Most liberals want gun control. Mostly on people other than themselves, but, I’ll ignore that for the moment. So, I’ll tell you what, in the spirit of compromise, here’s what I’ll offer:
- Reinstatement of the original 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
- Ban the manufacture, sale, and transfer of magazines higher than 1o rounds starting the date the legislation passes
- Require background checks on all weapons purchased at gun shows before the purchaser takes ownership of the weapon
- Ban private ownership of all automatic weapons
- A national 7 day waiting period for the purchase of all handguns (with a provision that in certain cases, such as someone who’s life is being threatened can get an immediate check and permit from law enforcement. Provided they pass the check)
In return I want
- Ban all late term abortions (except in real cases where the mother’s life is in imminent danger, and the doctor must legally sign off on a specific, and legally binding, form)
- Require parental notification for abortions for all women under 18
- Require parental consent for all under 16 (which could be over-ruled by a judge)
- Disallow all federal funding for abortion, including at Planned Parenthood. Want one? Pay for it yourself
- Require a 48 waiting period from the time a woman requests an abortion
I think that’s eminently fair, a nice compromise. What do you think?
Oh, and I’ll tell you what: I’ll also give you
- background checks on all gun purchases, including rifles and shotguns (if someone has had a background check on a purchase within the previous 2 years, they would not need to get another permit*)
And you give me
- Corporal punishment and “hard labor” for all convicted violent felons
Do we have a deal?
*For instance, here in Wake County one must go to the Sheriff’s office and pay for a background check and receive a permit for each handgun permit. I have two guns, so, two permits, two checks. I got the permit, then went to get a handgun in 2008. Then did it again early in 2012. Since I received a permit last year, if I wanted to get a Bushmaster .223 there would be no need for a check or permit.
Teach,
You usually quote articles and comment on them. This is an excellent piece of your own that makes the point.
Well done, sir.
Thanks, GC. Usually I just go old school blogging, rather than articles, but this started rattling around my brain after doing the second post this am. Personally I think they are all common sense which do not infringe on gun rights. Of course, the liberals over at Right Wing News aren’t thrilled by the abortion stuff.
The spirit and sentiment is reasonable, but the compromise is not.
This crap with the mass murders is not the fault of guns. It is not the fault of satanic rock music or violent video games.
Stuff like this is a result of liberal f-knuckles living their lives and parenting their kids as social experiments.
Most of these perps are from single parent homes where Mom is a modern, independent working woman with no time for her kids.
How about this for a comprimise: I will keep my guns – and if you leave me and my property alone…you won’t get shot.
That is the only deal I am prepared to make. As the old slogan goes – if you are coming to take my guns, you had damn well better bring yours.
Do a tit-for-tat.
If they want a return of the AWB, then we get a public list of those who WANT abortions and ban funding for them. Or, they can help subsidize gun purchases.
If they want to further limit gun ownership, then we further limit access to killing babies.
If they want a time-delay for gun purchase, then we impose a time-delay for child murder.
If they want to put permits on private sells of guns, then we ban all abortions.
If they want to ban semi-autos of any kind, then we limit death row cases to 3 appeals or 5 years, we re-impose work camps, impose 3 strikes and out, judicial review overseen by civilians, ANY law passed by 60% of vote can not be overrode by judges.
I agree with them all except maybe for this one:
I believe that the size restriction on magazines / clips depends a great deal on what side of the argument you are on. From my experience, people who want to control guns see higher capacity magazines as the ability to kill more people. People who are for less or no more control see a restriction as being able to defend oneself less.
In the case of Newtown and Aurora, the shooters came with multiple magazines. The size restriction would have no practical disruption of their plan. Instead of carry four 15 round magazines for 60 shots, they would carry 6 magazines with 10 rounds.
However, it is defender who is not walking around with multiple magazines that is limited.
The case of the woman in Georgia illustrates this point. The woman fired 6 times and even though she hit the intruder 5 times, he still escaped. While she used a revolver, the principle is still the same – she grabbed her loaded gun. She did not grab a loaded gun and additional ammunition or speed loaders. If the intruder was armed, he could have come in with a weapon and the ability to reload. The intruder and the murders set the terms of the engagement. Limiting magazine and clips limit the response, not the threat.
The Aurora shooter (I have adopted the policy of not giving these guys publicity and so won’t use their names) brought a 30 round magazine that jammed. It did not stop his killing spree because he was more than prepared to continue with killing using weapons with lesser capacity magazines because he had brought an overwhelming number of additional mags.
The people in the theater defending themselves didn’t bring more magazines.
As I said, I think the issue is whether one views larger capacity magazines enables the shooter or limits the defender.
Right now, I lean toward the defender being restricted and that bothers me. Anything that limits a person to defend themselves bothers me.
And for the record, I thought as you do that limiting magazine size was reasonable. After reading others and seeing what happened in GA and other situations where a gun was used in defense, I came to believe a ban on capacity won’t bother criminals, but will harm legal gun owners in the use of a weapon in self defense.
Just to be clear most of what I propose is comment sense (though the magazine size wouldn’t do much), and I do not think they violate the Constitution, as they do not stop people from owning guns. The 2nd doesn’t specify which guns.
Mostly, though, this was a liberal bait, especially for the Right Wing News liberals, who mostly responded as I expected. Liberals refuse to allow any changes to abortion, and weren’t willing to give up anything on abortion in exchange.
Limit magazine clips = limit # abortions
impose gun bans = impose abortion bans
“Magazine clips”??? LOL
Yeah, that’ll confuse ’em.
Hmmm, Maybe a sly, probative, written exam
for all gun buyers? Naw, that’s too rational.
Yeah, yeah yeah.. “magazine clips”.. my bad. was not paying attention.
How about a written exam for people wanting an abortion? We’ve already seen a push back on the ultrasound requirement.
yeah Teach do you openly carry at all times? Can’t wait to see you in the phone store with a Bushmaster slung on your back when you posted pics of backpacking can’t remember seeing a gun
Can’t wait to see you standing in front of your home with a sign saying “NO WEAPONS IN THIS HOME!”
[…] The Pirate’s Cove: A reasonable compromise on gun control […]
[…] never codified in the Constitution, that “right” is an “absolute.” Most liberals want gun control. Mostly on people other than themselves, but, I’ll ignore that for the moment. So, I’ll tell […]