Gun owners must compromise!!

[Grand Mal]

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?

Yeah, I'll get right on that. Working on it right now.
Hold your breath, it'll happen sooner that way.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Yeah, I'll get right on that. Working on it right now.
Hold your breath, it'll happen sooner that way.

Why aren't you interested in compromise?

 

[Lord of Planar]

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?

Now apply you logic to things like voting.

 

[zincwarrior]

Avoidance of what issue?

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

Stop being so afraid.

Unless you are on the West Coast or NY.

 

[OlNate]

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

Because it ignores the reality of the situation and places your feelings ahead of your goals. If the Left are being so childish, this helps you, in terms of your credibility. You being childish in return only helps them. See how this works?

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

This is a political opinion piece centered around cities having more cops. But fine, let's have more cops. First you (America) need to fix the problems in your police forces that have people wanting less of them. Leftists do tend to be against racism and excessive force...not exactly bad things to be against.

Any specific examples of Leftists not enforcing existing gun laws, though? If provided I will immediately declare it (the Leftists not enforcing existing gun laws) to be bullshit. Of course, you would have to demonstrate that the Right uniformly enforces existing gun laws for it not to be cancelled out. I've got an open mind here, you just haven't delivered the proof yet.

False - the majority cannot take away those rights.

Yes, the majority can, and has, taken away rights.

As to the rest of your comment - you only justify the right to keep and bear arms.

Ask the slave owners how that worked out for them. Besides, why all that bloodshed, when simply refraining from being an asshole could get you (universal you, referring to the pro-gun side) where you want to be?

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?

They shouldn't. But it doesn't matter, if you can't convince the majority that those rights are worth preserving. See above points.

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.

Again, I enjoy shooting as a hobby as well. It's not prejudice, it's pragmatism and a dedication to accepting reality. If 90% of Americans demanded the 2nd ammendment would be repealed, it would be repealed. End of story. Luckily you're not there yet - we haven't even addressed the fact that this is not a partisan issue, and that plenty of people on the left still support the 2nd ammendment. Back to Step 1.... don't alienate those on "the other side" that currently agree with you. Bad tactic.

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

I'll try to simplify further: You offer being reasonable and dedication to finding real solutions, and you get to keep your guns.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Now apply you logic to things like voting.

How / why do you think is a meaningful response to the issue at presented?

 

[zincwarrior]

To really reduce gun crime (and crime):
1) get the red flag laws working and on a living database such that if an event changes (crime, mental issue) then it triggers the red flag.
2) Fix the US mental health and drug abuse situation. This includes homeless/drug dependent.
3. Change the media's (including video games) glamorization of firearm usage.

 

[bongsaway]

Your avoidance of the issue presented, noted.

See #19, I did respond, sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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?

Ok, well that's one idea. A completely stupid idea, and one that clearly violates the 2nd amendment and will never be amended by the state legislatures. The 3 step jail time and fines will quickly be seen as excessive, cruel, and racist. Those penalties will harm the middle class and poor much more than the wealthy.
I can see the law not being enforced against poor, immigrants, blacks, and others because they are victimized and can't afford the fines and are far too often incarcerated for what amount unfair punishment for crimes. NO CASH BAIL..
No, this isn''t compromise at all. Its authoritarianism at the extra. Thanks for pointing out how crazy a "compromise" can be.
Compromise suggests form of middle ground. I forget the left doesn't ever want middle ground, they want all the ground.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Because it ignores the reality of the situation...

That the anti-gun left is going to call me names, no matter what?
Of course they are. Glad you agree.
When they play nice, I will too.

This is a political opinion piece centered around cities having more cops.

More broadly, it argues "enforce the gun laws we have".
You wanted an example, I provided one.

Any specific examples of Leftists not enforcing existing gun laws, though?

Obama Continues His Crusade against a Criminal-Justice System He Derides as Racist | National Review

Obama’s grant of clemency tells us that once someone becomes a member of the oppressed prisoner class, the gun issue becomes irrelevant.

www.nationalreview.com

Yes, the majority can, and has, taken away rights.

A simple majority cannot remove an amendment.

They shouldn't.

There you go.
You understand, then, why we don't.

Again, I enjoy shooting as a hobby as well. It's not prejudice, it's pragmatism and a dedication to accepting reality.

Its an attempt to diminish the argument to something negligible as a means to justify restrictions on the right.

If 90% of Americans demanded the 2nd ammendment would be repealed, it would be repealed. End of story.

Probably not.
The 13 states most likely to vote no - all of them dark red - do not contain very many people; about 10 million no votes are sufficient to stop it - regardless of how many vote for it.
You dont pass an amendment with 90% vational poll approval, you pass it with 50%+1 at the ballot box in 38 states.

Luckily you're not there yet - we haven't even addressed the fact that this is not a partisan issue...

The platform of the Democratic party contains, as it policy points, the enactment of a number of new gun control laws; the GOP platform does not.
Sounds partisan to me.

I'll try to simplify further: You offer being reasonable and dedication to finding real solutions, and you get to keep your guns.

That's compromise at the "If you give me your money, I won't kill you" level, and the only kind the anti-gun left ever offers.
How is "come and get them" not a reasonable response?

 

[natman]

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

-As "compromise" requires give and take from both sides, what do gun owners receive in exchange for agreeing with this?

This is a typical gun control "compromise", in that it takes from gun owners and gives nothing in return. The only thing that's unusual about it is that it takes more at one time than a typical anti-gun "compromise".

And people wonder why gun owners are reluctant to "compromise". But even in the rare instances when a true compromise is made, the left will immediately call whatever they gave up a "loophole" and campaign to get it overturned:

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, the gun controllers wanted all sales to go through a federally licensed dealer with a background check, but they couldn't get the votes. So, a true compromise was reached: it was left up to the states to decide whether to allow direct person to person sales or not.

The left has campaigned for Universal Background Checks to close the "Gun Show Loophole" ever since, even though it has nothing to do with gun shows and is not a loophole.

The Federal background check system is called NICS, which stands for National INSTANT Check System. Checks are supposed to be instant, but sometimes there are issues that take longer to address. But there's nothing INSTANT about "We'll take as long as we like to do your check.". If there's not firm deadline, delays go on forever and a constitutional right gets slowly strangled. So a true compromise was reached of a three day limit.

The left calls this the "Charleston Loophole" and has been campaigning against it ever since.

This is why gun owners are reluctant to compromise their constitutional rights away.

 

[Lord of Planar]

My thought on wanting more gun laws, is this is all pushed by the criminals. Criminals want their victims unarmed.

Nice to see how many criminals, and who they are in these forums.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

See #19, I did respond, sorry to burst your bubble.

"Respoonse" is not the same as "address the issue".

 

[Integrityrespec]

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

That's a lie. Stop lying.

 

[bongsaway]

"Respoonse" is not the same as "address the issue".

It's your hair, split it as many times as you wish.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

That's a lie. Stop lying.

Anti-gun loons lie.
They have to.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

That's a lie. Stop lying.

You think it is easy to compromise with people who are happy children are slaughtered in sacrifice to their personal fetish?

 

[Mungo Jerry]

It's your hair, split it as many times as you wish.

When you can meaningfully address the issue presented, ;let us know.
I shan't expect much.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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.

Frightened? It's the loony left that is frightened. The overwhelming percentage of legal gun owners have never committed any crime. So stop the idea that somehow we are to blame for what, criminals, mentally ill persons, and those who have no regard for others are doing. Also don't cry about gun deaths and then tell us how abortion is a good thing. Killing babies is ok for you guys.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

You think it is easy to compromise with people who are happy children are slaughtered in sacrifice to their personal fetish?

See?
All they can do is lie.
Just like I said.

 

[bongsaway]

When you can meaningfully address the issue presented, ;let us know.
I shan't expect much.

Oh look! A shiny object, over there!

 

[Bok Tuklo]

As far as fear, I know people so afraid of the world they will not leave their home without being armed.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

See?
All they can do is lie.
Just like I said.

Where is the lie?

I find psychopaths who are part of a nihilistic death cult difficult to compromise with.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Oh look! A shiny object, over there!

Please - continue to make my point.

Edit
I missed post #19. Response below.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Put chips in all new weapons so only the purchaser can use them.

And what do you give gun owners in return?