Supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions always speak of compromise when it comes to discussion of greater firearm-related restrictions, and calling for supporters of the second amendment to compromise on the matter. The truest definition of compromise is two or more parties equally agreeing to give up something that they already possess, in exchange for something else. What exactly are supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions actually giving up that they already possess in the name of compromise. Not something they are merely willing to ask for, but do actually currently possess? Exactly which existing firearm-related restrictions are they willing to see repealed in exchange? Let us say, for the sake of hypothetical discussion, that to secure the passage of certain new firearm-related restrictions, supporters of the second amendment are requiring at minimum the complete and total repeal of the national firearms act, and all the legal authority it contains with in. Along with this, the repeal of the national firearms act must actually be signed into law first before any discussion on compromise must be had. Exactly what would supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions have to get in exchange for them to willingly give up the national firearms act, and the regulatory authority that stems from its existence?
First, I am a gun rights advocate, or probably more accurately, an advocate for the Principles and Underpinings of the Constitution and civil rights protections of the BOR, heighten of which can be politically compromised or them become meaningless. Second, the left’s continual attack on, attempts at subversion of the Constitution and BOR, of which, their anti-gun rhetoric and policy advocacy is but one issue in a drive for centralization of government, power, and the collective mob’s subornation of the individual and individual rights. Third, GCAs not only are continually exposed for their dishonest and deceptions in regard to their objectives, they have often been captured in their own words, revealing their incremental and deceptive strategy for the incremental erosion of gun rights. What they call compromise, is a means of the incremental strategy of slowly eroding those rights by appearing to be ‘reasonable’... it’s the same strategy England used to slowly erode gun rights over 75 years. Given their deceptive practices, stated objectives, and dishonesty, how does one even begin to establish a basis for compromise with a dishonest party. It’s a non starter. I will say what I have always said. The Constitution has provisions and a process for it’s amendment. But, it’s not likely the support for modifying or repealing the 2A will happen. So, it’s the guerrilla tactics of incrementalism for them.
I support a compromise of an new amendment that would allow unrestricted small arms, with varying restrictions on privately owned military vehicles. I would also support that anyone convicted of a gun crime could have their rights to own firearms revoked for no less than 20 years after all relevant time is served. Aside from that, we need to repeal all current unconstitutional gun laws and return to what the Founders' gave us...
First, what military vehicles are you referring to? Tanks and other similar vehicles that have been used as mounts for machine guns or heavy ordinance are not restricted by the Federal Government if weapons are not mounted on them. In most states, their use on public ways are usually restricted under the same laws as other heavy wheeled or Tracked vehicles. As for the weapons, they fall under the restrictions of the 1934 NFA. Mounter Machine guns are treated as any other machine gun. With regard to cannons, every single round is considered an explosive device. As for being convinced of a gun crime, felons already lose their 2A rights (though the are provisions to get them restored). The question of gun crime would entail a discussion as it could include in factions ranging from having an errant round inadvertently left in luggage loaded on a plane, a forgotten too big magazine found in a toolbox, to a violent crime using a gun. Some laws are vague, not uniform, change within short distances when crossing jurisdictions, and are sometimes not well known to the general populace. So, what ‘gun’ crime would cause a loss of gun rights? I figure you had something in your head, but hadn’t thought it out. To me there is a huge difference in some infractions and those where a gun is used for a violent crime or to infringe on someone’s rights.
To start I'll clarify. What I'm talking about is a new amendment in which all previous infringements are removed and society is starting from scratch in regards to firearms, military vehicles, and other weapons. I haven't seen anywhere in the Constitution where one's rights can be revoked, yet it happens to felons. Common sense would dictate that rights can be suspended during times of incarceration and such, but I don't support the revocation of rights without a Constitutional mandate. In terms of military vehicles I'm mostly referring to heavy equipment that goes beyond the weight restrictions of normal highway usage and particularly tracked vehicles. I don't support any restriction on small arms up to .50 cal. Beyond that and you start running into problems, so that's just my cut off point. The real point is that most sensible people would agree that citizens do not need certain things, like RPG's without restriction, or more importantly weapons of mass destruction like chemical or biological agents for any reason. Currently such things are restricted, by legislation, not by a Constitutional mandate. What we are doing is slowly and inexorably legislating our rights away, when the proper solution is an amendment. As to gun crimes, once you remove the current legislative infringements most of the issues that might concern you will no longer exist. I refer mostly to things like unlawful homicide, assault, robbery, and other such felonies. There is clearly some room for compromise in this area, but I certainly cannot see why a right would be revoked if the offense has nothing at all to do with firearms in the first place, that's asinine...
