AWB in exchange for National Reciprocity

[one_Self]

I believe in State rights as well as the Constitution....neither call for the regulation of the type of weapon I can use nor where I can carry it (outside another person's private property).

It doesn't but like it or not, there are regulations. And Constitutional or not, there are regulations and those regulations aren't going away. Let compromise and put in sensible regulations (Maybe not a AR ban but I think universal background and probably a mag limit for good measure.)

My right to carry is regulated. I don't like that. My carry license isn't valid in all states. I don't like that either. Lets make the best of a bad situation.

Lets compromise.

[Curmudgeon]

It doesn't but like it or not, there are regulations. And Constitutional or not, there are regulations and unwilling to compromise and put in sensible regulations (AR ban aside) will leave us in the dust.

My right to carry is regulated. I don't like that. My carry license isn't valid in all states. I don't like that either. Lets make the best of a bad situation.

Lets compromise.

What you propose is not compromise, it's lose. Here's a proposal for you. We get nationwide reciprocity accomplished at the state level like driver's licenses, not at the federal level, and I don't vote you out of office.

[one_Self]

What you propose is not compromise, it's lose. Here's a proposal for you. We get nationwide reciprocity accomplished at the state level like driver's licenses, not at the federal level, and I don't vote you out of office.

That's not going to happen and we both know that. Now, if we compromise then its possible.

As for the cake point, what you fail to realize is that those federal legislation were reasonable. Lets just put road blocks in place to prevent it from happening again. Something like if National reciprocity is changed, then the background checks are no longer law. Vice versa too.

Problem solved.

[JesterPgh]

No, federal interference, and it would be interference, in carry licensing lets the camels nose under the tent. We shouldn't have to have a license to begin with, but that's not the point. I'm not willing to give the .fed power over my carry just so we can "compromise" an "assault weapon" or "high capacity" ban in exchange. That's just giving them everything, and to hell with that.

[Curmudgeon]

That's not going to happen and we both know that. Now, if we compromise then its possible.

Speak for yourself sport. What I know is that I have no interest in prohibiting an entire class of firearm and/or magazine capacity. I am interested in fighting for expanded freedom. Anyone paying any attention to gun rights across the USA for the past 10 to 20 years can see that gun rights and 2A advocates have been gaining ground. Compromise is not required to make it possible. This is the cry of the anti-gun crowd.

As for the cake point, what you fail to realize is that those federal legislation were reasonable. Lets just put road blocks in place to prevent it from happening again. Something like if National reciprocity is changed, then the background checks are no longer law. Vice versa too.

Problem solved.

All you have here is a rather fantastic combination of crystal-ball projections, and opinions stated as fact.

You seem way to supportive of an "assault weapons" ban. Why is that? Your proposal of what you call a compromise seems like nothing more than a desperate attempt to sell an idea that is already failing throughout most of the country. Aren't you a little late to the party? I remember seeing this raised and quickly dismissed as far back as December.

[DClan]

When only one side is giving up something they already have, and the otherside is bargaining with something they haven't done, that's not compromise, that's blackmail.
You give us this or we're going to do this =criminal act.

Their version of compromise is just prettied up blackmail, used as a steppingstone to further infringement. If you give up this right, then we'll give you this right ( that is already yours but they wont allow ). That's like someone robbing your house and then selling you back your stolen stuff, either way, you lose.

No compromise, no deals, no infringement, period.

[Tomcat088]

I'm with the others, that's a big "hell no" to your compromise. I travel a LOT, more than most people, and it's not even close to worth it to me to have to deal with national reciprocity. I dang sure am not willing to accept the stuff you're talking about.

What people don't realize is this is just a bunch of people tugging on the leash, or what people would call line stepping. They're gonna pull, and step until they finally get the shit kicked out of them and people finally stand up and say "NO MORE!" They've been doing it for a long time, and they're still doing it now. It's all in the name of some political correctness bullshit, and the stigma of being "unwilling to compromise" that has been ingrained by the educational system and society. All this crap has already gone too far and is infringing on the Constitution. If you don't like this country and the Constitution, then you don't have to be here and are more than welcome to go to some other country and already has in place the stupid crap that they are pushing for. None of it is cutting edge or progressive, it's the crap that patriots fought hard for and shed blood to GET RID OF. All of these people pushing for all this crap are just spitting in our faces and calling most people's bluff. Until people stand up and said, "hell no, that's enough, we're not going to take it anymore," nothing will be different. Screw all this, this is one of the biggest trolling posts that I've seen in a while. Good day to you.

[gummy jones]

bend over willingly and we will only put the tip in...just for a second

[Domari_Nolo]

I own 2! A DPMS and Bushmaster. Everybody has one. Just grandfather them in.

Simple.

I'm kind of sick of this "I got mine" mentality. I don't have any children, but if and when I do, I want them to have the rights that they were naturally owed. I want my grand-children to have the same. My sister just had her first, and I'm already worrying that he will live in the shadow of tyrannical, over-stepping government. When the Founding Fathers fought for their freedom from the oppression of the Monarchy, they not only set themselves up to be free but also put in place a system that would hopefully guarantee the same freedom to all for ages to come.

As for your idea of compromise, I'm thinking quite the opposite. I'm sick of "defending" my rights time and time again only to continue to loose them little by little. I say we go on the offensive and start taking back those that we have already lost.

[Justin]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Selling out the rights of another man for your own benefit is detestable, and should be punishable by federal law.

OP, as you've decided what rights others should and should not have and feel that it's ok to force your demented values on to them, you should be rewarded in kind with a one way ticket to a country where that sort of thing is the rule of the land.