What Can Gun Control Compromise Look Like?

[CAA Flagship]

As long as you haven't dug it too deep. I think you stopped juuuuuuust in time.

Always good to bring a ladder as well. Or at least a friend with a rope.

and lime, in case you have to take a dump.

[89Hen]

Always good to bring a ladder as well. Or at least a friend with a rope.

and lime, in case you have to take a dump.

[GannonFan]

Thanks for the read - I thought it a good piece and it sums up a lot of the problem with gun control - measures normally floated as gun control, more often than not, will have no impact on and will not stop any of these mass shootings and, more importantly, will do little to stop the much larger number of gun-related deaths.

With that said, I still want to do something.

It won't work, but I want to do something.

phpBB [video]

Great movie, and great scene. Extremely quotable. I like when he's going over the photos of his wife cheating on him and he says "...and this one I can't figure out - here's you, and Georgio - but what's with the midget?"

And no, it won't solve everything, but it could be helpful in stopping domestic abuse related gun deaths and that would be something.

[89Hen]

...it could be helpful in stopping domestic abuse related gun deaths...

How so?

[Col Hogan]

With that said, I still want to do something. I don't see the harm in a registry, with the right protections sewn into it that it can never be a confiscatory-related registry. From your article, it talks about domestic violence-related gun deaths. With a registry, if a guy who has a restraining order entered against him (or her for that matter), you can quickly access what guns they might have and act accordingly. Same with a person who ends up entering a medical facility with a mental illness. And a registry would help to possibly stop those guns from being part of the unseen market of guns being sold and traded without any knowledge of where they are going. It's not going to solve everything, it will never solve the problem of a crazed loon (like Vegas, like Orlando, or like most any mass shooting) with no history suddenly causing mass carnage, but it could, at least, help in those cases mentioned above.

How cute. You are not really THAT naive, are you?

Remember when the Social Security cards had printed on them “NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION “...

Then, very quietly, the guv’mint removed it...

[Silenoz]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

I like my rifles as much as the next guy, but I sure as fuck ain't dying for them

Not that these hypothetical raids aren't fantasy anyways. Who the shit would agree to that duty? You'd have to be suicidal

[GannonFan]

With that said, I still want to do something. I don't see the harm in a registry, with the right protections sewn into it that it can never be a confiscatory-related registry. From your article, it talks about domestic violence-related gun deaths. With a registry, if a guy who has a restraining order entered against him (or her for that matter), you can quickly access what guns they might have and act accordingly. Same with a person who ends up entering a medical facility with a mental illness. And a registry would help to possibly stop those guns from being part of the unseen market of guns being sold and traded without any knowledge of where they are going. It's not going to solve everything, it will never solve the problem of a crazed loon (like Vegas, like Orlando, or like most any mass shooting) with no history suddenly causing mass carnage, but it could, at least, help in those cases mentioned above.

How cute. You are not really THAT naive, are you?

How is what I'm proposing naïve? I fully recognize that a danger in a registry is exactly what I think you and other gun proponents fear is that a registry can then lead to other restrictions that would either make owning the gun onerous (say if they taxed someone on how many weapons they had) or make the owner a target to have their guns confiscated. I'm fully aware that anti-gun folks would love to have that happen. That's why I would bake into the law exactly the provisions that would have to exist to confiscate the weapon (i.e. domestic violence restriction for instance) and exactly the provisions to get the weapon back if those conditions no longer exist. And I would bake into the law actual language that affirms that individual right to gun ownership is embedded in the second amendment and that Congress does not have the power to take that right away. Given the state of America today, with the way that government works, and even from what people have said on this thread, I don't really see the fear that the government is going to march down your driveway to remove your weapons because you joined a registry.

[GannonFan]

...it could be helpful in stopping domestic abuse related gun deaths...

How so?

Person gets a restraining order against their domestic partner (husband, wife, etc). Court upholds the restraining order based on the likliehood of violence occurring. If the person already has a firearm that's on the registry they are compelled to surrender it for the life of the restraining order. If they don't have one, they are barred from buying one (legally of course). Would it be 100% effective? Of course not, but I could see it working enough to make it worthwhile.

[89Hen]

How so?

Person gets a restraining order against their domestic partner (husband, wife, etc). Court upholds the restraining order based on the likliehood of violence occurring. If the person already has a firearm that's on the registry they are compelled to surrender it for the life of the restraining order. If they don't have one, they are barred from buying one (legally of course). Would it be 100% effective? Of course not, but I could see it working enough to make it worthwhile.

As a non-gun owner, I am 100% opposed to any such legislation. I can see two MAJOR problems with this.

1. Any vengeful partner can basically fuck with their partner by seeking one that would make them give up their guns.

2. It could make getting a restraining order more difficult because a judge knows the more severe ramifications.

I'll take a pass.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

You remind me of this guy.
Well, without the trust fund and the frolicking around the world and all the hot chicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ge%2Fstory

You don't know me.

You are no where near the douchebag Bilzerian is. Trust me Dan is a fucking tool of the highest order. If mommy and daddy didn't leave him $$$ nobody would talk to that loser.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

...it could be helpful in stopping domestic abuse related gun deaths...

How so?

Arm the wife.........

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

I like my rifles as much as the next guy, but I sure as fuck ain't dying for them

Not that these hypothetical raids aren't fantasy anyways. Who the shit would agree to that duty? You'd have to be suicidal

Throngs of power hungry ANTIFA warriors would gladly step up........

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I know, but many on the left will argue that the second amendment and the founding fathers weren't really envisioning weapons that could put that much lead downrange that quickly. We can debate about whether we as hypothetical gun owners are actually part of a well-regulated militia also. I'm not trying to start an argument about what the intent of the amendment was, only that it does lend itself to some grey area some 230 years later.

In the unlikely event that we have a Red Dawn situation in the US I think we'll be happy that much of the citizenry is armed.

And I’m sure our founding fathers could not envision radio, television, or the internet...

They call it “freedom of the press”...so maybe we should restrict that freedom to printing presses only...

What they DID envision is the need to change the Constitution as time went on. So they included an Amendment Process. THAT is the way things should be done. We shouldn't be doing it by things like Supreme Court decisions. When you do it through the Amendment process it takes an overwhelming social consensus to do it. When you do it through Supreme Court decisions it takes a majority of 9 unelected and unaccountable oligarchs.

To me it's obvious that the Amendment Process is the better way to do it.

[SDHornet]

With that said, I still want to do something. I don't see the harm in a registry, with the right protections sewn into it that it can never be a confiscatory-related registry. From your article, it talks about domestic violence-related gun deaths. With a registry, if a guy who has a restraining order entered against him (or her for that matter), you can quickly access what guns they might have and act accordingly. Same with a person who ends up entering a medical facility with a mental illness. And a registry would help to possibly stop those guns from being part of the unseen market of guns being sold and traded without any knowledge of where they are going. It's not going to solve everything, it will never solve the problem of a crazed loon (like Vegas, like Orlando, or like most any mass shooting) with no history suddenly causing mass carnage, but it could, at least, help in those cases mentioned above.

How cute. You are not really THAT naive, are you?

This. I stopped reading Gannons drivel when I got to the underlined part.

But I'd be willing to trade national gun registration for national voter registration...both regularly updated and enforced as necessary by the FBI.

[Chizzang]

But I'd be willing to trade national gun registration for national voter registration...both regularly updated and enforced as necessary by the FBI.

That would be the last of the brown people being elected for a long long time...

[AZGrizFan]

How cute. You are not really THAT naive, are you?

How is what I'm proposing naïve? I fully recognize that a danger in a registry is exactly what I think you and other gun proponents fear is that a registry can then lead to other restrictions that would either make owning the gun onerous (say if they taxed someone on how many weapons they had) or make the owner a target to have their guns confiscated. I'm fully aware that anti-gun folks would love to have that happen. That's why I would bake into the law exactly the provisions that would have to exist to confiscate the weapon (i.e. domestic violence restriction for instance) and exactly the provisions to get the weapon back if those conditions no longer exist. And I would bake into the law actual language that affirms that individual right to gun ownership is embedded in the second amendment and that Congress does not have the power to take that right away. Given the state of America today, with the way that government works, and even from what people have said on this thread, I don't really see the fear that the government is going to march down your driveway to remove your weapons because you joined a registry.

Well, I'm glad YOU have that kind of confidence in our benevolent government. I, on the other hand, do not. Unless they amend the constitution to require registration, I'm not registering my hypothetical guns.

[CID1990]

But I'd be willing to trade national gun registration for national voter registration...both regularly updated and enforced as necessary by the FBI.

That would be the last of the brown people being elected for a long long time...

Obama wouldn't have won either of his elections if there was a national registry?

[Col Hogan]

As always after these tragedies, there's the same responses. The Lefties say we need real gun control and the conks won't do anything because NRA. And the Righties say nothing proposed would ever stop the crazies from doing what we saw happen in Vegas and all the other places.

If we start from the premise that 1) we won't be able to completely, or even at all, stop the random acts of crazy (so not terrorism, not mental illness, and not systematic and visible crazy) and 2) that even if we can't come up with legislation to stop the random crazy, that taking steps to stop the easy and unseen transfer of guns is a good thing to pursue,...

then... what does that look like? What are the specifics? What are the actual things that we can ultimately get both sides to agree on to start saying that we at least want to try to change the culture that could be formenting this special kind of crazy? While nothing is as awful as seeing large number of people die in these events, the inevitable general banalities of each side blaming the other for no progress and then never actually having the discussion about what can be done and what can't be done is pretty disturbing.

I'll admit, I'm not a gun guy. I've never even held a gun other than a bb-gun in my life. With that said, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment and I believe that it allows private ownership of guns. And, I believe that there will never be enough states to change the Constitution otherwise so the idea to ban all guns like has been done in other countries isn't applicable here.

For me, I have no problem with a move to license and register all guns. Get a census of every gun we have. Any time there is a sale, private or otherwise, it needs to be recorded and the database updated as to who has the gun. The gun gets transferred as an inheritance then update the database. Bake it into the law at the get-go that other than medical illness or a felony conviction or something else (and list it clearly and what constitutes each provision), that Congress has no power to remove the gun from the owner and reference the amendment as the source of that. I'd even propose a limit on the number of guns you can have at an address or by person - maybe a blanket number like no more than 50 individual pieces, high enough that it shouldn't impact that many people but so that people can't have hundreds. And heck, for that matter, I would cross-pollinate this into a move to establish national identity cards. You get a national identity card if you're a citizen and you have to provide that card when you vote. Along with that card is your registry of what guns you own and where you live, and it's updated when you move. Maybe tying one thing that Righties want (voting eligibility clarity) with something that Lefties want (better gun control) means that we could find some middle ground that would mean something actually gets done.

That's my take, but I'm always willing to hear what others say and shift my thinking. I just want to stop hearing the blathering from both sides that amounts to nothing in terms of actual, workable steps we could take.

You titled this thread “What Can Gun Control Compromise Look Like?” Then listed a number of things that second amendment supporters could give in on from your perspective...

A compromise is both sides giving in to reach the middle...

I’d love to hear what you feel are items the anti-gunners should give in on...because since 1934, over 3000 Federal, State and local laws have enfringed on the second amendment. What’s the compromise offer?

[Pwns]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opin ... t-nra.html

Repeal the Second Amendment!

Yeah, the chances of that happening are about the same as a Victoria's Secret Model winning a Nobel Physics Prize.

[Chizzang]

That would be the last of the brown people being elected for a long long time...

Obama wouldn't have won either of his elections if there was a national registry?

Reading comprehension levels dropping...

[Skjellyfetti]

A compromise is both sides giving in to reach the middle...

I’d love to hear what you feel are items the anti-gunners should give in on...

This thread has so far been people on one side of the issue with ideas that might help the problem.

The other side just shits on them and call them imperfect.

Why don't you offer up something and we can try to find some common ground?

As I said on the first page... I'm not holding out hope.

[Col Hogan]

A compromise is both sides giving in to reach the middle...

I’d love to hear what you feel are items the anti-gunners should give in on...

This thread has so far been people on one side of the issue with ideas that might help the problem.

The other side just shits on them and call them imperfect.

Why don't you offer up something and we can try to find some common ground?

As I said on the first page... I'm not holding out hope.

They have been shit on by people who know how to legally possess weapons...how to legally purchase weapons...who have looked at the past decade of shootings and don’t see anything offered that would have stopped ONE of those shootings...they have been shit on by people who are fed up with hearing the same old shit after a shooting knowing that none of the recommendations would have stopped the previous shooting...

OK, compromise you want...I’ll offer you two items in exchange for two items...

We will give up the store-bought bump-fire stocks...and magazines that exceed the normal manufacturer supplied magazine (i.e. 30 rounds for AR or AKs and their families, 17 rounds for Glock 17, 13 rounds for Glock 19, etc...no limit to 10 rounds b.s.) in exchange for National Reciprocity (like driver’s licenses) and removal of suppressors from the NFA list...

Both items I offer from our side would have/could have greatly impacted the Las Vegas shooting...the two items I ask for have had no impact on any of the mass shootings...

[Col Hogan]

duplicate

[AZGrizFan]

A compromise is both sides giving in to reach the middle...

I’d love to hear what you feel are items the anti-gunners should give in on...

This thread has so far been people on one side of the issue with ideas that might help the problem.

The other side just shits on them and call them imperfect.

Why don't you offer up something and we can try to find some common ground?

As I said on the first page... I'm not holding out hope.

10,000 gun control laws on the books already....but I'm sure it's gonna be that 10,001st law that really makes the difference.

I'm tired of arguing about a constitutional right and have more and more and more laws passed that only punish the law abiding citizens. Criminals do NOT obey the laws, no matter HOW MANY are passed....is that really a difficult concept to grasp? Murder is a crime. People still do it. Heroin is illegal. People still get it and shoot it up. You can NOT legislate morality, no matter how hard you try.

[Chizzang]

. You can NOT legislate morality, no matter how hard you try.

Tell that to your extreme abortion law friends...
and see if anybody is listening



and yes you can... legislate the fuck out of morality
We've been doing it for a long time in this country