Summing up the Gun Control “Compromise”

Pretty accurate summary:

Gun Control Compromise

14 comments

Leave Comment
  1. Joe Roos

    This coming from a well educated shot that has been shown on a national stage. Very well written and exactly the point of ANY gun regulations being enacted. ANYTIME that you bring up the 2nd amendment, it’s “for hunting” and not protection from tyranny. Which that’s one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment. If the citizens are not armed with the same powerful weapons as the military, there is not a chance for the people to uprise against the government. It’s like fighting a war against the US Military with rocks and sling shots, and they have the present weapons in place. Just doesn’t work.

  2. Ethan wut?

    I for one applaud the idea that the American people should be armed at a parity level with the US military to allow for civil uprisings. I can’t wait to see privately owned stealth capable jet fighters and main battle tanks start popping up in my neighbor’s garages once the dastardly gun control laws are rolled back by us real God fearing Americans.

    • Patrick

      Of course, privately owned main battle tanks and jet fighters exist all over the US including states like California. In fact there is a privately owned cruise missile submarine in San Diego. You haven’t heard of them because you haven’t really researched the issue. That is often the problem with this particular debate.

  3. lilmookie

    Except that as technology progresses and evolves the nature of the cake changes. If people were still using the same guns as in 1934 the political situation would be much different.

    That said, I think the entire argument is flawed.

    The problem, as I see it, is a rural/urban services issue. Rural communities have entirely different gun laws/needs than urban areas and state/federal legeslation treats them under the same sweeping brush.

    I’m pro gun control in, for example, in NYC where you should be able to call the police and have them respond (in theory at least) rapidly.

    Yet, I’m totally in favor of a total ban on gun control in more rural areas. Hey, if it’s on your farmland, and you want to fire an RPG at a haystack, go for it! At the same time, there are situations where you can’t call 911 and reasonably expect the police to come rapidly, and in that sense, you need to be able to defend yourself, hunt, what-have-you.

    So the real problem, as I see it, stems from trying to use the same sweeping state/federal legislation over two entirely different environments- which has boiled down into a “Guns Good/Guns bad” argument that has different answers/tolerances according to the environment the person is living in.

    • sum1strange

      Your argument is flawed. I happen to be a technology expert and you are definitely using context to suit a preconceived notion rather than using logic and evidence. The fact is that your big fundamentally flawed spew is missing the point. The above states the argument for a modern context on Gun RIGHTS and not technology and needs of urban vs sub-urbans. It seems to me that yet again I read another flaming liberal arguing about gun control as if Legal and illegal guns should be treated with the same scrutiny under the law. See for your self. Watch the next report about guns and the media does not differentiate between the two. If you cannot see that illegal guns are the ones that are causing the problems then you are being led by the nose to “sheeple” land. enjoy the grass.

    • BDub

      It may be too blunt to say, but your opening 2 sentences invalidate your entire argument by reveling your ignorance.

      There is no substantial difference in the firearms used in 1934 to any used today – not in technological terms, nor in usage terms. Some common use examples; Colt 1911 – semi automatic pistol, Browning Automatic rifle – select fire, box magazine, .30cal cartridge (Assault Rifle); Thompson sub-machine gun – drum or box magazine,.45cal full-auto; Auto5/Model11 – a semi-auto 12/20ga shotgun.

      I mention these specific examples because all of them are either semi-auto or full- auto guns ranging across all categories of use, and were produced in large numbers. All of their actions still exist ,relatively unchanged, in more modern firearms.

      As to the rest of your argument. The need, and hence the right, for self protection does not end at the city limits. In most cases it actually becomes more necessary and urgent. If there was any law you could pass that could guarantee that all crime against persons and all firearms would cease at the city limits, you probably wouldn’t find anyone to argue with you on your assertion – but that fantasy just doesn’t exist, and persisting in it just gets good people killed.

  4. Greg

    So what we need to do is go back to the way things were prior to the first compromise in 1934, right?

    Seems like an easy solution to me. We get rid of all gun control laws that have been passed since 1934, and replace all of them with one law that says that anyone/everyone can buy any gun or gun model that was made prior to 1934. All new models, weapons, and advances in gun technology that have happened since 1934 are 100% banned, since they weren’t part of the original “cake.”

    I have a feeling that the anti-gun crowd would actually be pretty happy with that, lol.

    • vb

      You know there were machine guns back then right? The very thing you are most afraid of in the world (hence all the falsely termed “Assualt” weapons bans). But keep believing in your dumb shit false reality while we keep pointing to the one document that makes us right over you – the constitution. Until that’s amended properly we will ALWAYS be right so shut the FUCK up.

    • Randy

      “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

      “The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

      “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

  5. Bryan

    Unfortunately, for all concerned, “tyranny” isn’t going to appear on the horizon with signs and fireworks and a big announcement. It’s here, and whittling away at our rights and deadening our sensitivity to our responsibilities. I hear a lot of talk about needing to be armed in parity with the military in order to secure our freedoms against tyranny, and then see myriad acts of tyranny against which there is no armed response.

    There will be no well-defined moment when this tyranny you’re all guarding against raises its ugly head and you can start shooting. It’s here, now, and you’ve failed to recognize it.

  6. duh duh

    Tyranny is already here, in DC. The letter of the “law” and the constitution, bill of rights not being followed. Osama is doing all the spelling with excutive orders and the sheeple can’t see. Just “axe” them. They are shout something FREE is a neutral gift received.

  7. rico567

    It’s not so elaborate as this cartoon suggests, and the cartoon is missing one element: in herding livestock, it’s called “cutting out.” Once a person or some sub-group can be convinced that they will be allowed to do what THEY want, whether that’s sporting clays, duck hunting, or shooting at stale bagels at 3 miles with .17 cal. bloop guns, they are more likely to agree to anything else. And so it goes, until they’re all alone, and they come for their bloop guns. Only a blank refusal to compromise, an insistence that rights are rights BECAUSE they are beyond the control of government, constitutes a defensible position in this matter.