collapsing stock on your rifle.

https://jtactical.com/products/ca-compliant-ar-mod-kit-featureless-ar-alternative

Hell, compared to that, the bullet button sounds somewhat reasonable.

That crap is not a reasonable compromise.

 

[SQLGeek]

Nope. Not in the least.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

When it comes to existing rights, "reasonable compromise" is an oxymoron...

 

[1776-1976]

So this thread is for an outside-the-box discussion. Call me a butter, but I'm gonna throw some ideas out.

1. Natural rights, law, whatever, my 3 year old doesn't need an AR-15 and I don't want him handling mine. We may have different definitions of "child" but most of us should be able to agree that before whatever point of maturity that is, there are valid reasons for children having restrictions on what they touch. Any adult that hands a weapon to an untrained, uneducated kid without it being a controlled training situation is irresponsible, IMO.

2. There ARE some adults who genuinely shouldn't be touching guns either. A few autistic kids I know are definitely in that category.

3. I have HUGE, serious concerns about "Red Flag Laws" for adults, mind you, and I'm not encouraging that we should have them.

So... I've been trying to think about a reasonable scenario where we could try and get around that and do something constructive to offer a reasonable alternative that might appease the left, not surrender our rights, and actually strengthen the position of those who believe in individual liberty and freedom.

First off, yes, I should have the right to do a lot of things, but self-control and self-regulation IS necessary and appropriate for polite society. Wanna pick your nose, fine, but think of others. Wanna get drunk, that's your problem, but it becomes our problem when you injure or kill our friends. You used your liberty to injure someone else. (1 Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.)

So this is what I came up with while talking with a friend and I'm just tossing it out here:

First off, I do think while we have the option we should continue to advocate for the individual liberty to keep personal weapons. That's NOT up for discussion. That said, if OUR responsibility and self-control could be used in a way that we could work together to keep the small percentage of idiots from creating headaches for us, it would be a good thing.

How workeable would this be (tell me why this couldn't be a solution):

Anyone residing in urban areas, or within 25 (or some other fairly reasonable number) miles of an urban area would be asked to actually be a part of a non-partisan, formal milita unit. The units can be as active, or inactive as they want with regards to meet-ups, training, etc... but must not as a militia become a political deal (think churches and 501(C)3 stuff) except for lawful defence.

Instead of banning high-capacity mags, California style, all mags over 10 rounds are going to be stored at a local militia point with two keys needed and a checkout / buddy system in place to use them. All members of militia units may own high-cap magazines, but all high-cap magazines are stored at common, dispersed locations. If you have a desire to pull it out and use it, you can, but two members of the militia have to agree. In this idea, you can own the weapons, and keep them at your home. No problem. Want to go hog-hunting on your own? Take your 10 round mags. If you justifiably need more than that, let Dave and John know. The idea being that if someone's acting suspicious or unreasonable there's a line of non-LEO defence. We have GOT to start policing ourselves or force is going to be used.

Also, I know, I know. The right to keep (own, store) and bear (wear, or carry) arms shall not be infringed... but this would appease the fact that the term militia is used in the amendment, and personally, I'm having a hard time arguing that people need to be able to carry 100 rounds around in semi-auto mags just because. Just like I don't think my 3 year-old needs to carry around an AR, I'm not sure that our society in general is proving mature enough for trouble young adults to be carrying around lots of semi-auto rounds. I'd even be ok with saying you can carry as many bullets as you want if you are carrying a revolver, but only 10-20 rounds if you are carrying a semi-auto pistol or rifle unless you are a licensed individual...

I'm one person removed from a person that was killed in one of these deals recently and I'm personally at a point that specifying a certain number of rounds a person should be reasonably be carrying on their person would not IMO be infringement. We all know people are going to break some of these laws, but if we could find a way to prevent them, it would be valuable, especially if WE did the work instead of the legislatures and police confiscations.

We don't want to become California, with stupid restrictions, BUT this would be a voluntary, self-regulating private initiative, trying to maintain local, non-federal control. The idea would be to voluntarily agree that we, as gun owners would be free to own any and all weapons we currently have, or may purchase in the future.

Why am I advocating for something like this? Plain and simple, I believe that the time has come when opposing forces (the anti-personal weapons left) has the momentum to affect change by force of law, and of the military and police. I feel like it's rapidly becoming inevitable and the best way to delay, or avoid this is to self-regulate ourselves.

The SOLE purpose of our Second Amendment IS for "We The People" to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. By every measure our government has fulfilled the definition of a tyranny and has for a while. That being said ALL laws the prohibit or restrict our Second Amendment ARE unconstitutional. To allow the government to regulate our Second Amendment would be the SAME as allowing common criminals decide what type of firearm their victims could use to defend themselves. Just because the supreme court rules something is constitutional does NOT make it so. They have NOT been making their rulings based on our Constitution, Bill of Rights, or what was said historically for a long time.

 

[1776-1976]

I guess my personal belief is that there are two sets of us in this camp. Those who will intend to fight confiscation and those like myself who for whatever reason probably won’t. Realistically, some of those who claim they will fight probably won’t, either. If that’s the case we should be seriously looking at a compromise on our terms that provides basically some form of a local self-policing non-political form of self-restraint as opposed to further tyranny.

Since when did compromise EVER keep them from infringing more upon our rights. It IS compromise that got us in the mess we are in now. “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

 

[pronstar]

It hasn’t been compromise.
We’ve been giving concessions, and getting nothing in return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[45tex]

It hasn’t been compromise.
We’ve been giving concessions, and getting nothing in return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What he said

 

[Rhino]

If y'all can't tell the difference between a compromise on OUR terms and buying some time to prepare for worse vs. being run over on their terms, I don't know what to say. If you put off being ready for losing, and don't prepare, all the time in the world won't help. History is replete with governments getting more tyrannical - and winning in most cases until time wears them down.

 

[RoadRunner]

If y'all can't tell the difference between a compromise on OUR terms and buying some time to prepare for worse vs. being run over on their terms, I don't know what to say. If you put off being ready for losing, and don't prepare, all the time in the world won't help. History is replete with governments getting more tyrannical - and winning in most cases until time wears them down.

Are you really that stupid? Or are you actually an anti-gun activist?

 

[ThoughtCriminal2A]

If y'all can't tell the difference between a compromise on OUR terms and buying some time to prepare for worse ...

If by now you have not prepared for worse, then you are not paying attention.
The Clinton AWB settled that.

Yet another fudd compromise will not "buy" anything, besides more concessions.

The only result of giving in to demands for concessions for more gun control is more gun control
that is not a "compromise", that is just more gun control;

At some point the line in the sand must be drawn --
"Stop, that is far enough; no more concessions";

so if not now, then when?
and if the guy you see in the mirror is'nt the one drawing that line, then who will do it?

 

[Rhino]

If by now you have not prepared for worse, then you are not paying attention.

Stockpiling does not equal prepared. My point is and has been that individuals alone aren’t gonna stop the train.

 

[Rhino]

Are you really that stupid? Or are you actually an anti-gun activist?

Neither. I’m pointing out that there is a mindset problem.

 

[Rhino]

Look at our Republican leaders here in TX. The cave in is happening. They aren’t on our side. They aren’t even making any pro-2A offers at all. Even the earlier suggestion in this thread about advocating gun safety curriculum in the classroom would be better than what we are getting.