Gun owners must compromise!!

[Mungo Jerry]

Below, an example of what "compromise" means to the rabid anti-gun left; given some of the posts here, I have no reason to think these points are not supported to some degree by those on the left in general

Political Recommendations On A Gun Control Compromise

To The Reader’s Forum: This is a suggested solution for gun control and mass murders that both sides might be able to agree on. First of all, aside from the military and law enforcement, guns would be allowed only in specific circumstances (see below). Otherwise, anyone found in possession of...

www.post-journal.com

In summation, this is "compromise":
-You may only own a gun under specific and very limited conditions
-You have no right to own a gun, and the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant

Oddly enough, there's no mention on banning certain firearms. Weird.

Anyway... regarding "compromise"...
-Why would gun owners agree to this?
-As "compromise" requires give and take from both sides, what do gun owners receive in exchange for agreeing with this?

If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

 

[samiam5211]

You don't have to be so afraid.

Nothing is going to happen with gun control in any of our lifetimes.

Gun owners are the most easily frightened group of people in the US.

Well not all gun owners.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

You don't have to be so afraid.
Nothing is going to happen with gun control in any of our lifetimes.
Gun owners are the most easily frightened group of people in the US.
Well not all gun owners.

Your usual avoidance of the issue, noted.

 

[samiam5211]

Your usual avoidance of the issue, noted.

Avoidance of what issue?

No one is going to take your guns no matter how bad we want to.

Stop being so afraid.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Avoidance of what issue?

Thus the "usual" in my previous statement.

 

[samiam5211]

Thus the "usual" in my previous statement.

Nothing the article proposed would be constitutional. it's posted on a nothing website, by a random person. You may as well be upset about a forum post here.

No reason to have your panties in a bunch.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Nothing the article proposed would be constitutional. it's posted on a nothing website, by a random person. You may as well be upset about a forum post here.

Uh huh.
See the last line of my post:
If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

Don't worry - I don't expect you present a meaningful response.

 

[OlNate]

Below, an example of what "compromise" means to the rabid anti-gun left; given some of the posts here, I have no reason to think these points are not supported to some degree by those on the left in general

Political Recommendations On A Gun Control Compromise

To The Reader’s Forum: This is a suggested solution for gun control and mass murders that both sides might be able to agree on. First of all, aside from the military and law enforcement, guns would be allowed only in specific circumstances (see below). Otherwise, anyone found in possession of...

www.post-journal.com

In summation, this is "compromise":
-You may only own a gun under specific and very limited conditions
-You have no right to own a gun, and the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant

Oddly enough, there's no mention on banning certain firearms. Weird.

Anyway... regarding "compromise"...
-Why would gun owners agree to this?
-As "compromise" requires give and take from both sides, what do gun owners receive in exchange for agreeing with this?

If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

Another pro-gun guy shooting himself in the foot.

It's quite simple.

Step 1: Drop the rhetoric. You're not going to change any minds by talking about the "rabid anti-gun left". You're merely bolstering their resolve. Pretty dumb tactic.

Step 2: As a gun enthusiast, demand that the rules already in place are enforced. Publicly and visibly. Be the face of responsible gun ownership. See step 1.

Step 3: If guns don't kill, people do, then, as a gun enthusiast, be at the forefront of trying to speak to why people kill each other with guns at such a disproportionate rate in America, and provide alternative solutions. Of course, this would lead you down a path of discovery that may challenge some of your other ideologies - poverty driving crime might make you want to address poverty, for example, if keeping your guns is important to you.

Rights are lost for everyone by the people who abuse them. The Patriot act proved, if nothing before it did, that rights are not carved in stone. Be smart and get ahead of it, by being the responsible gun owner you keep telling us the majority of you are. This helps everyone - as a filthy lefty I know that banning guns will solve nothing. Furthermore, I enjoyed my time at the range, and miss it now that I don't go as often as I used to. I have nothing against guns themselves, only the dumbasses that use them in such a way that everyone's enjoyment of shooting could be threatened. You've got more power to influence than you think, but you lose it when you lose sight of step 1.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Another pro-gun guy shooting himself in the foot.
It's quite simple.

1: After they do so, sure.
2: The pro-gun side has been demanding the left commit to enforcing existing laws before we add new ones for decades. they never do..
3: There's no need for anyone on the pro-gun side to make that argument - we do not need to justify our rights, and our defense of same, to anyone.

Rights are lost for everyone by the people who abuse them.

Problem here is the open and abject desire of the anti-gun loons to take away the rights of those who do not abuse them.

And while I appreciate your response, you didn't really address this:
If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

That's no 'compromise'.
But hey! The shops will be open 24/7!
What's to stop me from obtaining a hunting permit to 'show' my intentions, sign my rifle out, and go shoot the person I'm intent on killing?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

You cannot compromise with the Gun Cult. They demand you sacrifice your children to their fetish.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

You cannot compromise with the Gun Cult. They demand you sacrifice your children to their fetish.

My point, proven, before I even made it.

 

[samiam5211]

Uh huh.
See the last line of my post:
If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

Don't worry - I don't expect you present a meaningful response.

There is no compromise while the 2nd amendment is in place. It prevents any meaningful gun control.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

There is no compromise while the 2nd amendment is in place. It prevents any meaningful gun control.

This just means the 2A is working as intended.

This does not prevent you from making an offer, however.
What are you willing to give the pro-gun side in return for the restrictions you seek?

 

[samiam5211]

This just means the 2A is working as intended.

This does not prevent you from making an offer, however.
What are you willing to give the pro-gun side in return for the restrictions you seek?

I wouldn't give the pro gun side anything.

What is the pro gun side? I own three firearms, and i think the 2nd amendment should be repealed.

Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn't mean that i couldn't own guns.

 

[bongsaway]

Below, an example of what "compromise" means to the rabid anti-gun left; given some of the posts here, I have no reason to think these points are not supported to some degree by those on the left in general

Political Recommendations On A Gun Control Compromise

To The Reader’s Forum: This is a suggested solution for gun control and mass murders that both sides might be able to agree on. First of all, aside from the military and law enforcement, guns would be allowed only in specific circumstances (see below). Otherwise, anyone found in possession of...

www.post-journal.com

In summation, this is "compromise":
-You may only own a gun under specific and very limited conditions
-You have no right to own a gun, and the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant

Oddly enough, there's no mention on banning certain firearms. Weird.

Anyway... regarding "compromise"...
-Why would gun owners agree to this?
-As "compromise" requires give and take from both sides, what do gun owners receive in exchange for agreeing with this?

If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

May I ask, democrats don't own guns in your opinion? Mungo Jerry, get out of the sun, it's blinding you to reality. In the summertime when the weather is fine...

 

[Bok Tuklo]

My point, proven, before I even made it.

Hard to compromise with people who gleefully watch children being slaughtered.

 

[OlNate]

1: After they do so, sure.

Immature. I question your seriousness and dedication on this issue. I know I could mind my manners if something was important to me, no matter what the meanies on the other side say.

2: The pro-gun side has been demanding the left commit to enforcing existing laws before we add new ones for decades. they never do..

Link for proof. This is the one thing that, in my opinion and if proven, would be a legitimate grievance.

3: There's no need for anyone on the pro-gun side to make that argument - we do not need to justify our rights and our defense of same to anyone.

Again, your rights aren't worth the paper they're written on if the majority decideds to go in a different direction. It's happened before and it will happen again. There's nothing magical about the word "right", except in the warm and fuzzy feeling it generates. It can be lost in an instant when public opinion changes. Ask slave owners.

Problem here is the open and abject desire of the anti-gun loons to take away the rights of those who do not abuse them.

No, the "anti-gun loons" don't care about your rights one way or the other, they just don't want to get shot up. Without providing them with any real solutions, why should they care about your hobby?

And while I appreciate your response, you didn't really address this:
If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

I feel like I addressed this entirely. Modern anti-gun rhetoric is about as dumbassed as modern pro-gun rhetoric. The only thing going for it is it's popularity. The compromise is coming to the table with real solutions, rather than just talking about people being "rabid", or being "loons". What's more important to you? Insulting the "other side", or keeping your guns. Because, if this plays out the way it always plays out, that appears to be your choice.

 

[bongsaway]

This just means the 2A is working as intended.

This does not prevent you from making an offer, however.
What are you willing to give the pro-gun side in return for the restrictions you seek?

They get to keep their guns. You guys think ANY suggestion is an affront to your beloved second amendment. What is the purpose of a bump stock? You gonna' kill a dozen deer at once? Why do you NEED thirty round magazines, you gonna' kill twenty deer and ten bears at the same time?

Put chips in all new weapons so only the purchaser can use them. How's that for starters, does that diminish the second amendment, infringe on your right to own a firearm?

 

[bongsaway]

You don't have to be so afraid.

Nothing is going to happen with gun control in any of our lifetimes.

Gun owners are the most easily frightened group of people in the US.

Well not all gun owners.

Hilarious and true, they are afraid of everything but they try to push it off on being 'prepared'. I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns. It's like trump the billionaire president trying to sell america his victim story and even more hilariously, people send him money. " I'm so rich".

 

[bongsaway]

Another pro-gun guy shooting himself in the foot.

It's quite simple.

Step 1: Drop the rhetoric. You're not going to change any minds by talking about the "rabid anti-gun left". You're merely bolstering their resolve. Pretty dumb tactic.

Step 2: As a gun enthusiast, demand that the rules already in place are enforced. Publicly and visibly. Be the face of responsible gun ownership. See step 1.

Step 3: If guns don't kill, people do, then, as a gun enthusiast, be at the forefront of trying to speak to why people kill each other with guns at such a disproportionate rate in America, and provide alternative solutions. Of course, this would lead you down a path of discovery that may challenge some of your other ideologies - poverty driving crime might make you want to address poverty, for example, if keeping your guns is important to you.

Rights are lost for everyone by the people who abuse them. The Patriot act proved, if nothing before it did, that rights are not carved in stone. Be smart and get ahead of it, by being the responsible gun owner you keep telling us the majority of you are. This helps everyone - as a filthy lefty I know that banning guns will solve nothing. Furthermore, I enjoyed my time at the range, and miss it now that I don't go as often as I used to. I have nothing against guns themselves, only the dumbasses that use them in such a way that everyone's enjoyment of shooting could be threatened. You've got more power to influence than you think, but you lose it when you lose sight of step 1.

Bravo, well said.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Immature.

How is expecting to be treated as you would have me treat others qualify as "immature"?

Link for proof. This is the one thing that, in my opinion and if proven, would be a legitimate grievance.

Here's one.

Ending Gun Violence Starts With Enforcing Gun Laws

This op-ed by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) first appeared in the Newsweek on January 17, 2024. Opponents of the Second Amendment seem to have painted themselves into a corner. They want to reduce gun violence, but they think cops are worse than criminals. They want more gun laws, but they don't...

www.kennedy.senate.gov

Again, your rights aren't worth the paper they're written on if the majority decideds to go in a different direction.

False - the majority cannot take away those rights.
As to the rest of your comment - you only justify the right to keep and bear arms.

No, the "anti-gun loons" don't care about your rights one way or the other, they just don't want to get shot up.

My statement. however stands;
You talk about people who abuse their rights often lose them, which is true.
If that were the limit of the objectives of the anti-gun left, there's be no issue - but they seek to reduce my rights because of the actions of others.
Why should anyone agree to that?

Without providing them with any real solutions, why should they care about your hobby?

Ah. Your prejudice leaks out
The burden of justification lies on those who wish to restrict a right, not on those who seek to retain them.

I feel like I addressed this entirely.

Compromise is coming to the table with real solutions, where you offer something in exchange for something you want.
You have not done this.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Hilarious and true, they are afraid of everything but they try to push it off on being 'prepared'. I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns. It's like trump the billionaire president trying to sell america his victim story and even more hilariously, people send him money. " I'm so rich".

Your avoidance of the issue presented, noted.

 

[Grand Mal]

Below, an example of what "compromise" means to the rabid anti-gun left; given some of the posts here, I have no reason to think these points are not supported to some degree by those on the left in general

Political Recommendations On A Gun Control Compromise

To The Reader’s Forum: This is a suggested solution for gun control and mass murders that both sides might be able to agree on. First of all, aside from the military and law enforcement, guns would be allowed only in specific circumstances (see below). Otherwise, anyone found in possession of...

www.post-journal.com

In summation, this is "compromise":
-You may only own a gun under specific and very limited conditions
-You have no right to own a gun, and the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant

Oddly enough, there's no mention on banning certain firearms. Weird.

Anyway... regarding "compromise"...
-Why would gun owners agree to this?
-As "compromise" requires give and take from both sides, what do gun owners receive in exchange for agreeing with this?

If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

Bait thread.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Bait thread.

I KNEW you'd say that.
This is why I concluded with:

If you believe this is a poor example of compromise, set up as a straw man, what compromise would you offer?

Well?