Compromise

[vegas giants]

This one: https://www.cato.org/commentary/gun-control-measures-dont-stop-violence?

Compromise Is Possible In The Gun Control Debate

The bipartisan Murphy-Cornyn bill is a fig branch.

www.huffpost.com

Point out what the author wants to give back as part of compromise.

Gun control compromise hopes rise

Senate set for showdown vote as some Republicans may defy conservative efforts to prevent debate on firearms ban

www.theguardian.com

Point out what is being given back.

And here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/it-seemed-like-a-gun-control-compromise-could-be-on-the-way-then-the-impeachment-inquiry-happened/2019/10/05/addcb3ba-e626-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html

Here:

Gun Control Compromise

While Republicans and Democrats disagree on virtually everything, gun control still stands out above the rest as one of the more divisive issues.

www.connectionnewspapers.com

I challenge you to find a single instance of a gun control advocate offering to lessen the restrictions on firearms as part of a "compromise".

If someone wanted to ban all guns but the agreed to only ban one gun....aren't they offering a compromise?

 

[Rucker61]

Democrats are anti-gun for one reason: to save lives. They all know guns are the most dangerous items people can get their hands on because one accidental shot instantly ends a human life.

13 year old drivers are illegal and evidently surprisingly dangerous.

Republicans do not care one bit if completely innocent people lose their lives that way.

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS?

And every single time I bring up a mass shooting, no Republican has ever explained why the shooter was justified in being allowed to "keep and bear arms without infringement."

Let me know when we get Minority Report technology.

 

[vegas giants]

That's a tighter definition that we have now, and it's not a compromise. You want tighter restrictions on a class of firearms in common use for lawful purposes. That's a take. What current gun control law are you willing to repeal?

No if the take is less that what you really want that is a compromise

 

[Rucker61]

No if the take is less that what you really want that is a compromise

No, that's extortion.

 

[vegas giants]

No, that's extortion.

No it's not. It's the literal definition of compromise. Its extortion if threats are used

extortion

/ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/

noun

the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

 

[Bullseye]

Democrats are anti-gun for one reason: to save lives. They all know guns are the most dangerous items people can get their hands on because one accidental shot instantly ends a human life.

Tell yourself whatever you want; or what your controllers demand.

Republicans do not care one bit if completely innocent people lose their lives that way. And every single time I bring up a mass shooting, no Republican has ever explained why the shooter was justified in being allowed to "keep and bear arms without infringement."

.Basically BS. Or selective memory; which is just as bad. Republicans are for legal gun ownership.
BTW
You have no idea what Republicans care about.

 

[Bullseye]

Hurts to be exposed , doesn't it?

Dream on.

 

[Rucker61]

No it's not. It's the literal definition of compromise.

Not a professional negotiator are you? I'd never settle any contract with that attitude.

With that definition of compromise - "we're taking less than we want to and giving nothing back (implication - we'll be back for more" - is there any wonder that gun rights advocates don't want to engage in "compromise" with gun rights advocates.

Since you don't even think any compromise, even the "we'll take less than we want", should be offered, don't even mention slippery slope. You've already indicated you want everything.

Its extortion if threats are used

What are the consequences of the new laws? Threats of violence for non-compliance?

extortion

/ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/

noun

the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

Or rights. Rights are something.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

That's a tighter definition that we have now, and it's not a compromise. You want tighter restrictions on a class of firearms in common use for lawful purposes. That's a take. What current gun control law are you willing to repeal?

So why did someone say in another thread manual revolvers with a low magazine capacity are labeled as assault weapons? The member even posted photographs of those guns, telling me all of them were defined as assault firearms. Go figure.

OK what I really would compromise on is armed police. Simply being a veteran cop obviously is not good enough because of people like Kim Potter, who after 26 years still could not tell the difference between a gun and a taser. So it would be arming cops whose job training includes a semester firearms class, including rookies.

 

[vegas giants]

Not a professional negotiator are you? I'd never settle any contract with that attitude.

With that definition of compromise - "we're taking less than we want to and giving nothing back (implication - we'll be back for more" - is there any wonder that gun rights advocates don't want to engage in "compromise" with gun rights advocates.

Since you don't even think any compromise, even the "we'll take less than we want", should be offered, don't even mention slippery slope. You've already indicated you want everything.


What are the consequences of the new laws? Threats of violence for non-compliance?

Or rights. Rights are something.

The literal definition of compromise is I dont get what I want and you dont get what you want but we both agree to settle here

You are just making up new definitions.

By the way we dont need you to agree. If we have the votes we pass the bill

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS?

Show me how the government is doing that by recklessly murdering completely innocent civilians.

 

[Rucker61]

So why did someone say in another thread manual revolvers with a low magazine capacity are labeled as assault weapons? The member even posted photographs of those guns, telling me all of them were defined as assault firearms. Go figure.

They were making fun of the arbitrary nature of the actual "assault weapons" bans, which include some semiautomatic rifles but not others, some semiautomatic pistols but not others, and some semiautomatic shotguns but not others. Your "compromise" expands the definition to all semiautomatic firearms.

Given that SCOTUS has already affirmed that all classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment, why do you think such a requirement would be Constitutional.

OK what I really would compromise on is armed police. Simply being a veteran cop obviously is not good enough because of people like Kim Potter, who after 26 years still could not tell the difference between a gun and a taser. So it would be arming cops whose job training includes a semester firearms class, including rookies.

This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

 

[Rucker61]

Show me how the government is doing that by recklessly murdering completely innocent civilians.

I don't approve of the government murdering completely innocent civilians. I suspect you don't either. This isn't a Second Amendment issue.

 

[Rich2018]

Its you that can't even tell us what youd give back. Compromise is the GCA position.

Compromise is certainly not in the gun lobby's vocabulary is it

You are not prepared to give up anything.

 

[The flaming lib]

We’ve already given up to much over the years. There should be no compromise by the good guys. We need to work to get back what was given up. The idea of compromise is stupid.

 

[Rich2018]

Seriously? you think England is totalitarian?

Why do you think I had suggested that ?

Though I must admit that a certain poster on here called Britain a "Police State" because it doesn't give the right to a gun
Another poster said Britain had turned it's back on freedom when it banned the majority of guns

So what exactly ARE you trying to argue ?

Total idiocy is its own disproval.

In other words you cannot prove it

Your emperor has no clothes on...

Since you're probably not familiar with the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, it's about two con men who promise an emperor the most magnificent set of new clothes ever, if he'd just provide them with enough gold to make them
Each day they pretended to be sewing clothes and secretly pocketed the gold
And when anyone asked to see them, they acted all shocked and said they were right there, but stupid people could not see them
On the day of the parade, the con men vanished, and the emperor marched through the city naked, no-one dare mention the fact that he was naked for fear of being branded "stupid"
Until a little boy yelled out that the emperor was naked...

You're trying the same trick as those con men. Well sorry, your "emperor" has no clothes on

Best you stick to trying to articulate your thoughts into English than attempting a well trodden con
Of course that's really hard to do when you lack a argument in the first place.

It's not going to get any more intelligent.

Don't put yourself so down
At least try to make an effort.

 

[Bullseye]

Why do you think I had suggested that ?

Though I must admit that a certain poster on here called Britain a "Police State" because it doesn't give the right to a gun
Another poster said Britain had turned it's back on freedom when it banned the majority of guns

So what exactly ARE you trying to argue ?

Certainly no that Britain is a dictatorship or police state.

In other words you cannot prove it

Your emperor has no clothes on...

Since you're probably not familiar with the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, it's about two con men who promise an emperor the most magnificent set of new clothes ever, if he'd just provide them with enough gold to make them
Each day they pretended to be sewing clothes and secretly pocketed the gold
And when anyone asked to see them, they acted all shocked and said they were right there, but stupid people could not see them
On the day of the parade, the con men vanished, and the emperor marched through the city naked, no-one dare mention the fact that he was naked for fear of being branded "stupid"
Until a little boy yelled out that the emperor was naked...

You're trying the same trick as those con men. Well sorry, your "emperor" has no clothes on

Best you stick to trying to articulate your thoughts into English than attempting a well trodden con
Of course that's really hard to do when you lack a argument in the first place.



Don't put yourself so down
At least try to make an effort.

Sorry, this bullshit is too deep to wade through. For someone who couldn't understand a simple statement you really have no room to talk about articulating anything.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

You want to know what compromises people like me are willing to accept. That is my answer.

 

[Rucker61]

You want to know what compromises people like me are willing to accept. That is my answer.

Should there be a compromise between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I don't approve of the government murdering completely innocent civilians. I suspect you don't either. This isn't a Second Amendment issue.

It is totally a Second Amendment issue. The only reason to own a gun is to use it. The Second Amendment exists so people can use them.

 

[Rucker61]

You want to know what compromises people like me are willing to accept. That is my answer.

The arms, training and actions of the police are not a gun control issue.

 

[Rucker61]

It is totally a Second Amendment issue. The only reason to own a gun is to use it. The Second Amendment exists so people can use them.

Nope, police powers derive from state Constitutions. The Second Amendment doesn't protect the arms of the police. It has zero to do with the arms of the police.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The arms, training and actions of the police are not a gun control issue.

You are very picky about what constitutes a "gun control issue" in this thread.

 

[Rich2018]

Certainly no that Britain is a dictatorship or police state.

I'm glad you agree, and disagree with other posters who claim Britain is a police state or has eschewed freedom.

Sorry, this bullshit is too deep to wade through. For someone who couldn't understand a simple statement you really have no room to talk about articulating anything.

Obviously too deep to be able to articulate your thoughts into English and a coherent argument

You prefer to hide behind Dismissive comments that would shame a ten year old.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Nope, police powers derive from state Constitutions. The Second Amendment doesn't protect the arms of the police. It has zero to do with the arms of the police.

If "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not include police, it does not exist. Police are among "the people."