A compromise to gun free zones.

[Lursa]

I have a 'friend' who sometimes 'forgets' that he his armed and enters gun-free zones or posted businesses, and he's never been made.

That's not the point.

No one gets 'extra credit' for not being 'made.' It's the basic expectation.

 

[Wayne Jr]

That's not the point.

No one gets 'extra credit' for not being 'made.' It's the basic expectation.

Sorry, I'm dense as hell and you made a sarcastic comment. I completely missed your point even after literally JUST going back and re-reading your comment. What was your point?

 

[Lursa]

Sorry, I'm dense as hell and you made a sarcastic comment. I completely missed your point even after literally JUST going back and re-reading your comment. What was your point?

Oh well. :shrug:

 

[marke]

I find it remarkable that you cannot understand the obvious link between guns and an euphoric testosterone rush in most "tough guys."

I doubt testosterone had anything to do with Dianne Feinstein getting a rare CCW permit in San Francisco while campaigning for gun bans across America. Testosterone may have been Schumer's motive in obtaining a CCW permit or in Carl Rowan's illegal shooting of an unarmed black teenager with an unlicensed illegal firearm for supposedly swimming in his backyard pool without permission.

 

[noonereal]

I doubt testosterone had anything to do with Dianne Feinstein getting a rare CCW permit in San Francisco while campaigning for gun bans across America. Testosterone may have been Schumer's motive in obtaining a CCW permit or in Carl Rowan's illegal shooting of an unarmed black teenager with an unlicensed illegal firearm for supposedly swimming in his backyard pool without permission.

What is a Carl Rowan?

You gun nuts break every rule of logic to sidetrack truths. Well done!

 

[marke]

What is a Carl Rowan?

You gun nuts break every rule of logic to sidetrack truths. Well done!

Carl Rowan was a black hypocritical democrat gun grabber who saw no justification for any civilian American but himself for carrying a gun.

 

[vegas giants]

Here's a compromise offer:
Title firearms. Just like cars and homes. Having to go to the courthouse to transfer a title facilitates background checks, mental health, and training requirements, even for private sales. Institute a waiting period to receive a transferred firearm because almost every mass shooter bought their firearm mere days prior for the expressed purpose of performing the crime.

Eliminate most gun free zones. Obviously, we can't have people carrying belt-fed machine guns onto aircraft, but parents should be able to enter the school while armed due to said titling process. None of these school shootings were carried out by a regular parent or teacher.

That seems to be a reasonable compromise

 

[Rucker61]

Here's a compromise offer:
Title firearms. Just like cars and homes. Having to go to the courthouse to transfer a title facilitates background checks, mental health, and training requirements, even for private sales

No, that turns a right into a privilege. Titling cars and homes exists to levy taxes on the owners. Criminals will not follow these rules.

. Institute a waiting period to receive a transferred firearm because almost every mass shooter bought their firearm mere days prior for the expressed purpose of performing the crime.

Bull****. Prove this.

 

[Wayne Jr]

No, that turns a right into a privilege.

Titles are statements of ownership, not requests for permission. Permits and licenses are requests for permission. Owning a car is a right (driving it on a public road is the privilege, you have every right to own it and use it on private property). You have to transfer the car's title into your name, and owning it is still a right. Owning a home is a right. You have to transfer the home's title into your name, and owning the home is your right. Same with boats. Clearly, titleing property does not convert the right into a privilige.

Titling cars and homes exist to levy taxes on the owners.

Right, and this money would go to enforcing gun laws, such as paying undercover police to attempt to straw-punches from FFLs.

Criminals will not follow these rules.

No, but you would, because you're not a criminal, right?

Bull****. Prove this.

You'll agree to my compromise offer if I do?

 

[Rucker61]

Titles are statements of ownership, not requests for permission. Permits and licenses are requests for permission. Owning a car is a right (driving it on a public road is the privilege, you have every right to own it and use it on private property). You have to transfer the car's title into your name, and owning it is still a right. Owning a home is a right. You have to transfer the home's title into your name, and owning the home is your right. Same with boats. Clearly, titleing property does not convert the right into a privilige.

It does if the primary purpose is to lead to "Having to go to the courthouse to transfer a title facilitates background checks, mental health, and training requirements, even for private sales".

Right, and this money would go to enforcing gun laws, such as paying undercover police to attempt to straw-punches from FFLs.

We could arrest 30,000 felons a year with the cops we have now, but the government chooses to ignore them. There's no reason to believe that the government cares. It's not up to gun owners to pay to enforce gun laws against criminals. That's a benefit to society - society should pay.

No, but you would, because you're not a criminal, right?

Why is it necessary to track the law abiding if you won't enforce the laws against criminals. It's a moot argument, anyway, given the fresh makeup of SCOTUS.

[quote[
You'll agree to my compromise offer if I do?[/QUOTE]

Not a chance. However, the onus is on you to prove your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Wayne Jr]

It does if the primary purpose is to lead to "Having to go to the courthouse to transfer a title facilitates background checks, mental health, and training requirements, even for private sales".

I disagree but if that's so then gun ownership is already a privilege and you've already lost.

We could arrest 30,000 felons a year with the cops we have now, but the government chooses to ignore them. There's no reason to believe that the government cares. It's not up to gun owners to pay to enforce gun laws against criminals. That's a benefit to society - society should pay.

That's an opinion and we could settle that at a ballot box.

Why is it necessary to track the law-abiding if you won't enforce the laws against criminals.

I'm perfectly willing to change what is necessary to drastically increase enforcement, but that's not something this thread is about.

You'll agree to my compromise offer if I do?

Not a chance. However, the onus is on you to prove your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

Then I won't waste my time. The onus is on you to concede when proven wrong if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Rucker61]

I disagree but if that's so then gun ownership is already a privilege and you've already lost.

Well, some states seem to think so, but the stage is now set to fix that.

That's an opinion and we could settle that at a ballot box.

Ah, the tyranny of the majority. You're going to need a Democratic House, Senate, White House and liberal Court to try that. Good luck.

I'm perfectly willing to change what is necessary to drastically increase enforcement, but that's not something this thread is about.

I'm not offering any compromises to a Constitutionally protected right.

Then I won't waste my time. The onus is on you to concede when proven wrong if you want to be taken seriously.

I'll concede this point if you can prove it: "almost every mass shooter bought their firearm mere days prior for the expressed purpose of performing the crime."

 

[TurtleDude]

Carl Rowan was a black hypocritical democrat gun grabber who saw no justification for any civilian American but himself for carrying a gun.

didn't he threaten, shoot at or perhaps shoot a kid sneaking into his pool?

 

[Wayne Jr]

Well, some states seem to think so, but the stage is now set to fix that.

There's a bill in motion to repeal 27 CFR Part 478, Subpart F (the law that keeps you from buying a gun from a manufacturer without going through an FFL, enacted in reaction to Kenedy's assasination)? I'm all ears.

I'm not offering any compromises to a Constitutionally protected right.

No compromise? Not even on the extreme end of the scale such as WMDs? You're saying zero compromises at all ever?

 

[Rucker61]

There's a bill in motion to repeal 27 CFR Part 478, Subpart F (the law that keeps you from buying a gun from a manufacturer without going through an FFL, enacted in reaction to Kenedy's assasination)? I'm all ears.

There's more to the states treating the individual right to keep and bear arms as a privilege than 27 CFR Part 478, Subpart F.

No compromise? Not even on the extreme end of the scale such as WMDs? You're saying zero compromises at all ever?

WMDs are not protected by the Second Amendment. Why should anyone compromise a Constitutional right of any kind?

 

[Wayne Jr]

WMDs are not protected by the Second Amendment. Why should anyone compromise a Constitutional right of any kind?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except for WMDs, shall not be infringed.

The correct answer is WMDs do fall under the 2nd Amendment but banning them is not an infringement because it doesn't undermine the RKBA. Banning WMDs is a compromise to the 2nd Amendment, so if you offer no compromise then you necessarily support free and easy access to WMDs. If you do not support everyone having WMDs then you DO allow for compromise.

 

[marke]

didn't he threaten, shoot at or perhaps shoot a kid sneaking into his pool?

He did. But he claimed he had a right to carry an illegal gun and shoot an unarmed kid in defense of his own property, unlike anyone and everyone else he said should be jailed immediately if found to be carrying a gun.

 

[Rucker61]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except for WMDs, shall not be infringed.

The correct answer is WMDs do fall under the 2nd Amendment but banning them is not an infringement because it doesn't undermine the RKBA. Banning WMDs is a compromise to the 2nd Amendment, so if you offer no compromise then you necessarily support free and easy access to WMDs. If you do not support everyone having WMDs then you DO allow for compromise.

You claim that WMDs fall under the protection of the Second Amendment isn't supported. It's your opinion.

 

[TurtleDude]

He did. But he claimed he had a right to carry an illegal gun and shoot an unarmed kid in defense of his own property, unlike anyone and everyone else he said should be jailed immediately if found to be carrying a gun.

I think one conservative writer-when this came out years ago-noted that the boy was committing "felony skinny-dipping" while being armed with an unconcealed hard on"

 

[noonereal]

I haven't flesh out all the details, but I've been thinking of a compromise for gun free zones if eliminating them altogether isn't possible. For starters allow off duty police officers to carry. I don't see any reason to bar the same people from carrying that if in uniform would be allowed. Second, for citizens wanting to carry in federally and state recongized gun free zones, offer something like an endorsement on their CCW permits. In order to get this endorsement, one has to pass the same firearms course that law enforcement goes through. For carrying on planes, the requirement can be passing an air marshal course. For those not wanting to carry in gun free zones can have a regular CCW permit. So, thoughts?

Be serious.

Gun free zones are ridiculous.

You either ban guns as a country or live with their slaughter.

 

[Rucker61]

Be serious.

Gun free zones are ridiculous.

You either ban guns as a country or live with their slaughter.

No one has banned guns as a country.

 

[noonereal]

You claim that WMDs fall under the protection of the Second Amendment isn't supported. It's your opinion.

we have long bastardized the "interpretation" of the second amendment with opinion

 

[noonereal]

No one has banned guns as a country.

WTH is your point?

 

[Rucker61]

we have long bastardized the "interpretation" of the second amendment with opinion

Those who support the collective view certainly have.

 

[noonereal]

Those who support the collective view certainly have.

the supreme court did