What would make right-wingers support gun control?
By vonMesser | March 30, 2018 | Uncategorized
I came across this on QUORA the other day and felt it needed to be shared everywhere.

The question was: ‘WHAT WOULD MAKE RIGHT-WINGERS SUPPORT GUN CONTROL?”

It was answered, by, among several others, a gentleman named Paul Feist, who is an NRA instructor, NRA Life Member, Gun Collector, Competitive Shooter, and Author. Here is his response, and it is one of the best answers to the Gun Control mob I have read in a long time:

Several things would help your (the left side of the American political aisle) case.

First – it would be very nice if you could ask the question without the politically charged epithet “Right-wingers”. Unless you would like the answer to contain “liberal nazi goons”, which also sets a negative tone and doesn’t further a useful discussion – avoid this sort of language.

Let me give you some positive ideas to consider;

Genuine Compromise

Since National Firearms Act of 1934, the anti-gun side has considered “compromise” to be “Give us some of what we want now, free, and we’ll come take the rest later”.

Here’s a radical idea – How about you offer something WE have wanted for a long time? I can think of two things – National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, and the removal of the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.

No tricks, no adding rider amendments to pull those out at the last minute, at 2am before a Senate vote… an actual, genuine offer.

Now, to be honest, those of us who have been following the debate for 40-ish years wouldn’t buy it. We’ve seen it before. Any gun control bill of any kind with any sort of actual compromise in it gets re-written at the last minute before the vote to remove any provisions that might interest the pro-gun side in voting for it – hoping that it would get enough votes to pass anyway.

You wonder why the pro-gun side is so steadfast against any form of legislation? Well, that’s because we’ve never ONCE seen a bill that ONLY does what the proponents say it does. Ban “armor piercing ammo”? Sounds reasonable… except it was written to ban virtually any ammunition of any design – on purpose. Even the generally positive “Firearms Owners Protection Act” of ’86 got that little “gotcha” slipped in to take the rate of crime from lawfully possessed fully automatic weapons from ZERO point ZERO percent, to.. what exactly was the point of that? Since 1934, NOT ONE SINGLE CRIME had ever been committed with a lawfully tax-stamped full auto weapon. Not one. And yet, the Hughes Amendment closed the registrations for them for law abiding citizens.

You’ve screwed us enough times we’re not buying into it any more. Our shields are up, and we’re not believing you any more when you offer “compromise”.

You want us to consider a few things? Show us you’re not just trying to tighten the noose on all firearms ownership. Compromise – for real this time.
Prove it will work here, now, in the 21st Century America.

You can point to different cultures, like Japan, or Europe, or the UK, or Australia – guess what: we’re not any of those places.

Show us how disarming law-abiding citizens will make a statistically significant difference in the overall violence in this country. Don’t cherry pick the data – show us how the number of people killed with hammers (which is more than those killed with rifles) is going to change with a particular law and you might just be shocked when we voice support for it.

You see, MY AR-15 has harmed no one. Nor will it ever. You need to make a pretty strong case that me giving up MY rifle is going to affect anything.
You also need to show me how my more accurate, longer range, bolt action rifle is not “next up” on your agenda. That again is going to be a long hard road for you to regain that trust – we’ve seen it before. One thing gets banned, then within DAYS, you’re looking for something else.

Don’t give us that bullshit about how “we banned gun violence research”. We did no such thing. We stopped the CDC from actively seeking gun control legislation. If you don’t recognize the difference between doing research which is, and has always been, perfectly legal for the CDC to do, and pushing a political agenda from a bully pulpit with tax dollars – then we really don’t have any common ground for discussion.

Accept that the Second Amendment is a RIGHT, and an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

We get it. You want to ban all guns. You’ve been saying it for more than 50 years. “We’ll ban this now, and ban everything else later!”. Yeah, that’s why we oppose unequivocally each and every one of your “little steps” towards that.

If you really want responsible gun ownership, and gun safety, then you’re going to have to accept that the second amendment exists, and that it means what the Founding Fathers said it means in their other writings. It’s an individual right. And it shall not be infringed.

You want to talk about improving mental health reporting? Felony reporting? Keeping criminals from purchasing firearms? Improved background checks?

It’s real simple – Accept that these are not just a “step towards banning guns”.

Don’t talk out of one side of your face saying “Oh, yeah, I’m a hunter, and I think people should be able to own hunting guns”, while supporting banning handguns, etc.

Accept that a free country, with free citizens, is based upon The People having arms for their own defense, defense against a tyrannical government (heaven forbid it should ever come to that – believe it or not, gun rights supporters do NOT want to overthrow the government, we just want to be certain that the government is never overthrown from within and can act with impunity against the People…), AND hunting, target shooting, etc.
If the political left were unequivocal and vocal about that, and backed it up by stopping support for any legislation that infringed upon that – you would be flabbergasted by how fast we could work together on legislation that improved how we conduct background checks, track felons, and keep firearms out of the hands of those adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Until then – we know (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) well you’re going to load any such bills with little “Gotcha’s” that classify wanting to own a firearm as a “mental disorder”.

Don’t say you won’t, we’ve seen it happen in the early 90’s – it’s in the Congressional Record. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.

Finally;

Let’s have a talk about whether you want to reduce crime or just “ban guns”.
You want to reduce crime? (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman), so do we! I’ll bet that with all of 20 minutes of discussion, we could come up with 20 ways to reduce crime, and violence, that have nothing to do with banning guns.

You want to reduce crime? Let’s talk about education, prison reform, and maybe have a long talk about how we treat ex-cons in this country (often leaving them (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) little choice but to return to crime, because virtually no jobs or job training is open to them).

If you just want to “ban guns”, the conversation is going nowhere – and you know that.

Understand and accept what the National Rifle Association is, and isn’t.
The NRA is an association of its millions of members. It is not a trade association, and it’s not a “think tank lobbying organization”. And it’s not a “Firearms Industry Lobby” (that’s the NSSF).

The NRA is between five and seven million gun owners that, of their own choosing, pay their membership dues to support the NRA and it
s subsidiary organization, the NRA-ILA.

When you say “stop the NRA” – you’re not talking about a faceless corporate lobbying group – you’re talking directly to me, a life member, and when you call the NRA murderers? You’re calling me a murderer.

You cannot insult me into agreeing with you. In fact, I have a very long memory. I was called, to my face, a murderer for being a gun owner back in the early 90’s. That was when I put down the first payment on my Life Membership.

Recognize that I am not a criminal. I am not mentally incompetent. I do not have a “gun fetish”. I am a citizen that has committed no crime, threatened no person, and enjoys collecting and shooting firearms for competition, sport, and keeps a couple for self defense in full accordance with the law. Attacking me, personally, or by association, will not serve your goals – it will turn me into an active voter and campaigner against you.

I will not forget, and I will not forgive, past transgressions, insults, and lies directed against me and my fellow gun owners. If you want my cooperation, you need to begin by making amends – then, maybe, we can work together to solve the problems you say you want to solve.

You work on those five points. Then we can have an honest, genuine, conversation about how to reduce crime and violence in 21st century America.

Unfortunately, it is my belief that the “left” does not want to have any sort of reasonable or ligical, oe genuine discussion. They want to dictate.

Wow. Read this top to bottom and then tell me why you're not an NRA member.

Lot of common sense in there

Bottom line is compromise.

Good read but half our government will read it and tear it up as like it says it don't fit their agenda on taking our guns.

The question should be directly asked on why they are so bent on taking our guns?

It's not crime or worry of safety for the kids as facts show there are lot more dangerous things out there. So why are they so bent on taking the guns?

Is it for control and some day they can turn us communism without us having a way to defend ourselves?

I don't mind compromise. What the left demands is complete CAPITULATION under the guise of compromise!

As the writer points out, the "compromise" proposed thus far is just incremental creep in only one direction.

Pete

Exactly !


Show me again where/when "compromise" has ever resulted in MORE liberty.

No compromise. Not on this.

very well said

I have a compromise
first lets compromise that an adult is anyone who has reached 12:01 am on the date of their 18th birthday for those born on February 29th "leap year" 12:01 am March the first since they will not turn 18 on a leap year. thus all reporting must report minors as minors and adults as adults.

there now you know when an adult becomes and adult you need to plan accordingly to meet that dead line and have your children ready for that change to adult.

how about another compromise if it is not possible to determine if the shooting took place at 11:58 pm or 12:02 am on either the eve of adult-hood or the morning of adult-hood we will split the difference if the person was shot not in the commission of a crime they may be counted as a minor but if the person was shot or was the shooter and was in the commission of the crime they should have known they were approaching adult hood and the risks and responsibility that are associated with that by 10pm on the eve of adulthood.

next up, no injury or death resulting from firearms discharge can be counted as an accident if the person shot or shooter was in the commission of a crime or involved with controlled substances trafficking.

going to give big time on this one legalize medically assisted suicide , clearly people are concerned about the dangers of firearms suicide but since a significant number of firearms suicide are adult Men who are already terminally ill how about medically assisted suicide after all we want to reduce the danger.

inner cities seem to generate a unusually disproportionate number of shootings per-capita , how about we authorize Urban firearms safety and Marksmanship education grants from the pitman-roberts monies if training includes live fire marksmanship training for participants 12 and older.

I am sure I can find a few more compromises I can live with , I will think about it.

No more compromising. You never gain a thing. We always lose.

Yup done and dusted. not one more inch

"rightwingers" are already supporting gun control. been several good ol boy dyed in the wool redneck trappers on this site say insta check , full auto licensing, concealed carry licensing, no direct mail order, age limits, and criminals who have been released from custody disallowed their rights, are all good things.

This is true.

As a side note to Missourians, here is a real second amendment advocate running for U.S. Senator as a republican. He was a Libertarian presidential primary candidate in 2016. Austin Peterson.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-...aign=user-share

The federal laws as they exist are pretty workable from my point of view. The gun free school zone law could go away but I am exempt from it in Kansas....I am also able to by pass instacheck at a ffl if they allow that as per Kansas law. Still have to fill out the paperwork but it does not get called in.

All in all I am happy.

Two in favor of firearms freedom, eh? you're OK so to heck with others? And I guess you are "right wing". I think this is what I talked about the other day. I'm not picking on you Marty because you are pretty much the example of Tman gun control enablers.

I certainly am happy with the freedoms I have in Kansas. Never said to heck with others...the federal laws are really not a big issue at the moment. That's my opinion. If you live in Kansas and want to be able to carry in gun free zones and avoid the instacheck call in then get a ccl. Simple.

full auto controls, instacheck are not going anywhere so I just accept it as it exists. Here we can carry concealed without ccl. I do not think a rapist/murderer that has been released form prison should be able to go and buy/possess a gun legally....guess I am anti gun...

If you want to hold up a copy of the second amendment and say this means absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership go ahead. Personally I do not feel the restrictions in place in the state that I live in are very adverse. If your state is not similar then you have the option to move.

If you want to go on the white house tour carrying a full auto ready to fire your not a realist. Just my opinion, but it is based on reality.

If you like your infringement, you can keep your infringement.

Thanks, finn..

I appreciate that.

I agree murderers and rapists are dangerous. I would prefer those that escape the death penalty get life. A real life sentence. No parole. Dangerous people don't really care how many laws they break including the one that says they cannot be armed

I would prefer that I was rich and handsome.