Well I don't agree with them, so there's that.Chizzang wrote:Tell that to your extreme abortion law friends...AZGrizFan wrote:. You can NOT legislate morality, no matter how hard you try.
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
Indeed,AZGrizFan wrote:Well I don't agree with them, so there's that.Chizzang wrote:
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
And ATTEMPTING to legislate morality is one thing. Being successful at it is another.
Chizzang wrote:Indeed,AZGrizFan wrote:
Well I don't agree with them, so there's that.
And ATTEMPTING to legislate morality is one thing. Being successful at it is another.
And I don't agree with the Liberal position on the 2nd amendment
and gun control
This is why you and I have a chance AZ
Well, I'm not an anti-gunner, so I would have to postulate on their positions. If the anti-gunners were pushing that all guns should be banned (including handguns), which I think some do, or push a one gun per person rule, which I think some do, then just having a national registry and a cap on 50 guns would seem to be a compromise position.Col Hogan wrote: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...GannonFan wrote: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.
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?
Skjellyfetti wrote:This thread has so far been people on one side of the issue with ideas that might help the problem.Col Hogan wrote:
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...
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.
Because this is America in the 21st century. There's no common ground, just an enemySkjellyfetti wrote:Why don't you offer up something and we can try to find some common ground?
Beavis, it doesn't have to be a gun control law.AZGrizFan wrote: 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.
Agreed. Can start by institutionalizing the mentally ill like we used to as opposed to letting them roam the streets.Skjellyfetti wrote:Beavis, it doesn't have to be a gun control law.AZGrizFan wrote: 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.
There are other possibilities - like improving mental health care. It's not the only one. I was asking if y'all have any ideas. Instead, you just knee-jerk with "THERE ARE ALREADY 10,000 GUN LAWS, LIBTARD!"
You think any of those mouthbreathers screaming for gun control laws are actually hoping for a health care solution? How cute...Skjellyfetti wrote:Beavis, it doesn't have to be a gun control law.AZGrizFan wrote: 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.
There are other possibilities - like improving mental health care. It's not the only one. I was asking if y'all have any ideas. Instead, you just knee-jerk with "THERE ARE ALREADY 10,000 GUN LAWS, LIBTARD!"
I’m actually glad this bump stock issue has come up. With the SHARE Act making its way to law, a perfect compromise is to give up bump stocks so we can get silencers without a tax stamp. Of course, I live in DE so I won’t be able to get a silencer anyway, but I have been known to live in other states when it’s convenient.Col Hogan wrote:Compromise, anyone???
That's not a compromise. Both should be banned. That's a compromise.93henfan wrote:I’m actually glad this bump stock issue has come up. With the SHARE Act making its way to law, a perfect compromise is to give up bump stocks so we can get silencers without a tax stamp. Of course, I live in DE so I won’t be able to get a silencer anyway, but I have been known to live in other states when it’s convenient.Col Hogan wrote:Compromise, anyone???
So there’s tangible compromise. Bump stocks banned and silencers moved out from under the NFA and brought under GCA/FOPA.
Am I good or what?
Yeah, if you're against people with hearing issues..89Hen wrote:That's not a compromise. Both should be banned. That's a compromise.93henfan wrote:
I’m actually glad this bump stock issue has come up. With the SHARE Act making its way to law, a perfect compromise is to give up bump stocks so we can get silencers without a tax stamp. Of course, I live in DE so I won’t be able to get a silencer anyway, but I have been known to live in other states when it’s convenient.
So there’s tangible compromise. Bump stocks banned and silencers moved out from under the NFA and brought under GCA/FOPA.
Am I good or what?
A gun with a silencer is still pretty loud, yes? I'm assuming the Hollywood variety of silencers has misled the anti-gun crowd to assume that a silencer eliminates almost all of the noise of the gun?93henfan wrote:I’m actually glad this bump stock issue has come up. With the SHARE Act making its way to law, a perfect compromise is to give up bump stocks so we can get silencers without a tax stamp. Of course, I live in DE so I won’t be able to get a silencer anyway, but I have been known to live in other states when it’s convenient.Col Hogan wrote:Compromise, anyone???
So there’s tangible compromise. Bump stocks banned and silencers moved out from under the NFA and brought under GCA/FOPA.
Am I good or what?
See the Hildabeast's tweet if you still have any question about the veracity of your statement.GannonFan wrote:A gun with a silencer is still pretty loud, yes? I'm assuming the Hollywood variety of silencers has misled the anti-gun crowd to assume that a silencer eliminates almost all of the noise of the gun?93henfan wrote:
I’m actually glad this bump stock issue has come up. With the SHARE Act making its way to law, a perfect compromise is to give up bump stocks so we can get silencers without a tax stamp. Of course, I live in DE so I won’t be able to get a silencer anyway, but I have been known to live in other states when it’s convenient.
So there’s tangible compromise. Bump stocks banned and silencers moved out from under the NFA and brought under GCA/FOPA.
Am I good or what?
The left will object to being locked up like that.........next.BDKJMU wrote:Agreed. Can start by institutionalizing the mentally ill like we used to as opposed to letting them roam the streets.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Beavis, it doesn't have to be a gun control law.
There are other possibilities - like improving mental health care. It's not the only one. I was asking if y'all have any ideas. Instead, you just knee-jerk with "THERE ARE ALREADY 10,000 GUN LAWS, LIBTARD!"
Yep. Exactly my point..ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:The left will object to being locked up like that.........next.BDKJMU wrote:
Agreed. Can start by institutionalizing the mentally ill like we used to as opposed to letting them roam the streets.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Well that's an interesting and creative way to mask fallacious logic -Skjellyfetti wrote:This thread has so far been people on one side of the issue with ideas that might help the problem.Col Hogan wrote:
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...
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.
Obama isn't brown people?Chizzang wrote:Reading comprehension levels dropping...CID1990 wrote:
Obama wouldn't have won either of his elections if there was a national registry?
