Compromise

[Rucker61]

All up for negotiation if you're willing to compromise.

And in Georgia, a CCW includes non-firearms weapons.

Have California, Hawaii, New Jersery and New York signed up for nationwide CCW? It's not an actual issue that the feds have power over.

 

[Rich2018]

Have California, Hawaii, New Jersery and New York signed up for nationwide CCW? It's not an actual issue that the feds have power over.

That would be open to debate

If Congress invested a federal CCW, I'm not sure a state government could overrule it.

 

[Rucker61]

That would be open to debate

If Congress invested a federal CCW, I'm not sure a state government could overrule it.

SCOTUS could. The federal government has no such authority.

 

[zsu2357]

If you're interested in that I suppose.



What do pro-gun groups offer by way of compromise ?

On this board I've seen the desire by some for a nation wide reciprocity law for ccw. But they would still end up giving away more.

 

[Noodlegawd]

But it's a nonsensical compromise
We register all motor vehicle, not just car and we register all voters...

It makes no sense to just register handguns.

I gave a perfectly sensible reason for the distinction, one you certainly didn't rebut. And no, we don't "register all motor vehicles."

Allow concealed carry all over the USA - subject to passing a background check and getting a CCW.

You dodged the question. I essentially asked you for the criteria to get a CCW, and you said one of the criteria is "getting a CCW."

Criteria will be shown to be anything but meaningless, when they're challenged in court by lawyers who'll run rings around convoluted definitions.

That's not what we're discussing here.

Because it will be piecemeal
We need consistency.

Why? Why does every state need to be the same for this, but not for everything else? Why bother even having states?

Then what's the point of your "compromises" ?
They won't do anything.

Non sequitur. You haven't established that they "won't do anything," nor have you established that banning handguns and semiautomatic firearms will "do anything."

More importantly, it's not much of a compromise if you take away 95% of what the other side already has and wants to keep. What would you offer in exchange for such a ban, that it's even remotely likely the gun rights side would accept?

 

[Rich2018]

SCOTUS could. The federal government has no such authority.

And then be impeached for overreach
Yes it does

Are you saying that the US government can't issue nationwide licenses ?

 

[Rich2018]

On this board I've seen the desire by some for a nation wide reciprocity law for ccw. But they would still end up giving away more.

So you agree that such a law would be "constitutional" ?

 

[Rich2018]

I gave a perfectly sensible reason for the distinction, one you certainly didn't rebut. And no, we don't "register all motor vehicles."

No you didn't
There is no reason why one firearm should be registered, and not another
And yes we do. All motor vehicles need to be registered and you need a valid license to drive one*.

You dodged the question. I essentially asked you for the criteria to get a CCW, and you said one of the criteria is "getting a CCW."

Getting a CCW entails "getting a CCW"
I don't think you mean "criteria". Perhaps you mean "requirements" ?

That's not what we're discussing here.

Absolutely it is
What is a "hand gun" ?
If you require that it's registered but not a rifle, you'll have to define both, plus other firearm types.

Why? Why does every state need to be the same for this, but not for everything else?

For consistency
Why should each state be different...isn't that wasted effort ?

Why bother even having states?

Because the USA is too large to micro-manage
So it's better to split it up for administration purposes...all Westernized countries do this.

You haven't established that they "won't do anything," nor have you established that banning handguns and semiautomatic firearms will "do anything."

Respectively:
They won't because they don't set-up any significant barriers to crime
Such bans will, because they ***DO*** set up barriers to crime. Banning hand guns and semi-automatic rifles (I didn't specifically say so, but I'd include fully automatic guns too) are responsible for most gun related homicides. Therefore if both were banned, homicides would dramatically decrease+

More importantly, it's not much of a compromise if you take away 95% of what the other side already has and wants to keep. What would you offer in exchange for such a ban, that it's even remotely likely the gun rights side would accept?

Neither is it a compromise if you retain 99% of all that you have already.


*Are you trying to nit-pick and say you don't need to register motor vehicles if they're not driven on public roads ?
+As reasoned by the many governments around the world who've banned them (Often I get a "Little American retort here that "I don't care what happens in other countries...")

 

[Noodlegawd]

No you didn't. There is no reason why one firearm should be registered, and not another

I can't make the words read themselves to you. Respond to what I actually wrote, or feel free to discuss this with someone else.

And yes we do. All motor vehicles need to be registered and you need a valid license to drive one*.

No we don't. You can drive a motor vehicle without a license or registration all day, every day, on private property. And that's not nitpicking, not even a little. It's a significant difference, just like there is a significant difference between rifles and handguns when it comes to the issue we're discussing.

What is the purpose of vehicle registration? What is the supposed purpose firearm registration?

And by the way, there's no federal law requiring vehicle registration or even driver's licenses, so that's another part of the analogy out the window for you.

Do you even understand what the word "compromise" means.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Every day - knowing an armed citizenry exists deters freedom grabbers, which is why the left is so anti-gun.

Actually: NEVER was the correct answer.

 

[Rich2018]

I can't make the words read themselves to you. Respond to what I actually wrote, or feel free to discuss this with someone else.

Exactly what do you require a response to ?

No we don't. You can drive a motor vehicle without a license or registration all day, every day, on private property.

Which is what I said - did you not read that bit ?

And that's not nitpicking, not even a little. It's a significant difference

No it's not, the number of such vehicles is tiny, especially if you exclude agricultural vehicles like tractors that aren't built for transport.

...just like there is a significant difference between rifles and handguns when it comes to the issue we're discussing.

No there isn't, indeed I think you'd have a hard time defining either.

What is the purpose of vehicle registration? What is the supposed purpose firearm registration?

Assist with compliance of regulations and laws, and to assist with crime resolution.

And by the way, there's no federal law requiring vehicle registration or even driver's licenses, so that's another part of the analogy out the window for you.

Are ships and aircraft not registered, or do you not class transportation devices that travel on sea or in the air as "vehicles" ?

vehicle:​

1: a means of carrying or transporting something planes, trains, and other vehicles

Definition of VEHICLE

a means of carrying or transporting something : such as; motor vehicle; a piece of mechanized equipment… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Oh and I never said that road motor vehicles have to be nationally registered, just registered with the appropriate regulatory body, so that's another part of your argument out of the window.

Do you even understand what the word "compromise" means.

Definition of COMPROMISE

settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions; something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things; a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Noodlegawd]

Exactly what do you require a response to ?

I don't "require" any response from you. If you want to ignore what I wrote and lie that I didn't give reasons, then feel free.

 

[Phys251]

That’s a worthy goal, how long in general do you think it takes to see those returns? Not as long as it takes or just one life bumper sticker come backs. But a generation, a couple generations something that is always hopes for but never a reality

Here comes the "there's nothing we can do about the lives lost" argument.

 

[Phys251]

you need to learn what an ad hom attack is-they are constantly lobbed at me by some of your fellow travelers. Go to the currently open affirmative action thread for example. And what argument have you ever presented on the gun forum that is not pavlovian nonsense?

Right, you think you get to spew ad hom attacks, dictate the terms of the debate, and play the "la la la can't hear you" game. It's so boring.

 

[Rich2018]

I don't "require" any response from you. If you want to ignore what I wrote and lie that I didn't give reasons, then feel free.

Then be quiet

Put up or shut up.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Then be quiet

Put up or shut up.

That's mature. Par for the course with all the rest of your lying, trolling and dodging, of course.

 

[nvflash]

you don't get what I am saying

What good is the second amendment for stopping tyranny, as conservatives say, IF YOU LITERALLY NEVER USE AGAINST TYRANNY.

Answer:

1. Did we use it when Washington + Adams + Jefferson raised taxes higher than British colonial levels?
   1. WE actually did, but the whiskey rebellion and others failed. Shame.
2. Did we use it when Confederates and Union dragged millions of Americans into unnecessary civil war?
3. Did we use it when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, creating an income tax and permanently destroying the US economy?
4. Did we use it when Woodrow Wilson brought us into WW1 unnecessarily and cost the lives of 100K Americans?
5. Did we use it when LBJ forced whites to desegregate and send them overseas to Vietnam?
6. Did we use it when Bush pushed through the Patriot Act?
7. Did we use it when Covid tyranny was installed?

NO WE DIDNT! SO FOR 244 YEARS, AMERICANS HAVE NEVER ONCE USED THEIR GUNS TO STOP TYRANNY. FOR 244 YEARS AMERICANS HAVE WILLINGLY RETREATED INTO TOTAL SLAVERY

YOU DONT HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. YOU'VE NEVER HAD THE SECOND AMENDMENT

In 1814 we took a little trip along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip'.

 

[Rucker61]

Here comes the "there's nothing we can do about the lives lost" argument.

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

 

[Phys251]

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

Human life is more precious than guns.

 

[Rucker61]

Human life is more precious than guns.

Evidently, though, human life isn't more important than Constitutionally protected rights. See Warren v DC and Castle Rock v Gonzales.

You didn't answer the question. It's "yes" or "no".

 

[Phys251]

Evidently, though, human life isn't more important than Constitutionally protected rights. See Warren v DC and Castle Rock v Gonzales.

You didn't answer the question. It's "yes" or "no".

Actually life is protected by the 14th Amendment, which a lot of right-wingers hate. The Constitution is a lot more than Amendments 2 and 10.

 

[TurtleDude]

Right, you think you get to spew ad hom attacks, dictate the terms of the debate, and play the "la la la can't hear you" game. It's so boring.

your arguments are trolling nonsense and your posts on the gun forum are essentially baiting attacks on gun advocates. You also need to look up "Ad Hom" It is something your fellow travelers constantly launch at me.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually life is protected by the 14th Amendment, which a lot of right-wingers hate. The Constitution is a lot more than Amendments 2 and 10.

you mean the 14th amendment that rams the second amendment down the throats of bannerrhoid democrats in states like NY and California

 

[Phys251]

your arguments are trolling nonsense and your posts on the gun forum are essentially baiting attacks on gun advocates. You also need to look up "Ad Hom" It is something your fellow travelers constantly launch at me.

you mean the 14th amendment that rams the second amendment down the throats of bannerrhoid democrats in states like NY and California

^ This is what weak arguments look like. At least Rucker is actually trying.

 

[TurtleDude]

Human life is more precious than guns.

not always true. If someone is trying to kill a family member-having a gun is quite important and the life of the attacker is not going to rate very highly with most people