Let's see, do you realize how unintelligent and backwoods mandatory training to exercise a right and believing that libs are going to compromise makes you sound?
You're a classic BUTTER.
"I support the Second Amendment BUT..."
Whalen v Handgun Permit Review Board Appeal Brief Filed
- Thread starter Bigfoot21075
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Let's see, do you realize how unintelligent and backwoods mandatory training to exercise a right and believing that libs are going to compromise makes you sound?
You're a classic BUTTER.
"I support the Second Amendment BUT..."
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,252
Want to exercise your 1st Amendment ? Just take this training, and get your Free Speech License to make sure you don't use any hate language, or use trigger words .
danb
dont be a dumbass
I don't support mandatory training, I think that the evidence is that its unnecessary.
That said, the first thing that Congress did after the Bill of Rights was adopted was pass a bill in 1791 or 1792 (The Militia Acts).... attempting for force states to institute mandatory training for all able bodied males. So, mandatory training is perfectly consistent with the original scope of the 2nd Amendment. If you bet that a conservative Justice would strike mandatory training as unconstitutional, based on the scope, text, and history of the 2nd Amendment... you will very highly lose that bet.
That said, the first thing that Congress did after the Bill of Rights was adopted was pass a bill in 1791 or 1792 (The Militia Acts).... attempting for force states to institute mandatory training for all able bodied males. So, mandatory training is perfectly consistent with the original scope of the 2nd Amendment. If you bet that a conservative Justice would strike mandatory training as unconstitutional, based on the scope, text, and history of the 2nd Amendment... you will very highly lose that bet.
See any Liberal Arts university for examples of compromise and tolerance. Particularly those with identified Free Speech Zones...
We had mandatory firearms training when we had a draft. Of course, that was before the kinder and gentler DoD, Inc.
danb
dont be a dumbass
right. Your Selective Service card says that .gov can make firearms training mandatory, along with a bunch of other training and a
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,252
The CMP, and predecessor NBPRP, etc served the larger National purposes , by supporting / making available Voluntary instruction and support of Marksmanship .
Actually, you have to pay for your haircut
roadking
Active Member
There’s a great op/Ed piece in the weekend’s WSJ discussing how - in its push for (cultural) diversity - academia is actually stifling diversity of thought and ideas.
Btw, don’t confuse the liberal in Liberal Arts with the political left. While it’s certainly evolved that they are in lock step, a liberal Arts degree does not necessarily educate you in leftist ideology. Although I’ll admit many professors do try. But that’s not the actual definition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
roadking
Active Member
Jesus. Toddler logic. “I’m not giving one of my candies until Billy dos first!” It’s called compromise. And it’s obviously a novel idea that neither side is trying. Both sides budge. But someone has to make the first suggestion. Since their side’s first suggestion is always “outlaw all guns” I would think taking a different approach might be worth pursuing. But what do I know? I’m looking for ways to resolve the issue, not destroy the opposition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,252
Compromise = Both sides gain and loose
Anti- BOR proposals = Ok , you don't get anything, but we'll only screw you half as much this time .
Actual Hypothetical Compromise = UBC in exchange for Nationwide Con Carry , with NO carve outs or grandfathered restrictions .
Anti- BOR proposals = Ok , you don't get anything, but we'll only screw you half as much this time .
Actual Hypothetical Compromise = UBC in exchange for Nationwide Con Carry , with NO carve outs or grandfathered restrictions .
If you are new to this, it is understandable where you are coming from if you have not read up on the history of gun control. Most here don't see it as compromise because they have seen first hand the same groups of people come back year after year asking for more restrictions each time. That is not compromise; it is the deliberate strategy of incrementalism. That strategy is working towards an end goal that is sometimes revealed by the anti gun people such as in Peter Curran's paper that he called "A Farewell To Arms". Please read it as it describes deliberate incrementalism along with deliberate cultural shifting to get society to reject 2A rights. It is linked in a sticky thread on this website.
A good case study of this is Maryland's Montgomery County Delegate Kathleen Dumais. Year after year she introduces further firearms restrictions. Her rhetoric each time contains some form of "We are only asking for...." It is all recorded so you can fact check it if you want. At the federal level legislators like Diane Feinstein who said if she had the votes she would tell "Mr. and Mrs. America" to turn them all in. That is on video all over the internet.
These people calling for compromise come to the table with no genuine interest in stopping with what they are asking for at the moment. In their more genuine moments they openly state that they do have a strategy of incrementalism. Over the years gun owners have foolishly heeded the public shaming tactic of "being reasonable" and giving in to "compromise" and have been subject to increasing infringements with no compromise given in return. It is foolish to allow that smart people like Kathleen Dumais are not doing this intentionally.
Lastly, it is an enumerated, constitutional right. No compromise is needed for such a thing.
Last edited:
Mike OTDP
Ultimate Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 3,324
Yup. We don’t get offered a compromise, merely terms of surrender. A real compromise might get traction.
THIS. In every gun control legislation passed, there has been no compromise. (The only possible exception to this might be the GCA of 86 when we got FOPA.
Passing watered down legislation that still has gun control is NOT compromise because our side never gains anything in return.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,252
FOPA started out actually as an improvement on purpose . The Anti-gun Rep William J Hughes introduced his Amendment 777 , probably intending it to be a Poison Pill to block the FOPA entirely . The Amendment was " approved" is a disputed Voice Vote by Acting Chair Charles Rangel D-NY .
Were you born yesterday? There has only been compromise on one side, using that term loosely. It's been more of a taking. There is nothing left to give up IMHO. Semi-autos are next. Standard capacity magazines, bump sticks, binary triggers also out. I sense my Browning Auto-5 is next.
Maybe you should head over to another board to pontificate dismantling of our 2A rights.
Raineman
On the 3rd box
To add...With UBC's being able to be performed by an individual through a no fee, open to the public access NICS website. No FFL needed, No registration. Penalties to Government agencies/employees for not reporting necessary information to NICS. No bans, no waiting periods.
With over 20K members on this board are you wondering why you're the only one banging this drum?
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Raineman
On the 3rd box
Republican definition of compromise = "give in"
Democrat definition of compromise = "demand everything, take only 1/2 of it to appear amicable, rinse, repeat until everything attained, while laughing that we got twice what we wanted and saying we compromised"
(Sorry, off topic)
Democrat definition of compromise = "demand everything, take only 1/2 of it to appear amicable, rinse, repeat until everything attained, while laughing that we got twice what we wanted and saying we compromised"
(Sorry, off topic)
This already exists. The requirement was enshrined in administrative law when the USAF failed to report the nut case that shot up the Texas church before being put down.
Enforcement, however, is an ENTIRELY different story.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (6 Viewers)- Latest: pcfixer
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (9 Viewers)
- Started by Tool
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
-
