again, what is there to give up? or more importantly, what it is it you feel is so threatened that you require concessions to make it happen? i don't see any legislator on either side giving up a core constituency for a fringe exchange (i.e. -- cut PBS/NEA funding in exchange for limited capacity clips), so i'm not sure what is so dire about such a law passing that has you so fearful for your future as a gun advocate. i guess what i'm saying is: help me understand why clip size is so important to you that you are saying it requires a concession which has been a pet issue of the right for decades (the de-funding of NEA/PBS).

it's probably a lifetime of listening to republicans complain about PBS "pushing the homosexual agenda", or the NEA funding anti-American artists, or whatever the rage-du-jour is these days. I can agree in principle that a limit on magazine capacity is not going to deter mass shooters from going on a killing spree. what it is designed to do is limit the carnage they can inflict before having to reload. if the goal is to reduce the number of deaths caused by shootings, this is a small step that does not infringe on the 2nd amendment and has been proven to work in countries which impose a similar limit. i highly doubt it could pass on its own, and i'm suspicious of it passing at all, even in these days when more Americans want to see such restrictions passed at the federal level.

probably because in both cases -- CCW or first aid kit -- they are meant to be used in a reactionary way. i.e. -- after you are already in danger.

i think if such legislation passed, it would require a lot of wheeling and dealing to get the core of the law changed in any meaningful fashion. once we agreed to the principle of how it would work, i honestly don't see how it would be tweaked without some external pressure forcing it to be revisited. thankfully for everyone involved, i don't think there are enough powerful "anti-gun sorts" to be able to put riders on a bill which would discourage legitimate gun ownership. most of the gun control crowd are ok with responsibility on the part of gun owners, there are actually very few that i am aware of who want an outright ban. even the Brady Center is aware that people have the right to own guns, even if they want larger limits to ownership than you are willing to concede.

having gun training in schools runs into the problem of bringing guns into a school, and there are enough parents who would prefer not to have such a situation that i don't see how it could be standardized as a national/federal or even state level policy. i took my first gun safety class at age 10, but it was on an Army base where we could go directly to the range and demonstrate our knowledge in an environment which was designed for such a purpose. i don't see schools giving the green light for such a setup, although i could see creating some kind of after-school and/or weekend field trip for it.

as to mandatory testing: you are required to re-take your eye exam every couple of driver's license renewals. this is a pretty non-invasive way to make sure you are still legally able to properly operate a vehicle. surely such a simple requirement is not too onerous to CCW holders, or a similarly appropriate test administered to renew the license. if you like, we could make "hit the broad side of a barn" the actual renewal test. at least then the operator is able to demonstrate they can still handle their weapon properly and responsibly.

my personal view is that when something becomes such a problem that EVERYONE is quite literally affected by it, then individual freedom is reduced to preserve public safety. just as you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater because of the risk of injuring people on a mass scale, there is plenty of room under the 2nd amendment to take public safety into account. and it can be done without taking away anyone's guns, or putting draconian restrictions on access. if a link could be drawn between specific types of porn and criminal activity, then yes a restriction should be put in place to limit the creation or viewing of such porn. doing so should not violate the 1st amendment, but i am not a constitutional lawyer so i can't say that with any certainty.

also, most of the arguments coming from the right on the current proposed set of laws are the same ones that people once used to protest mandatory seat belt laws. "The numbers on preventable deaths is exaggerated"; "This limits my personal freedoms"; "This is another example of the nanny state".

yet, i highly doubt you get into a car without putting that seat belt on, and you probably don't even think twice about it, if you ever did. since the laws were established, car accident fatalities have gone down very steadily from their all-time high. but yet, we are not allowed to study ways to make guns safer to use, own and operate. the number of deaths by guns is reaching a point which requires us to act, but the right insists that everything is fine and we should just buy even more guns to make it all better. at some point America must grow up and take responsibility for its actions and agree that we have a need as a society to limit the dangers involved so that we can reduce the fatalities.

this is the ultimate goal of gun control laws: to limit fatalities as much as humanly possible. just as we have not eradicated murder or drug dealing with stricter laws and penalties, we will never fully stop people using guns to kill each other. but what we can do is to limit the access to guns for people who only want to kill someone with them, and also keep them out of the hands of people whose only reason for owning them is criminal in nature, or those who pose a danger to themselves and others because of their mental capacity/faculty.

and no doubt there are academic studies of how hammers are used, and ways to make them less injurious to their operators. similar studies for making guns safer to use and operate are not allowed under current federal laws, because they might be used to propose a law that could cause fewer guns to be bought.

that's all correct, but it still sidesteps the problem that we've made it incredibly easy for criminals to get guns that we don't think they should have. the fact that over 50% of all guns used in crimes can be traced back to roughly a dozen shops should tell us that our current policies are not working and we need to try something else.

the basic gist of the article is that it is too easy for rogue shops to stay in business. dealers who skirt the law and deliberately sell to questionable characters deserve their day in court. but it should also not take 2 years to determine whether or not a shop has broken (or bent) federal law, and it should not be possible for a shop to continue operations with the previously cited owner still having a hand in the daily operations. in theory, a bank president convicted of wire fraud will never work in the financial industry again. but a gun dealer with a record of selling to criminal elements is not only allowed to continue selling guns to criminals, he is not punished by being kept out of the business of the gun trade.

i think it helps me approach this idea of compromise if i understand why you think a compromise is required. i think my position is quite reasonable and does not put any kind of restriction on your freedoms, but you are telling me that you don't want your freedom restricted, so your arguments make little sense to what i think we're discussing. so, in all honesty and with all due respect, please help me understand why the following are so restrictive to your freedom to own a gun. i realize this post got kind of long, so if you feel the need to pick and choose a response to what i've said, this is the one i'm most interested in hearing about. please tell me why the following pose such a threat to your individual freedom to own a firearm that they require concessions and compromises:

• magazine capacity
• background checks for all purchases, no exceptions
• better enforcement of existing laws
• prosecution of gun dealers with a history of selling to criminals