Is there room for compromise in gun rights vs gun control?

that is because the BM wants to ban legal gun ownership and punish law abiding gun owners. there is no room for compromise with such people

the second amendment was a compromise that went like this

The people won't use their weapons to overthrow a government as long as the government didn't infringe on the rights of the people

 

Yes, there is plenty of room for compromise in the gun rights vs gun control issue. It's the hard core extremists who want to impose their narrow views on everyone and who refuse to compromise that are responsible for the quagmire this issue finds itself in.

 

This is, of course, true. However, with our two party system, unfortunately it's the extremists who run the political machine. (I'm not advocating multi-party, this is just the downside to our system). As such, compromise can never work in a practical sense, and I'd point to the Civil War to prove that.

 

There might be, if the side that wants to further limit the right to keep and bear arms had anything valid to offer in exchange for the restrictions they seek.

 

There is no room for compromise, if only one side loses. Any sort of gun control results in the gun rights side losing part of their rights. There is nothing good for gun rights folks that can come from compromise.

 

Absolutely not.

 

How about the saving of many innocent human lives? Or, how about a return to human civility in America?

 

The whole concept of "compromise" is that all sides give up some portion of what they want in order to reach an agreement where everyone wins some portion of what they want. The famous Civil War historian Shelby Foote said (I'm paraphrasing) "The genius of America has been the art of compromise. When that broke down, it led to the Civil War." Compromise allows every side to win something by voluntarily losing something for a consensus. It's the ONLY way any democracy survives. If you support any one side winning by devastating its opposition, then you're enabling the dissolution of democracy, for those who lose all become powerful enemies who eventually destroy the system that they feel wronged them. Compromise is not a luxury, it's an absolute necessity in a democracy. When compromise ends, so does democracy. Governments without compromise are totalitarian ones.

 

If gun control laws are applied in a biased manner, it will easily end up *costing* more lives than it saves, either by depriving citizens of access to the tools to defend themselves from the criminals who will ignore the laws and obtain weapons anyway, or in the civil war that will innevitably ensue as citizens *become* criminals simply to obtain the means to defend themselves, are thus targetted by the state, and organize a resistance.

In order to convince people that the laws will not be applied in a biased manner, it might help if the gun-controllers stopped using 'you just want criminals to have guns,' 'you want more women and minorities to die' and 'you have a small penis' as arguments.

 

You say that as if gun control will bring those things.

The whole concept of "compromise" is that all sides give up some portion of what they want in order to reach an agreement where everyone wins some portion of what they want. That said:

What new gun control laws do you want to see and what are you prepared to offer in return?

 

I say no. The democrats don't know the meaning of the word "compromise." Eff them. Who cares about them? Not me.

 

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment; I support it. But I'm also for using common sense to help preserve our personal safety. Gun control has never been a personal issue for me. I don't live in a high crime rate location, but I have compassion for those who do, and would like politicians who pass laws to care about them too. When the NRA was founded its main purpose was to promote gun safety, and it did a superb job. Since the 1980's, the NRA has changed its leadership and its mission. Now it wants guns in the hands of every living American. Crime and murder statistics support the idea that not every American can be trusted with a gun. I only want laws that help prevent those who present a potential threat, who have a record of malfeasance, or mental illness from buying guns, from gun stores or from individuals second hand. I have no desire or intent of attacking or subverting the 2nd Amendment, but I want to live in a civil society where everyone's rights are respected and the right to life is more than just a theory.

 

Awesome. So please tell us which laws you would like to pass, and *how* those laws are going to keep guns away from murderers.

 

I'm a Democrat and I support compromise. I don't see much in the way of compromise in your post. In the new Trump era not caring about fellow Americans seems to be gaining a larger foothold. It seems it's hard to become part of the solution while you're such an enthusiastic part of the problem.

 

You seem to want a simple answer to a very complex issue that would guarantee 100% success. I know of no such answer, but there was a law on the books between two and three decades ago that required a background check and clearance before selling a gun to a buyer. Until recently there was a law forbidding the selling of a gun to a person with a record of mental illness. Neither of these laws impacted gun sales in a negative way, but they helped somewhat with the crime rates. I recognize no laws will eliminate crime, but I want gun enthusiasts to realize having guns in the hand of every American is no solution either.

 

Its really not that complicated. You see a problem, you propose a solution, and you provide a reasoned argument as to why and how you think that solution will work.

Without the last two parts, you're really just complaining about something you dont like and begging for others to fix it somehow.

How can you call it a 'reasonable' restriction if you arent even willing to describe the restriction and reason out how it will work?

 

I'll reiterate, gun control isn't an issue I have a lot of commitment to or interest in, but I'd like to see the law requiring a background check before anyone can purchase a gun, new or used, from a store, or an individual, or via internet renewed. Secondly, I'd like the law reinstated that forbids the sale of a gun to a person with a history of mental illness. Third, I'd like to see a law banning the sale of automatic weapons to the general public. I'd consider keeping those sales open to special gun collectors who obtain a special permit beforehand, but not to the general public. These actions wouldn't stop crime or murder, but I think they're common sense steps that could reassure a nervous public.

 

I guess I should commend your recognition that private UBCs dont address crime and only serve to 'reassure a nervous public,' but I have to say, restrictive laws that only serve to cater to peoples fears are not 'common sense.' The common sense approach to fear is effective threat mitigation and/or education, and a willingness to overcome the fear of that which cannot be changed- we all have to be brave to a degree, life will always come with an amount of risk.
Ill agree with you on mental illness, but with the proviso that any mental health based restrictions occur within the confines of due process- authoritative restrictions of rights must be purvue to a judge and jury with the restricted people given a chance to defend themselves with legal representation and ample opportunity for appeal.
Automatic weapons *are already* restricted to the general public, and *are already* still available to collectors and dealers who are subjected to rigorous BGCs and must obtain and retain (yearly iirc) a class three weapons liscence.

 

Of course there isn't. I didn't realize that natural and constitutionally guaranteed rights were something to compromise on.

 

So in other words, more meaningless do nothing laws.

How can anyone consider that common sense?

 

Your citation of currently existing licensing laws demonstrates you're far better informed on the subject than I, so I defer to your knowledge. I also agree completely that anyone--mentally ill or otherwise--must have the right to legal appeals. My concerns peak when I see the current president of the NRA making speeches advocating that every American should own and carry a gun strapped to their person everywhere they go--down the street, in libraries, on college campuses and even in our public schools. I not only disagree, I STRONGLY disagree. I don't want the U.S. to become a mock reality of an old Hollywood Western movie set, except with live ammunition. That's not the America I want to live in or leave to our children and grandchildren.

 

What do YOU consider "common sense"?

 

M'kay...
What new gun control laws do you want to see and what are you prepared to offer in return?

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

Laws that do both of two things:
1 - Prevent (not make it hard, not deter, but prevent - criminals, etc, from getting guns
2 - Not limit the rights of the law abiding.
When you find one, let me know.