search
top

Compromise

Apparently it means you can have single shot weapons. That’s what all intelligent people would agree on, after all. Personally, I’d be happy to compromise on it being completely proper and constitutional to have restrictions on carrying pistols for the purpose of dueling. That’s a compromise I can live with.

15 Responses to “Compromise”

  1. MAgunowner says:

    “The founding fathers never imaged a 31-clip semi-automatic handgun, which a deranged person can legally obtain.”

    I do not take this writer seriously.

  2. Jake says:

    There is little doubt the founders intended Americans to keep and bear arms. That right is detailed in the Second Amendment, the key word being amendment. It was not part of the original document ratified in 1788 by 39 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were not enacted until 1791. The argument that the right to bear arms is constitutionally sanctioned and cannot be repealed ignores the legislative process which bestowed the right in the first place.

    Wow. He likes to ignore the inconvenient bits of history, doesn’t he?

    I wonder how he’d react if we turned that around?
    “The argument that the right to a free press is constitutionally sanctioned and cannot be repealed ignores the legislative process which bestowed the right in the first place.”

    He’d probably go Librarian-poo on anyone who tried that argument.

  3. David says:

    I wonder how much huff and puff pro would be into a debate on limiting free speech, or the right to be secure in your papers? I’m betting those are things that are not open for their discussion.

  4. Wes says:

    A HuffPo link. Oh God. I mouse over them and try not to even click on them anymore. The majority of people there are simply space cadets.

  5. DirtCrashr says:

    “The argument that the right to a free press is constitutionally sanctioned and cannot be repealed ignores the legislative process which bestowed the right in the first place – and the fact that the current Administration is actively working to minimize that right via a number of non-legislative processes, including working with the FCC to control content, and to develop an Internet “Kill-Switch” to render 1st amendment materials moot.
    Not to mention the other various inconvenient legislative processes that the Administration has simply chosen to ignore or not uphold.

  6. Wow, a pistol that feeds from multiple magazines? What would be the point if it only had one barrel and one trigger?

  7. MicroBalrog says:

    I for one am in full support of legalizing dueling.

  8. Chas says:

    “Weapons laws in this nation need to be changed. When Burr killed Hamilton there was just one shot available in the gun.”

    Markie Marxist sez: “He’s jumping the gun and tipping our hand at the same time! We need to get to a ten-round limit first, and then later on we can ratchet it down to six, and then one, and then none. The most important thing is to get a limit in place. We can change the number later.”

  9. armed_partisan says:

    I, for one, would support the single-shot only imagining of the right to bear arms if the following were true:
    1) It could be carried anywhere, at anytime: Schools, Airplanes, Gov’t Buildings, Presidential Speeches, Nuclear Power Plants, ANYWERE.
    2) No permit could ever be required, ever.
    3) No prohibition on ownership of any kind or for any reason could be considered acceptable, including limitations on age. Someone who’s been tried for treason or is guilty of a felony would still be allowed to carry.
    4) No prohibitions on type, length, OAL, caliber, gauge, or lethality could ever be imposed. If want to walk around with a single shot .50 cal, or a saw’d off 12 gauge, that’s not only my business, that’s my right.
    5) No limitations on the amount of ammo one can carry. Just me and my two bandoleers of 12-gauge buckshots and slugs today. No baggage to check.
    6) No limitations on the mode of carry. Open, concealed, brandishing, all must be permitted.
    7) No taxes on, or other financial limitations of any kind may be put onto manufacturers, distributors, retailers, etc.
    8) Shipping through USPS is permitted and given a special flat rate, like media mail.

    Unless they want the following things above to be true, as they most certainly were during the age of the founding fathers, then they can STFU. Until the late 19th century, ANY kind of prohibition that we all have been programed to consider “reasonable” and normal would have been met with appalled alarm by the men and women of the founding generation. Every school child had a gun, and would be allowed to take it to school with him. Had they had airplanes, they would have considered it only right and proper that arms be carried aboard. You wanna talk about original intent, the 8 things I have listed above are the original intent.

  10. PT says:

    There are a lot of single shot .50 BMG and 20mm weapons.

    I doubt that’s part of their compromise.

    More like single shot .22 short, locked and disassembled at the police station and available for use between 2am-4am on every third tuesday at the approved gun ranges.

    Oh and ammo is $10 a shot

  11. Sebastian says:

    Sounds like some common sense reasonable gun laws to me!

  12. Billll says:

    A 105mm howitzer is a single shot weapon you know.

  13. Pop N Fresh says:

    I notice that comments supporting the writer often accuse the “right” of violent symbolism/rhetoric/ideas without any thought of the outright hatred and verbal diarrhea spewing from “left” calling for violence or using the same metaphors while getting some kind of magic exception

  14. Kurt P says:

    Single shot weapons- so nobody can shoot more than one person before reloading.
    I can’t see how anyone could get around that logic.

    http://www.piratebrethren.com/articles/weaponrigs/weaponrigs01.html

  15. Stretch says:

    I think Congress would be much more interesting if Bladensburg Dueling Grounds were still open.

top