NRA member and pro-gun guy willing to compromise

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by TOG 6, Nov 30, 2015.

  1. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And it is that attitude practiced by many on both sides that ensures a continuation of the status quo.
     
  2. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What would you propose as a compromise? Does the compromise have to be directly associated with firearms like loosening the limitations against fully automatic firearms? Or can the comprise be elsewhere? I think it would be best that you say what you would want in return. If this has already been answered I apologize for the redundancy.

    By the way, why the Assault Style weapon ban? If you limit magazine size it seems unnecessary, that and there are other non Assault style firearms out there that are basically the same but look less menacing.
     
  3. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you compromise on that, and then the gun prohibitionists come back with more gun control (which they will), then what?

    What is an "assault weapon" anyway?

    Can you demonstrate an effectiveness of bans on standard capacity magazines?
     
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    43,062
    Likes Received:
    15,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As previously stated: The fact that I refused to comprise with -you- does not demonstrate that I will not compromise; the fact that I DID compromise earlier in this thread negates your claim entirely.

    Another lie; not only do you know you have not not demonstrated any such thing, you know you haven't offered an effective response to what I said.

    Please -- feel free to continue to lie in an effort to cover for the fact you have no effective response to my posts.
     
  5. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are the one makes the argument. So the burden is on you to define it.
     
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    43,062
    Likes Received:
    15,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As the person who seeks these restrictions, it is up to you to offer something.
    Surely you can think of -something- gun owners might want.

    But, since you asked...
    "You" want to enact universal background checks, extending the existing NICS requirement to private sales.
    In return, I want 50+ state recognition of existing state-issued CCW permits, with a state-issued ID sufficing for the states that do not require a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon as well as said CCW permits acting as an effective substitute for those background checks (since they are an indication that an even more strenuous check has already been run on the holder)
    (50+ includes DC and all external US possessions)

    As we're discussing the right to keep and bear arms and restrictions on same that's probably the best place to start.

    Every time some white guy shoots up a bunch of people with an "AR-15" or "AK-47", the usual suspects start bleating about banning 'assault weapons'.

    - - - Updated - - -

    If they truly seek compromise, every time they seek new gun control., they must also offer something in return..
     
  7. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you can't actually define it?

    Of course they will. And what can they offer that is in balance with a loss of rights?
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    43,062
    Likes Received:
    15,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Define what? "Assault weapon"?
    There are like 30 such definitions - which do you want?

    Actually they wont -- they will demand that gin owners allow more restrictions on their rights and refuse to even think about offering something in return.
     
  9. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are advocating it, choose one of the many varied definitions. Are we going to go with the 1994 AWB? Denver Colorado? The ban introduced after Sandy Hook?

    It would seem that if it were a valid description for a firearm it would have a singular definition. Good examples exact definitions would be: assault rifle, sub machine gun, machine gun.


    Good. We are back in reality. So offer no compromise.
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    43,062
    Likes Received:
    15,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ahhh..
    You aren't paying attention.

    The point is to demonstrate that those who tell gun owners thy must compromise aren't actually willing to compromise.
    So far, there's been -one- person with a legitimate offer, and I think he's confused as to the terms and definitions used in the discussion.
     
  11. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Alright, I understand where you are going with it now.
     
  12. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To limit the compromise to "discussing the right to keep and bear arms and restrictions" is problematic as the compromise = restricting gun laws in some areas while loosening gun laws in other areas. It is kind of like having a value of 10, then taking away 2 from one area while adding 2 to another area still gives a value of 10 which was where we began. I want changes that save lives and I am not sure making some area stricter while making others less restrictive will or will not have any meaningful effect.

    The issue I have with CCW permits is that just about anyone can get one and I assume there is no standard for training in the use of the firearm or certifications. Way too many get injured or killed accidentally by an idiot who does not know how to safely secure their firearm. I am all for CCW permit, but there should be mandatory training certification. Saw a small study where people were placed into simulated unexpected hostile environments where even those who said they were very confident with a firearms failed to take out the shooter before they were shot. Some embarrassingly fumbled around while struggling to pull them selves together to even ready the weapon. It is easy to be cocky, but confidence comes from weapons training and practice.

    That is a horrible reason to ban assault style weapons. A Mini-14 range rifle is the same as an AR-15 in all but looks.
     
  13. DOconTEX

    DOconTEX Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Missed the point, huh?
     
  14. DOconTEX

    DOconTEX Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It wasn't. A Harry Reid sponsored bill would have required a UBC for instance for a woman letting her daughter take the mom's rifle to go on a hunting trip with friends. The reason is the bill required a check for "TRANSFERS" not sales. ANY exchange of a firearm at any time could be construed by an overweening government as needing a check, absence of which could be considered a crime.

    No thanks.
     
  15. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,770
    Likes Received:
    4,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why compromise since the overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control there is no requirement to compromise with the tiny minority. In theory we do live in a democracy.
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,590
    Likes Received:
    7,648
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since you have to lie about my proposal, by inventing strawmen to argue against, says otherwise.


    strange, since I did exactly that. it was in the quote you responded to. NFA items.

    post any lie you think I told and prove its a lie, or retract the claim.
     
  17. Bastiats libertarians

    Bastiats libertarians Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,992
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Chicago Had 500 Murders last year for 2.5 Million people, ownership rate less than 5%. The rest of Gun wacko Illinois 10 million people only had 240 murders, ownership rate around 33%. I just destroyed your argument in two sentences.
     
  18. cupAsoup

    cupAsoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2015
    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, actually you didn't. You likely copy and pasted from some gun whackadoodle sight. People love to point out that chicago has a lot of gun violence and strict gun laws. This is true. However, Indiana is a 15 min drive away and their gun laws are nothing. Wisconsin has lax gun laws as well. And hey, we have an interstate system with this thing called roads that people can drive cars on. They can also load guns into that car and bring them in. See what I'm getting at here? Strict gun laws in chicago can only prevent guns bought and sold in chicago. We need everyone else to get their heads out of their rear.

    Also, outside of chicago, IL is mostly a rural populace with the 2nd biggest city having less than 200k people. Of course there is going to be more gun crime in large urban centers.

    I'd like to know where you got your gun ownership numbers and why you would think those numbers are accurate in any way. I'm willing to bet they came from some gun whackjob sight.

    Now go and educate yourself before making yourself look so ridiculous again.
     
  19. Bastiats libertarians

    Bastiats libertarians Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,992
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Haha, Man I am love this guy. Disputes my numbers, post nothing but his opinion to refute them.

    But here ya go. I actually had 2013 Data, So here is updated 2014 Data. The New numbers are 685 Murders in the great state, of which Chicago is responsible for about 450 of them.

    Murders in Chicago for 2014
    Population of Chicago
    Population of Illinios
    Total murders in Illinios Minus Chicago
    http://www.news-gazette.com/news/lo...rship-growing-illinois-fading-nationally.html
    Percentage of ownership by county by Foid cards. Obviously this is the best estimate as we don't really know perfectly how much ownership is going on. But the best estimates based on new FOID cards. The national best guess average is 1 in 3 Americans owning guns. So i can't see Illinois being any lower than 1/4


    What you fail to realize is that Indiana gun law has no bearing on why Chicago has more murders despite less people than the rest of the state. Proliferation of firearms has nothing to do with gun violence. Chicago despite having 1/6 of the total population of Illinois and having 1/6 the ownership rate is responsible for 65% of all the murders that happen in the state of Illinois and that number is down after the gun ban was struck down in Chicago.

    Yes your argument is utterly annihilated. And if you don't think so go look at 2013 numbers because 2013 numbers (which i originally quoted) were even worse. (70% of all murders in the state happened in Chicago). Can i get an amen from my freedom loving brothers out there?

    But here is the real defeat of your argument. Plano Texas, The gun Nut capital of the world. Nearly 100% ownership. Has a murder rate of .02 per 100,000. I have been to Plano and I can promise you everyone there is armed to the death.

    State of Indiana you mentioned. Despite lax gun laws only had 299 murders in 2014
    Population of Indiana
    So lets do some math.
    Illinois outside of Chicago 135 murders for 10 million people, 1.35 murders per 100,000
    Indiana 299 Murders for 6.5 Million people, 4.6 Murders per 100,000 people
    Chicago 450 Murders for 2.5 Million People, 18 Murders per 100,000 people.
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    43,062
    Likes Received:
    15,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Compromise means to give and take.
    You cannot simply take and compromise at the same time.

    Wow. You cannot be more wrong.

    505 total accidental gun-related deaths on the US, under all circumstances.

    Then you should have no issue with full reciprocity.

    Of course.
    They're called "anti-gun loons" for a reason.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Glad to see you agree that gun owners should not compromise on their rights.

    And while we do live in a democracy, the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority by the constitution.
     
  21. Capitalism

    Capitalism Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ummm no? "Assault Weapons" are not the issue, hand guns are.

    Why ban a magazine cap? Did that stop the VC using 5 round stripper clips successfully? What about the VT shooter with them hand guns. Universal back ground checks are retarded, oh look a price transfer got around that real good.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    43,062
    Likes Received:
    15,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.
    You believe that bringing guns illegally from other states somehow negates the failure of gun control laws to prevent crime.
    In fact, only only serves to further illustrate that failure.
     
  23. cupAsoup

    cupAsoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2015
    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    o c
    Your numbers do nothing to change the facts that guns are readily, easily available to people in chicago who can travel 20 mins in one direction. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand, but it undermines your entire 'chicago has tough guns laws so should not have gun violence' nonsensical argument.

    Disingenuous. Urban centers will always have more violence of all types than rural areas. Again, not hard to understand.

    For repeating the same incorrect argument over and over? As long as surrounding areas have little restriction on guns, guns will find their way into areas with strong gun laws. It's that simple. Chicago is not surrounded by a moat with crocodiles in it.

    By all means, keep making the argument about chicago versus the rest of very rural IL, it makes it easy to not take your serious and nothing more than another poor soul swayed by NRA propaganda.
     
  24. cupAsoup

    cupAsoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2015
    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. The failure of the states with lax gun control to do something about the problem and then blame other for their failures.
     
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    43,062
    Likes Received:
    15,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't get it.
    It is ILLEGAL for people in IL to buy gunsin IN and bring them back to IL>
    It is ILLEGAL tor people in CA o buy guns in AZ and bring them back to CA
    It doesn't matter what laws In and AZ have, the fact that it is ILLEGAL to bring these guns into the stricter jurisdiction indicated the source of the failure.
     

Share This Page