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

If such activities were not classified as illegal to begin with, why would there be need to exercise caution around such individuals in the first place? If an activity is not illegal, does the avenue in which it is performed really make a meaningful difference?

Then actually do such. Demonstrate these many examples of individuals who brandished firearms, and were neither arrested nor prosecuted for their actions. Present your list for consideration and review.

Are you attempting to say that the message being presented, is that the use of a firearm in a criminal manner is what should be punished, rather than the possession of a firearm?

Considering just how few prohibited individuals are actually prosecuted on charges of possession, perhaps such would be the correct approach. If the justice system has no interest in prosecuting known criminals simply for having a firearm in their possession, then perhaps it is indeed time for the united states to remove such a prohibition from law, and instead focus on the use of the firearm itself.

You are factually incorrect. Such is not being advocated on the part of myself. Rather the state of things currently is being pointed out.

Support for restrictions that are codified into law is contingent upon said restrictions actually being enforced in the manner that was utilized to justify their existence to begin with. If said restrictions are going to be ignored by those in the justice department that are actually tasked with enforcing the law, and not used for the purpose of prosecuting anyone, it would make no sense to support their existence. Why have something that will not be used, even when the instance is particularly heinous?

Simply because a prohibition sounds worthwhile in theory, does not make it such in the real world. If it is not used, then it may as well not exist at all. The matter is easily as simple as that; either use what exists, or get rid of it.

 

Has there been anything that the anti-gun side has put forward that does anything to combat crime?

If not, why would anyone entertain it?

There are two groups of anti-gun people:

1. The uneducated who simply don't have the facts
2. The groups who want to see guns under strict control of the government

If they claim they're in some other category, they're lying and belong staunchly to group #2.

 

Yet we have 20+ years of people legally carrying concealed, and none of the things you speak of have ever materialized.

As a group, those who possess a CCW are a far more law abiding group of people than the general public.

 

Very, very well said Seth.

 

Well yes, exactly.

 

They wouldn't have to if a reasonable compromise could be reached

 

The similarities to slavery is actually very interesting. I am actually somewhat apathetic on this issue, so don't go pointing fingers.

But the debates and rationales for slavery and guns is remarkably similar. One side argues that it was permitted by the Constitution and that taking them away infringes on their rights and will lead to a government takeover of everything. The other argues that it is immoral to allow the right and that it causes more problems than good. Furthermore, the legal precedent is very interesting as well. The Supreme Court has indeed defended the second amendment on more than one occasion, similar to how they had defended slavery in the Dredd Scott case for example.

I'm very interested to see how this will end. Hopefully, not in compromise like slavery did (well I guess it started like that, not ended lol). Because that may end in war.

 

Well that's just the issue of course. Compromise isn't reasonable because the middle ground will always be steamrolled. Background checks for example. Say they work, say gun violence goes down. The Left will assume that total banning will reduce violence even more. If it stays the same, the Right will try to get their agenda in and expand gun use and ownership to try to curb violence their way. Either way, compromise will not end well at all, as it never has.

 

In this case, however, the "other" side can only present fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
I understand the parallel you draw here, but comparing the sides, it doesn't really work.

 

It is far easier to present a logical argument in support of slavery being an acceptable course of action, than it is to present a logical argument in support of enacting firearm-related restrictions.

 

lol these threads never end, millions of them. The main problem with resolving this, and many other issues as well, is the Constitution has been rendered worthless as a basis for law over a couple hundred years now; it changes according to whatever hacks get appointed to the courts, by other hacks. Original intent appears to be the 'best' basis, but that gives the states the power to decide, and they aren't any less corrupt than the Federal level hacks are, most are even more corrupt.

I see no problem with requiring safety training for purchases, especially given we're now a vast majority urban population now and few have handled firearms from childhood, as was the case when at least half the country was small town and rural people. This helps them protect themselves and family members from self-inflicted shooting accidents, and nobody should have a problem with it. Background checks are fine, and banning ownership to convicted criminals and the like is also fine. Concealed carry is not a problem, but I oppose open carry, because it's just stupid and increases danger, not the other way around; it just allows crazies and criminals to not have to bother with the hassle of buying their own or being seeing entering a mall or where ever carrying a long weapon, they can just find some ****ing idiot walking around thinking he/she/it/mutant looks cool carrying his fashion accessory around, and take it away from them and use it instead of bringing their own. It makes zero sense tactically; concealed carry creates doubt and hesitation.

 

The constitution never allowed slavery, that's how it was ended.

Law and tradition allowed slavery, you know, like most of the rest of the world that still practices slavery.

Oddly, the US is one of the few places to have practically eliminated modern day slavery.

Africa, asia, the ME.....all have rampant modern day slavery.

 

We already have background checks.

What law could be passed that would not prevent the law abiding from owning firearms, that criminals would obey?

Moreover, would it be a law that would be enforced with penalties?

When felons are caught with firearms, they're typically not charged. When caught lying on a background check ,again, not charged.

Liberals want to pass laws, but then only want to apply them to people who follow the law.

 

How bout instead of requiring safety training, we just offer it in school?

Like theres a kid alive that won't elect to take firearms class lol.

And its not like we'd be taching kids how to fire a gun. Anyone that watches tv can figure that out. What they *need* to know are all the things tv leaves out.

Like sex and drugs, abstinance is not education.

 

What is the average attitude towards firearms in schools now?

We have kids being suspended for bringing in empty shell cases and "liking" air soft guns on social media.

But yes, I agree.

The left will have nothing to do with that though. They want guns gone.

 

Perhaps, but then again, since when did anyone care about logic.

This is true, but it's the same for slavery actually. Name one argument against slavery not founded in morals. Sure you can say that it is economically stupid to utilize a small part of the population as your work force. But it is possibly one of the most stable economic practices in that you may not have much economic growth, but it's pretty hard for the economy to tank from human influences (if you have a drought or something, then you got a problem). Taking out the moral argument regarding slavery, you get a pretty arguable controversy with enough evidence on both sides to make it an issue.

Not explicitly it didn't. But it implied it. For example Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (otherwise known as the 3/5 compromise buzz word there), in addition to numerous Supreme Court Cases.

And I still don't understand why people go around saying most of the world still practices slavery like that's somehow a kind of consolation or justification. The difference is that racial slavery is not commonly practiced in the modern day nor was it done in history either (depending on your definition of race, which is actually the main issue).

The slavery that exists in African, Asia, and the Middle East (and don't forget Eastern Europe those commies, lol) is not chattel slavery; the most prevalent form is debt bondage which is basically the same thing as when you can't pay for your food in a restaurant so you have to do the dishes but maybe 10x worse.

Which proves my point that compromise cannot possibly work. We have background checks and the left wants more. And the right wants more but in the opposite direction. And neither side will stop wanting more until their agenda is complete, making compromise impossible.

 

The point is the myth that most prisoners are in for drug crimes was dispelled.

 

Slavery violates the rights of those held as such.
(Most) gun control violates the rights of the law abiding.
Neither is a moral argument.

 

The relationship between slavery and guns is that slaves never have guns, and people with guns are never slaves.

 

Doesnt this just push the other side even further in the opposite direction?

But reasonable compromise isnt possible if you have people pushing more and more outlandish laws. Magazine capacity being one of the dumber ones I have ever seen. A semi auto rifle or pistol takes about 2 seconds to swap magazines so a 10 round mag instead of a 12 round isnt going to have any effect in a mass shooting.

Compromise always ends better than the extremes, it just takes adults to actually come to one.

I agree with this statement whole heartedly. For too long judges have been appointed based on ideology instead of impartiality. I'm not talking about the different ways people read the constitution either, I'm talking about the people that read it through red or blue colored glasses.

No need to teach firearms in schools. Those lessons will only stick for those that firearms have already lost their novelty.

 

Every reasonable gun control law is fought against (such as background checks) so the gun control crowd has to go for everything

 

No need to get defensive, I'm not disagreeing with you. I tried to make that comment non denominational because it applies equally to both sides of the discussion.

 

No offense taken.

 

Gun violence violates the rights of the law abiding, which technically necessitates the legislation of gun control (just like you can't yell bomb in a plane, even though you have the first amendment right)

Regardless, you have the right to do just about anything, that's not to say that there aren't consequences of exercising that right.

And furthermore, argue to me natural rights without a moral argument.

 

In a perfect world, yes. But legislative compromise is what leaves room for controversy and with both sides representing their extremes (because their the only ones who can actually speak anymore, moderates get steamrolled), compromise just feeds to the fire.