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

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

  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Try reading American history because every word I stated is 100% accurate.

    That is not to say that those that claim to be "progressive liberals" today are progressive liberals in the same context as the founders but they're a lot closer than the social conservatives of today.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of this, just to avoid having to admit that "gun control" covers more than restrictions that prohibit the law abiding form buying a gun.
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except your attempt to equate the "progressive liberalism" of late 18th century America to the progressive liberalism of today.
     
  4. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's officially the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen. The 2nd Amendment protects "arms". That means ALL arms. There is no equivocation and to argue that Congress can define which arms are protected means they can define which religions are protected under the First Amendment, or what types of speech are protected. In short, your argument is a completely spurious one.
     
    modernpaladin and vman12 like this.
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought all of this was too obvious to mention :)
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  6. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113

    All firearm sales can be tracked. Each FFL dealer that sells firearms must keep the FF4473 for 20 years. All FFL dealers are required to register all serial numbers in their database as well as ATFs...therefore a firearm that is used in a crime can be tracked to the dealer that sold the firearm, which in turn can be tracked to the original purchaser.
    Your database and registration are unnecessary. Try passing mandatory sentencing guidelines for all criminals convicted of a crime...that way no bleeding heart judge can make lighter sentences for a bad childhood or whatever. Also no early parole for gun crimes, no expunging of records for teens, death penalty for murder. Get tough on criminals and there won't be as much crime.
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  7. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Demonstrate how requiring licensing and registration for the private ownership of firearms does anything to provide for the notion of public safety, when they do not in any way prevent a prohibited individual from acquiring a firearm.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  8. chalkoutline

    chalkoutline Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    8
  9. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I made no such attempt and clearly established that I was referring to historical progressive liberalism of the founders.
     
  10. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Law abiding Americans are not prohibited from purchasing firearms by federal law. .
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All firearms carried in public places represent a potential threat to the public safety and the caveat to my post was that only firearms carried in public places needed to be registered and the person licensed. Any person carrying a firearm in public, regardless of whether they have a prior criminal record, is endangering the public safety.

    We require licensing of individuals and registration of motor vehicles used on the public roads (not private property) for exactly the same reason.
     
  12. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This would be true, if the Feds had an enumerated power to regulate firearms. They don't. In fact, they are explicitly denied this power.
     
  13. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 2nd Amendment does not enumerate "firearms" at all but instead uses the general term of "arms" that can be any object used as a weapon. Only Congress has the authority under the Constitution to determine which "arms" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

     
  14. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you mean well, but you underestimate the deviousness and conniving nature of those who oppose the 2nd Amendment. For reasons I've never understood, they toil away, constantly trying to find ways to strip law-abiding citizens of our right and ability to defend ourselves from criminals.

    The first time I ever called 911 with an emergency and was told after a long wait to "leave a message" I knew that that we could no longer rely on the police to be depended on to respond rapidly to REAL trouble. The hyperliberal Left would seize our weapons of self-defense and throw us to the mercy of criminals in a heartbeat. Why? I guess it comes closer to their idea of collective, "inclusive" misery and chaos. Who wouldn't want THAT?! :omfg:
     
  15. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just for clarity, I dont support any firearm restrictions. My concern is that while I dont believe any firearm legislation is necessary (as I remain unconvinced of its effectiveness in a cost/effect evaluation), I think that rigidly refusing any compromise may lead us to a pyric victory.

    I think an intelligent approach could include some small concessions to the 'do anything to limit guns' crowd in exchange for some more rigid protections for our rights, such as bills that are nullified by future proposed legislation. Let *them* argue amongst themselves if they want to give up handgun registration in exchange for an attempt to ban 'assault rifles' just for example. The political teams we root for are notorious for letting slide the glaring irrationality of their team leaders because theirs no consequences. Strategic concessions (giving them a little of what they want) could provide built in consequences that I think would decrease the tolerance of said team leader irrationality (theres no way they would ever try to ban assault rifles if it meant they would lose registration; that tiny margin of 'majority' that the gun controllers think they have simply wouldnt be there anymore). In short, forcing the left to decide *which* gun control measures they wanted would divide them.

    It also provides a way to let them see for themselves that gun control doesnt work. I believe most gun controllers (at the voter level) are not authoritarians at heart, but rather just ignorant, indoctrinated and scared. I think they would be more open to education on the subject if they saw us attempting to work with them in some fashion instead of just throwing up walls and *calling* them ignorant, indoctrinated and scared.

    Also, I think this business of (both sides) refusing any compromise whatsoever is directing (or being used to direct) us into a civil war. And I dont think that would be a good thing. While its pretty obvious which 'side' would win (the bulk of the military come from pro 2A backgrounds, and they arent going to follow orders to attack their families and friends), theres all manner of horrific things the deep state, the shadowy corporate controllers pulling the political money strings could accomplish in the chaos and 'emergency' of a civil war.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  16. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The above does not even begin to address the matter that was presented to yourself. Try again. Demonstrate how requiring licensing and registration for the private ownership of firearms does anything to provide for the notion of public safety, when they do not in any way prevent a prohibited individual from acquiring a firearm.

    Pray tell how would requiring a license to carry a firearm, or that all firearms be registered, serve to benefit public safety in any way? Would public safety benefit from a next mass shooter possessing a valid permit for carrying a firearm in public? Would the requirement that their firearms be registered serve to lower the potential body count that may occur? Would anything that has been presented serve to physically prevent a criminal act from being committed? Or would it only enter the equation long after someone has been murdered, and the guilty party is actually brought to trial?

    Do said licenses do anything to prevent criminal acts that involve a motor vehicle? Does possession of a valid license to operate a motor vehicle serve to inhibit acts of exceeding the speed limit, vehicular manslaughter, operation while intoxicated, or any number of other criminal offenses?
     
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such an approach has been attempted numerous times throughout the history of the united states. Those making demands for more restrictions have absolutely refused to give up anything. If they wish to talk compromise, then they should be required to put together a list of all currently existing firearm-related restrictions that they would be willing to see repealed in exchange for what they are seeking.

    Beyond such, the notion of compromise became a dead issue long ago when Josh Sugarman, director of the Violence Policy Center, went on record as saying that they should exploit the stupidity of the voting public, by deliberately confusing them on issues such as what firearms are and are not machine guns, in order to generate public support for the policies they support.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  18. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An excellent idea!

    I don't think this makes compromise a dead issue, but should shift more of our focus to education. Perhaps an addendum to any proposed legislation that 'gun safety curriculum inclusive of firearm types, terms and function' be added to the public school system.

    After all, the left likes to talk about how 'abstinence is not education' in regards to sex and drugs, so it shouldn't be for guns either.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  19. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the aim is to reduce murders committed with guns, I think our focus ought to be on the places in our country that skew the murder rates upwards. One of the reasons people don't want to do this is that it is a harder problem. It is more complex than simply making rules about guns. Making rules about guns is easy; solving the problem of violence in urban areas is hard.

    Consider this: The violent crime rate in Oregon is 2.6 per thousand. The murder rate is .02 per thousand.

    The violent crime rate in St Louis, MO, is 18.26 per thousand. The murder rate is .6 per thousand.

    The murder rate in the state of Oregon is 1/30th of the murder rate in St. Louis.

    Why that is true, and what can be done to fix it, should be where we put our focus, imo.

    My two cents ... Seth :oldman:
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  20. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ive often said (maybe not here yet) that we dont actually have a gun problem or even a violence problem... we have an urban problem.

    But im biased cuz i live 'in the sticks' and hate urbania.

    I dont think humans are capable of living in such density without developing a level of mental illness.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
    vman12 likes this.
  21. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems that both R's and D's want simplistic answers to the problem of crime and violence and murder. D's want gun control, which won't work. R's want rigorous enforcement and imprisonment which also doesn't work. And nobody wants to talk about real solutions. Don't get me wrong ... Prosecution and imprisonment has its place, but it is a piece of the solution, not the solution. The other parts are the hard parts.

    The other parts are leadership, education, economic opportunity, families, parenting, and even our approach to the problem of hard drug use (which fuels the murder rate). All of these discussions should be "on the table" for well-meaning people, without regard to political persuasion, and without blaming and recriminations. Like I said, this is the hard part.

    Seth.
     
    vman12, modernpaladin and ARDY like this.
  22. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Just for my opinion
    I see many gun rights advocates as arguing for zero regulations
    And I just do not see it to be a good thing to have the local flea market look like it was in Afghanistan, or to have people selling guns at their garage sale, or on the sidewalk, or from the trunk of their car.

    Otoh I also see it to be true that people do have gun rights, and most gun owners are normal and reasonable people. And I agree that many gun control zealots go way far overboard and want to demand that other share their own distaste for guns

    Where is a good balance... I don't know. And I suspect it is good for different areas to be able to have different laws.... manhatten is different than Texas. But I think that people in manhatten should be able to be more restrictive on guns just as people in Texas would likely have different opinions. I think that people who do not like lots of guns around should be able to live in localities where people have similar views.

    .. I personally do not want to be eating lunch and have someone come in wearing a balaclava, full combat fatigues, bullet proof vest, and shouldering an ar15 with a few 30 round clips. But I can also understand there are places that is just fine folks. Just not everywhere imo
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  23. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, Ardy, the truth is, those folks who "open carry" in city and town are fairly few. The vast majority of people carrying weapons in public are doing so with the weapon concealed. My state is a "shall issue" state (CCW permits), and people carrying concealed weapons are all around us all the time. You just don't realize it because they're concealed.

    I remember a while back I took my wife out for breakfast at a pancake house type restaurant, and there was a man in there eating. He had some combat camo fatigues on and a drop-leg holster with a Glock in it just right there in plain view. He just ate, paid for his meal, and left. No problem. But I remember thinking to myself, "What a dork." And I thought to myself, if any terrorists bust into the place, who are they going to target first? Him, that's who. And while their targeting him, I'll be drawing my concealed Glock and aiming carefully, and gradually pressing the trigger.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  24. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that reminds me .... Wherever I go - to town, to a mall, to a school, to any gathering of people - people don't realize it, but they are being protected by someone who will do something if the worst thing happens. Like the San Bernardino massacre. At that gathering of employees, when the worst thing that could happen happened, there would have been one guy shooting back, and I'm a damn good shot. There were only two of them, and unless they killed me outright at the beginning, I'd take them both out.
     
    vman12 and modernpaladin like this.
  25. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It renders the concept of compromise dead, because those asking for compromise have demonstrated that they are willing to use intellectual dishonesty to get their way in the matter, and generate support through trickery and deceit. If one cannot win a matter honestly, they have discredited themselves and those they are associated with.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.

Share This Page