Once again, only the civil rights camp is willing to compromise

I’m often assaulted with cries of “common sense” or “reasonable” gun “reform”….from the gun control cabal. The same cabal who, with a straight face, will claim that the pro-civil rights camp [2A] “won’t give an inch” or “compromise”. I easily and quickly counter with asking where the compromise is from the gun control camp. This of course, is met with obfuscation, deflection or outright silence.

I few days ago, I posted a proposal found at another pro-civil liberties blog, and today I find yet another, this one from The Truth About Guns, where TTAG reader Ian relates an online exchange, and yet another compromise proposal towards the gun control cabal:

I’ve been going back and forth with a gun control advocate on Facebook in the aftermath of the Umpqua Community College shooting. She wants us to #DoSomething, I ask what exactly more gun control will accomplish. She calls for universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons, and online ammo purchase limits. I point out the pointlessness of such things. I post cited facts, she ignores me. So goes the usual go-nowhere pro-gun/anti-gun “discussion.” But to prove that, contrary the chronic anti claim, gun owners aren’t unwilling to make compromises (just opposed to pointless and/or redundant laws and “compromise” that is nothing of the sort) I posted the following . . .
A proposal for a reasonable compromise on gun control

Pro-2A agrees to universal background checks with a statutory maximum on the fee for the check (say, $5).

Pro-gun control agrees to national concealed carry reciprocity, removing the NFA restrictions on short barreled rifles/shotguns, AOWs, and suppressors, and repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act.

Both sides agree to better fund enforcement of existing firearms laws, especially with regard to straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.

Since both sides already agree that the NICS background check system is broken, let’s fix that. As the system is (among other things) overworked, instead of restricting all felons, limit the check to violent felony convictions, wanted fugitives, firearms traffickers, and the mentally ill who have been properly judged to be a threat to themselves or others and/or mentally incompetent. This will also reduce the workload on the states and help to get reporting to the NICS system accomplished in a timely manner. And it preserves the right to due process as well as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Both sides agree that training with firearms and safe storage are important, so let’s work on that, too. Fund and expand the Civilian Marksmanship Program and subsidize the cost for safety and proficiency training. Provide subsidies and/or tax breaks toward buying gun safes, and promote and fund (rather than hindering) child safety programs like Eddie Eagle. Take advantage of gun owners’ enjoyment of shooting and the basic human nature to take advantage of a perceived deal to encourage training on an perpetual, ongoing basis (instead of one-time mandatory minimums).

Does that seem like a reasonable start?

And once again, while not entirely endorsing this proposal, I’m curious to know what both gun rights – and – gun control proponents think of this.

Additionally, my long standing [and never fulfilled] willingness to hear any compromise proposals from the gun control camp, still stands.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Once again, only the civil rights camp is willing to compromise

  1. I have no objections to background checks. If by your behavior you have disqualified yourself from any rational expectation that you could responsibly be armed, so be it.
    That said, the rest of us possess a positive right to keep and bear arms. As much as it pains me to say it, I’m beginning to be an old man with little assurance of my own safety beyond that of a .40 auto. I can’t go 10 rounds with a 20 something.

    Like

    • That’s exactly what the gun control crowd ignores, the equalizing factor of a firearm, for citizens who may not have comparable physical size and stature as a criminal conducting as assault. They conveniently ignore the prospective injuries and deaths resulting from a disarmed citizenry.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s