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

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by modernpaladin, May 10, 2017.

  1. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blah Blah Blah. I heard it a million times. I love freedom too. Who said I was arguing?
     
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only federal prison. The great majority of state inmates are in for non-drug charges. (BOP meaning Bureau of Prisons (federal prisons))
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15_sum.pdf

    50% of federal prisoners are in for drug charges, which is about 100,000 people (total BOP population is about 196,000). State prisons make up about 1.3 million. Total prison population is about 1.5 million. OF those, about 100,000 federal prisoners and about 200,000 State prisoners (16% of 1.3 million). That's 0.3 million out of 1.5 million or about 20% of prisoners. Nowhere near the 1/2 of all people in prison today that you claim. (see table 1, 9 and 10)

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf
     
    Shiva_TD likes this.
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then perhaps you should prove conclusively that what is presented, is nothing more than propaganda put forth by the NRA, and is in no way accurate or truthful.

    Pray tell how so? Does it actually stop individuals from carrying firearms in public?

    Firearms registration does not prevent anything. It does not prevent prohibited individuals from acquiring, possessing, and otherwise using firearms for unlawful purposes.

    The states of California and New York have proven that your stated position is factually incorrect.

    Then actually prove such. Do not merely claim that such is the case, actually demonstrate such to be the case.

    Then actually prove such. Do not merely claim that such is the case, actually demonstrate such to be the case.

    For all of your dismissing of points that run counter to your beliefs as being nothing but paranoia, you present no evidence to demonstrate such.
     
  4. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ignoring the baseless parts of your post, if you actually believe the regulatory arms of the govt, the "progressives", the judicial system, and even the Republicans, follow the Constitution then you have been in a cave for the past 20 years.
     
  5. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anybody willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither (paraphrasal of Ben Franklin).
     
  6. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blah blah blah. You do that every day of your life if you live in a society. These arguments are so old.
     
  7. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,380
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong era, wrong crowd. There is no such concept as compromise in modern American politics; there is no constituency for it and no leaders who can sell a compromise.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  8. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then actually demonstrate such to be the case, or recant your claim.

    Once again your claims are factually incorrect. The district of columbia did indeed prohibit the ownership of firearms, first by requiring that firearms had to be registered with the city in order to be legal, and then ending the registration process to prevent the ownership of any new firearms. It was the basis of the Heller case.

    If it either cannot or does not prevent a criminal action, then it serves no purpose and has no reason to exist in the first place.
     
  9. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Calling human wisdom, old, is utter absurdity. The problems start when wisdom is ignored, which is prolific amongst the faux liberals. With these people it is like giving a hammer to a two year old, in a room of fine crystal. They get some kind of perverse gratification from destroying what wisdom built. Mindlessness.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2017
  10. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blah Blah Blah. More opinion
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Say what? Under the NFA you can still lawfully own fully automatic firearms and all it takes is a small fee, licensing and registration.

    Gun rights advocates have given up virtually nothing since 1934. What they've gained are far more deadly firearms since the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
     
  12. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Going to be interesting to see if more and more guns in the hands of incompetants is going to make us all safer. Somehow I doubt it!
     
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A process that can take up to a year to complete before the purchase of such a firearm is recognized as legal, and allowed to proceed.

    Your statement is factually incorrect. A basic research of firearms history shows that a great many things have been lost since that period of time.

    A statement that holds no meaning whatsoever.
     
  14. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are not being honest. The only fully automatics you can own have to have been made prior to 1986. As they wear out they can't be replaced, and ultimately they will be gone from the private market unless the laws are changed. As a result, the ones left in circulation are prohibitively expensive for the common man... and the process takes as long as a year if not longer to complete.
     
    The Mandela Effect likes this.
  15. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And they are almost never used in a crime. Gun control works
     
  16. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When dey gone stop disenfranchisin our ppl?
     
  17. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uh... no, it's not.

    Exactly. It's not about guns. It's about CONTROL. Your authoritarian position is noted.

    And yet somehow registration lists have been used to force people to surrender their firearms when those guns end up being banned.

    And yet several jurisdictions in this nation have banned the private ownership of firearms within their boundaries.

    For now, we can breathe a little easier, but the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for the clarification that slightly more than half of inmates are in prison at the state level for violent crimes but the thread is on federal laws and regulations related to firearms that would be enforced and prosecuted by the federal government which would only apply to the federal prison system.
     
  19. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our government has an "authoritarian" role in providing for the public safety.

    It has never happened in the United States and cannot happen in the United States.

    It's called "States Rights" and is protected by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution but not even the states or the people can outright ban all firearms from within their jurisdiction. The US Supreme Court has already established that people have a right to possess firearms for self defense in their homes.

    Which is why the federal courts and the US Supreme Court are an equal branch of the government and we do have organizations, like the ACLU, that are out there protecting our Constitutional Rights by addressing infringements upon our Rights through the federal courts. .
    .
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False premise, that for something to qualify as "gun control" it must prohibit the law abiding from purchasing a firearm.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet, under your argument, the NFA1934 is not gun control.
    :lol:
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  22. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you really believe that then you clearly understand nothing about the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders. The courts have ruled - again and again and again - that government has no duty or obligation to provide security or protection to ANY individual citizen. That responsibility belongs to the citizen and the citizen alone.

    False. It not only CAN happen, it HAS happened. In more than one state that had registration laws classes of guns were banned, and registration lists of guns were used to identify citizens in possession of those firearms, and those citizens were ordered to either surrender their firearms (without compensation), provide proof they had been removed from the state, or proof they had otherwise been rendered nonfunctional. These instances are public record.

    Yes, and it took decades to get the Supreme Court rulings that overturned outright bans on firearms being available for personal defense in the home. Washington D.C., Chicago, Morton Grove, ALL areas that banned possession of usable firearms for personal security... and those bans were in place for 30 years before the Supreme Court rulings forced them to change their laws. Even today, getting permits to own firearms in places like New Jersey continues to be excessively difficult and onerous for the average citizen.

    The ACLU? Don't make me laugh. The only rights they try to protect are the politically correct ones. They've rejected defense of the Second Amendment from the very beginning; it's taken groups like the NRA to handle defense of that right. And while the Constitution is supposed to provide the checks and balances to keep the three branches of government equal, our government ignores the Constitution, tramples all over it, and laughs at our erroneous belief that the people somehow have any real power left.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  23. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many often express this opinion these days and when they do I think back in history. Individuals like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were the most progressive liberals of their era prior to the American Revolution. With the publication of Thomas Paine's Common Sense they transitioned from just being "progressive liberals" to "revolutionary liberals" with Jefferson's authorship of our Declaration of Independence. James Madison was highly instrumental in the drafting of the US Constitution and authored our Bill of Rights while Alexander Hamilton was a key player in writing the Federalist Papers arguing for it's adoption.

    They were progressive/revolutionary liberals that established the American ideology and a vision for the future of the United States.

    Since then it's been the social, economic, and political conservatives that have been the greatest obstacle in our ever evolving into the vision for America that these key founders held. It's been the conservatives, tenaciously hanging on to the injustices of the past, that have prevented the United States from ever achieving the ultimate goals and vision of the founders of the United States.

    Our problem in the United States is not progressive liberalism. Our problem is regressive conservatism and it's always been the regressive conservatism because they desperately cling to the nefarious social, economic, and political institutions of the past that Paine, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton sought to change.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A dramatic and dishonest false equivalence. Nicely done.
     
  25. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would be more accurately defined as "arms" regulation as opposed to "gun control" so you're basically correct. Then again the 2nd Amendment doesn't refer to firearms at all and instead protects "arms" and the Congress arguably has the authority to define which "arms" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
     

Share This Page