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

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

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reasonable positions.

    As to the last paragraph... I dont think anyone wants to eat lunch next to *that* guy. Most folks prolly dont wanna eat lunch next to a smelly, crazy homeless guy either, or a guy wearing assless chaps and a dildo hat, or someone covered in bees. And most places that serve food will not allow any of these people entrance, and business owners should have that right.
    But in public places, peoples (rediculous) preferences of expression are allowed. Whether its hygeine, sexual orientation or self defense, you dont get to decide how other people look.
    And no, you are not in more danger just because he is visibly armed. For every 100 people you encounter in public, its statistically likely that a handful of them were legally concealing a weapon and a few more were illegally concealing a weapon. Whether you can see the weapon or not doesnt change its potential lethality. The only thing that changes is your perception and your emotional response, neither of which is a basis for restrictive legislation.
    Boycotting the restauraunt that serves the guy with the armor and the AR (or the homeless guy or the dildo guy) is a legit response.
    Trying to restrict their expression with laws according to what offends you is not.
    edit: shouldering the weapon is considered 'brandishing' and is just as illegal as waving a handgun around. There are acceptible (legal) methods of carrying visible firearms (including long guns) in public.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If solutions are to be discussed and had, certain points of discussion must be had. One such point of discussion needs to pertain to those who are known to be committing these various offenses, particularly those who are continually released back into society over and over again, where they are free to reoffend as they wish. They have already proven that they cannot and will not abide by the rules of society, so there is no point in trusting them to behave themselves. Eventually the discussion must come to the matter of permanently removing these problematic individuals from the equation entirely.

    Just as cancer cannot be treated by allowing the tumors to remain in the body, violent crime cannot be addressed by allowing career criminals back into society. If they cannot be kept incarcerated for the duration of their lives, then perhaps it is time to consider killing them. They have violated the lives of countless others, so their lives are forfeit as a result.

    The matter of illicit drug use is particularly noteworthy, as the current approach is doing nothing. Despite a nationwide prohibition on heroin and similar substances, deaths attributed to their use are increasing, not decreasing. Perhaps it is time for a change of course.

    If individuals wish to knowingly engage in reckless and criminal behavior, they will suffer the consequences of their actions one way or another. They are obviously being done no favors by their government fighting to hard to keep them alive through prohibitions and regulations, so perhaps it is time for a change of pace, and the consequences of their decisions made as plain as day. When children have to see their parents, siblings, and friends laying dead in the streets and on sidewalks as their bodies decompose while others have to walk over them, they will understand the true societal cost of the use of illicit substances. They will no longer question what is wrong with the recreational use of illicit substances, as they will understand why such narcotics were prohibited in the first place.

    If the public does not wish to accept that there are certain substances that should not be used, then allowing them to experience the folly of their decisions is the most logical course of action. The more the matter is resisted and fought, the more they are glamorized and desired by the public.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the currently existing regulations are not being utilized when criminal offenses are being committed, especially in large numbers, then what is their purpose for even existing in the first place? The city of Chicago for example, almost never pursues felon in possession of a firearm charges when a suspect is arrested, despite the number of murders they experience each year.

    Is there any actual evidence to suggest the firearm-related restrictions in the city of Manhattan are actually achieving the purpose that justifies their existence? Or are they being ignored by the public, and going unenforced by those tasked with actually enforcing the law?

    And if the person in question is not armed to such a degree?
     
  4. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, I do think you mean well. You would perhaps want to be a voice of reason and sanity in the middle of a 'mosh-pit' of American anger and intolerance -- by everyone. I also went through that stage....

    At this time, there is no way that we who support the 2nd Amendment can compromise with the anti-gun mob. They are adament and relentless in their hammer-headed insistence that we plow our way toward the elimination of weapons ownership by citizens. Sad but true. I've been involved in this unending conflict my entire life, and I'm well into my 60's.

    Suffice to say, if it does actually come to "civil war" then I'd much rather be on the side that is still able to defend itself than on to be on the side that wants to strip this ability away from all of us, and is in possession of no better weaponry than a big, irrational, dogmatic mouth.....

    [​IMG]. "Aw, c'mon... the Führer says you gotta give up those guns!"
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  5. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No compromise because of the hysteria on the right and the blind stupidity on the issue from the left.
     
    HailVictory likes this.
  6. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, when the dizzy morons of the Left come to take your guns, Jimmy, what are you gonna do? Sing, "Kumbaya" to them....? :buggered: Once they fully control our only reliable, real-time, in-our-hands means of self-defense, WE ARE SCREWED.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  7. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember what I said about hysteria?
     
  8. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All respect Seth, but you are surely an exceptional case
    I doubt that all people who carry guns have your training or have undergone the level of scrutiny, screening, and supervision as you. Lets agree that you are on one end of the responsible gun owner bell curve... and necessarily the bulk of people who own guns are elsewhere on that curve.

    The reality is that the most common threat that any of us face is not the threat that we will be killed in a San Bernadino style massacre. The threat that concerns me more is unpredictable acts of random violence... armed robbery, road rage, an angry neighbor, domestic violence. But even those threats actually do not worry me. I just do not want to live in an environment where everyone has a gun and feels entitled to use it to solve problems... or feels entitled to try to intimidate and cow others by publicly brandishing their gun.

    Fact is that their are a lot of borderline, semi crazy people who have anger management problems, or drinking problems, or are just careless and irresponsible. Seth... you have LEO experience. You know such people exist. You know that LEO orgs would not hire such people and give them a gun. So why should I feel sanguine about them arming themselves with a chip on their shoulder and "something to prove"?
     
  9. 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
    Neither do I, Ardy. But the vast majority of gun owners are not like that. They are peaceable, law-abiding people. Most people who own guns just keep them in their homes in case of invasion, or they use them for hunting or recreational shooting. And some may carry them concealed for protection, but those people are screened by law enforcement first. In my time on the street, I encountered CCW permit holders often, and I never had any problems with them. Generally speaking, those folks were polite, cooperative, and law enforcement friendly. They weren't the people I was worried about.

    Once in a great while my department would get a call that there was someone shopping in a grocery store with a gun in a holster unconcealed. In an of itself, this is not a crime, although most gun owners do not want to draw attention to themselves and make other people feel uncomfortable. This is a public display that I don't care for, but it is not "brandishing". My interpretation of "brandishing" a gun is taking it out of the holster and threatening others with it. Unless this is done as a legitimate act of necessary self-defense, it most likely constitutes a crime.

    To answer your question, I don't think any of us feel sanguine about people arming themselves with a chip on their shoulder and "something to prove", but my experience has been that this is not the case with the vast majority of permit holders and the vast majority of gun owners. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are the exception to the rule.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    'Exception' is an understatement. Compared to the number of responsible gun owners who respect the law, careless or criminal gun owners would scientifically be classified as 'anomalous.'
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  11. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But that is really my point... the current situation has such regulation.... and thus illustrates a situation where there is a sucessful compromise between some regulation and zero regulations. The zealots maintain that no such compromise is possible or even constitutional

    And, I would surmise that you would instinctively be more careful around the sort of person who bought a gun with its serial number removed out of the trunk of a car
    Yes... but again I argue that there are such people who feel that brandishing is legitimate standing their ground... and therefore constitutionally protected

    And again this makes my point... you qualify this statemnt in two ways...

    "The vast majority ...". Tacitly agrees there are a minority outside the vast majority to whom the statement does not apply

    And that referenced "vast majority" are further qualified as people who get permits, etc. hence people who participate in an existing regulation scheme. And I am arguing against the idea that any any all regulation schemes are both ineffectual and unconstitutional....and in that circumstance...by definioyion... no one you encounter would have a permit... so no one would be part of the group you describe
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
  12. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, "hysteria". That's what Americans felt on Sunday afternoon, December 7, 1941, AFTER the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Hint: AFTER you have been screwed is a piss-poor time to make preparations for GETTING screwed.... Bottom line: I don't trust anybody's 'Big Brother' to defend me from the kind of animals that are allowed to freely roam around in our country today....

    Anyway, when the 'home invaders' and other criminal trash come after you, sing them a nice rendition of "Kumbaya". When they come to my door, they'll be hearing a very different kind of 'music'.... :machinegun:
     
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In regards to open carry, Ive noticed that Americans are the only society on the planet who will tolerate concealed carry while trying to ban open carry. (Those outside the US are encouraged to chime in) -most folks I talk to from countries with 'reasonable gun control' (aka no gun rights, only privaledges) seem to be of the opinion that concealed weapons are more of a danger to society because you never know who could be armed, and while they dont support open carry either, it would be less alarming than concealed carrry because at least when you can see the weapon you know who to be wary of.

    I wonder why its the reverse here...
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
  14. HailVictory

    HailVictory Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Compromise in legislation on sensitive issues like this one almost never work. Furthermore, as one other poster said, compromise will never happen because of the right's sheer hysteria and the left's stupidity on solving the issue. Take slavery for example. Both sides had an agenda, the right wanted to extend slavery throughout the entire Union and the left wanted to just ban slavery (sorta like guns actually if you get right down to it). Every series of compromises basically were in effort to promote one sides final agenda, instead of actually going in and solving the problem, we just skirted around the issue. And it led to a Civil War. I'm not saying guns will lead to a civil war, but compromise won't really work.
     
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such an individual obviously possesses criminal intent.

    If an individual engages in brandishing a firearm, even if they themselves feel their actions are justified, they will still be prosecuted for their actions.

    And more often than not, those that engage in such cannot legally possess firearms.

    At present there are thirteen states within the united states that allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without requiring a permit, or any form of training. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some allow only state residents to do such, others allow anyone who can legally own a firearm, regardless of state of residence, to do such.

    There is currently a growing trend for such to spread to further states, and make the need for a permit unnecessary. Beyond such, there has been no evidence presented that suggests this constitutional carry movement is responsible for any significant problems when it comes to firearms being carried in public.
     
  16. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is why the gun control movement has to go after every possible and silly gun control law possible.
     
  17. 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
    Ok, I see the point you're making.

    Yes, there are some people who don't think any regulation of firearms is constitutional. But, as we know, there is some regulation of firearms, and the majority agrees with it. For example, that convicted felons be prohibited from possessing firearms. In my state people who have been committed to the State Mental Hospital for mental illness may not purchase/possess firearms. I certainly don't see the NRA fighting to overturn those rules.

    I am sort of ambivalent about concealed carry permits, to be honest, and I'll tell you why. The process makes sure you are not disqualified from possessing firearms, and it often requires a class be taken. I do not see a background check, taking a short class, and paying a fee as an "infringement". I see an "infringement" as being something more substantial. But keep in mind that the only people who can successfully complete the process are already peaceable, law-abiding citizens. With or without the permit, they pose little or no threat to the public or law enforcement. Criminals deliberately don't abide by the rules, so prohibiting them from possessing concealed weapons is well and good, but sort of a moot point. A convicted felon may not possess firearms at all, so if they conceal a firearm they are already automatically committing a crime by merely possessing it. And an active criminal does not follow the rules. So we can tell law-abiding citizens that they must do XYZ things to carry a concealed weapon, but none of that addresses what we fear because the criminals who prey on society are not going to follow those rules anyway. The only people those rules affect are the peaceable and law-abiding.

    Background checks are the same way, to be honest. Law-abiding, peaceable folks get their firearms after undergoing a background check. Criminals get their firearms through other means. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against background checks, and, again, I don't see them as an "infringement" on the right. The thing I like about background checks is that they exclude criminals from the legitimate transfers of firearms and, in so doing, keeps the right unsullied among the law-abiding who buy, sell, and possess firearms, while relegating the criminals to using criminal means to obtain guns. But we mustn't kid ourselves and think that background checks make us substantially safer from criminals.

    You mentioned "stand your ground" which is a complicated subject. But I will just say that those statutes arose out of court decisions that were saying that if you were being threatened with lethal force or very serious assaultive force, you were obligated to try to run away if possible before you could defend yourself with lethal force. And if you couldn't prove that you tried to escape, and you used lethal force to defend against lethal force, you could go to prison. This was "bad law", and the "stand your ground" laws arose to address it. But "stand your ground" laws are not a license to kill for any petty threat or reason. The use of a firearm must still be only to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. You just don't have to prove that you couldn't run away or that you tried to run away. All of the laws that govern the threatened or actual use of a firearm still apply.

    And I will just add this as I close. I do believe that criminals are basically cowards, and they choose their victims by the amount of vulnerability they present. Consequently, I really honestly believe that a person is at greater personal risk when they are in states, cities, or properties where firearms are prohibited or severely restricted. When the criminal may have a strong belief that no one is armed but him, they need not fear that anyone will defend with lethal force. In areas where people may possess concealed weapons, they cannot count on that. Across the nation every day, law-abiding citizens lawfully defend themselves, their homes, families, and even strangers sometimes, with firearms. I know I feel safer in areas where law-abiding people may possess firearms and concealed firearms. It's something to think about. And think about this, Ardy. If you don't have a firearm in your home, you are less safe than if you owned one, were safe with it, and knew how to use it to protect yourself in your home. Think of it as insurance. You may never need it. But if you ever do need it, you're going to need it very badly.

    OK, that's it for now. I've got Mother's Day things to go do. Talk to you later. Seth
     
    Strasser and vman12 like this.
  18. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But how do you identify such people if no serial numbers are required and if selling from a car trunk is normative rather than illegal

    Really?
    I could provide many example where people did brandish and felt entitled to do so and were not arrested or prosecuted for that action, and were widely supported by gun rights advocates fo doing so
    My understanding is that gun right advocates prefer no laws regarding possession of fire arms,,, and that I. Their preferred world, it would not be illegal for those people to posses fire arms. The only thing that would be illegal would be an act such as murder or armed robbery...

    Now you are advocating exactly what I described. No laws about fire arms are needed, or effective, or constructional.

    Simple question... are there any laws about fire arms possession or purchase that you would support?
     
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree -- the progressive liberalism of the late 18th centruty has little to nothing in common with today's progressive liberals.
    Thank you
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An obvious but meaningless response.
    Nowhere in any honest conceptualization of "gun control" must a restriction equate to prohibition before it falls under said concept.
     
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unsupportable nonsense.
    Nowhere is there substantive evidence that those legally able to own a gun pose a danger to society by carrying that gun in public, especially in the same context as driving a car on public roads.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
    vman12 likes this.
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More unsupportable nonsense.
    "Arms" as the term is used in the 2nd has been defined by the SCotUS in at least two decisions; no legislation from congress can alter this definition.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
  23. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, by using the general term "arms", which you admitted is any item that can be used as a weapon, the federal government is therefore specifically denied to infringe on the right to keep and bear any weapon.

    Thanks.
     
  24. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are 15 million americans carrying firearms every day that have a CCW. There are many states where you don't need a license, so that means far more than 15 million americans are walking around with firearms.

    Yet, there is no blood in the streets and never has been due to law abiding americans legally carrying a firearm.

    Registering a firearm and getting a license would prevent a "threat to the public" in what way? They're still carrying firearms, and had a background check performed to acquire said weapon.

    The "threat to the public" are the criminals who are going to ignore illegally having a gun, not registering it (which they can't be prosecuted for under the 5th amendment rules), and are the ones who are running around shooting people in the first place.

    You're looking for a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
  25. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is a breeding ground for the worst thuggery and ground central for liberals, so you're probably onto something there.
     

Share This Page