Full Circle

So Tam has picked up my recent post on Joan Peterson, and she talks about actual compromises that I suspect she doesn’t much care for, but are indeed compromises.

Sebastian indeed has openly contacted several people in the anti-gun world about a licensing and background check idea and his response has been nothing.

Sebastian does have a point. His ideas can be seen to fail the Jews in the Attic Test, I’d be fine just to have a mark on everybody’s driver’s license denoting prohibited person status. Doesn’t matter if you own guns or not (just the same way that most states issue a different license to those who are over 21 for the purpose of alcohol consumption…drink or no drink, your ID says weather you have the choice or not). You buy a gun, you flash your DL and you walk out with the gun. (Also FYI this might wake some people up to the bullshit laws that will take your rights away)

You get caught faking your ID, you face serious charges.

Now ideally in Weer’d World buying a gun shouldn’t be any different than buying a pocket knife or a power saw. Buy it out of the trunk of a car from Sumdood himself, who cares, because misusing the gun (or anything else) is the important part….also a lot more people being armed around mean if you decide to do something stupid or bad you could get your ass shot.

But that’s a compromise. Compromise is NOT what they want. These people want the same “Compromise” the Palestinian people want. They want to kill all the Jews, and then they’ll probably start sharpening their scimitars for the Christians etc. The anti-gun people want to ban ALL GUNS, and then look to ban knives. These are the people who are excited when some commie said they wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

When they talk about licensing they aren’t thinking a New Hampshire carry permit where they just double-check your background and give you a card, they’re thinking Chicago style permitting where they require a permit to OWN a gun and they close the registry after a while so no new gun owners, and eventually the old guard dies and private gun ownership is over.

When they talk about universal background checks they aren’t talking about popping down to your corner gun shop to set up a transfer (and maybe the guy at the shop is your buddy, or sees you come in to buy a few boxes of ammo every week or new guns so he waives the fee) they’re talking about Mexico-Style where you may need to board a PLANE to get to travel thousands of miles to the ONE shop, go through a TSA-style screen to ENTER the shop, and when you get in there you get to see a selection of guns that makes the bullshit Massachusetts system look lavish. (Just to give you an idea, .380 Auto, and .38 Super are the most popular handgun calibers in Mexico because calibers like 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, and .38 Special are “Military and Police Calibers” and illegal for civilians to own), and the article doesn’t say, but I know the ONE GUN SHOP in Washington DC (which doesn’t actually SELL guns, he just signs for the package from another FFL and then transfers the gun to you…and you need to make an appointment because he doesn’t have shop hours) charges $150 just for the transfer. With one shop in the nation, and given that this asshole charge $150 for literally NOTHING (The shops around here charge between $20 and $50, but they have a shop, rent, insurance, and employees, and I can just show up during business hours and get the job done) who’s to say $500 just to call the NICS line is unreasonable?…$1000?

They don’t actually want to talk compromise because in any compromise situation lawful people get to own guns. They don’t want that, so we get the responses we do.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Full Circle

  1. Dragon says:

    Tennessee already does that, to an extent…

    The TN Department of Safety issues Driver Licenses.

    TN Dept of Safety also issues Carry Permits.

    The ID Number on the carry permit is the same as your DL number. The two are inexorably linked in the TN Dept of Safety database.

    WHich makes me wonder why, if the ID Numbers are identical, they just don’t put the info on your DL, much like your Motorcycle Endorsement is on your DL, or your Commercial Truck enodorsement, etc….

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I’d go a step further the same idea that I can drive a compact car, I can drive a pickup truck, I can drive an SUV, I can drive a small moving truck, all with the same driver’s license, and I can choose either standard or automatic transmissions for all of them (despite taking my driver’s test on my Mom’s ’96 Taurus). Just have ownership and carry be an option on the license that nobody needs to specifically request, but it CAN be denied due to various legal issues.

      I’m very much for constitutional carry, but if we MUST jump through such hoops, let it be done automatically when we turn 21, and taken away only when we fuck up.

      • Braden Lynch says:

        I would say 18.

        If you are an adult in the eyes of the law, can get married, and are eligible to be drafted, then your ability to own a firearm is really not a big deal.

        I can hear “OMG, but the college students will be shooting each other! They’re so immature at that age.” Well, some do misuse firearms at this age now anyway. However, some who are 18 do get robbed, raped or killed, so why 21? The drinking age thing?

        • Weerd Beard says:

          I 100% agree. I was just making a brief thumbnail, given that the antis are NOT interested in allowing us MORE freedom in any sense. So if they take real-deal compromise off the table, we’ll just push forward with constitutional carry, repeal of the NFA, full interstate commerce of handguns, among other things.

          I was just giving an example of what these people are walking away from which would accomplish many of their stated goals.

          ….and pointing out that their stated goals are lies, as they just want to ban guns and couldn’t care less about violent crime, Second Amendment rights, or even “Sporting” use of firearms.

          • Braden Lynch says:

            Well said. You’re right about the idea that the over arching idea of gun ownership should be inclusive of its various incarnations (we should not bother to distinguish between an 18 inch barrel for a shotgun and a 14 inch barrel to build on your drivers license and car theme).

            If I ever drive DUI and kill someone, take away my license and put me in prison! However, do not prevent me from driving because I might drink a beer someday and there might be a car within 100 meters of me. That’s similar to their method of dealing with the icky gun issue. [No permits, no gun ownership, no problem…right!]

  2. Bubblehead Les says:

    I thought the Mexicans just called up the ATF and got all the Guns they wanted for free.

  3. Joe in PNG says:

    One gun shop? Technically, in PNG we have two, but I was never able to find or get in touch with the second one when I lived in that town.

  4. There is also the question I have. Why compromise with people who are getting their asses kicked? You compromise when you can’t win. We are winning. I want Unconditional Surrender.

  5. Linoge says:

    And the flip side of the coin Sean threw out there is that that is exactly what the “gun control” extremists want from us when they say say want “compromise” – they want our unconditional surrender.

    As usual, our opponents are either willfully ignorant of the definitions of words, or maliciously misappropriate them to their own disgusting desires.

    No, I do not want a “compromise” with those who would deprive me of my rights, just like I do not want a “comrpomise” with those who would deprive me of my life. I am not ashamed of this, and, in fact, revel in it :).

    • Braden Lynch says:

      Hear, Hear! [Thunderous Applause]

      I will not compromise on my RKBA. I will not compromise on my right to free speech. I will not compromise on my ability to practice my religion. There is no special distinction between the enumerated rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights. They are for individual citizens and they tell the government what it cannot do, or what it must permit. It’s not complex and it does not require a law degree to understand.

      I am not a slave, I am not a serf, I am not a drone, rather, I am a law-abiding, decent, honorable, God-fearing man. Those that would seek to disarm me are therefore not my friends and are the enemies of liberty. Molon Labe!

  6. Larry says:

    In comments on Sebastian’s post about licensing MikeB stated “The proposal is to restrict and control the actions of the law-abiding…” blah blah blah.
    This is all I need to know about their “ideas” of “compromise”.

  7. John Hardin says:

    I’d be fine just to have a mark on everybody’s driver’s license denoting prohibited person status.

    I like that idea. It helps with FtF private sales, too.

    Weer’d, are you going to get comment preview?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.