• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun owners must compromise!!

Bok Tuklo said:
Hard to compromise with people who gleefully watch children being slaughtered.
Click to expand...
I would think you could set whatever difficulty level you like when it comes to compromising with figments of your imagination.
 
bongsaway said:
Your compromise seems to be something similar to, I have aids and if you don't give me something, I will infect you. That isn't compromise, that's being held at gunpoint to get what you want.
Click to expand...

Calm down. Nobody is holding you at gunpoint.
bongsaway said:
Your response tells me there is nothing in your mind that doesn't infringe on your second amendment rights, this is nothing more than your rabbit hole for others to jump down. It does matter what you might be willing to agree to and as a responsible gun owner you should be helping to find answers, not throw up roadblocks.
Click to expand...
 
bongsaway said:
Your compromise seems to be something similar to, I have aids and if you don't give me something, I will infect you. That isn't compromise, that's being held at gunpoint to get what you want.
Click to expand...
The only way you can reach this conclusion is to intentionally misread my posts.
That aside....
What you describe is,. precisely, the anti-gun left's version of compromise, as demonstrated at least twice in this thread:
"Give is what we want and we'll let you keep (at least some of) your guns."
bongsaway said:
Your response tells me there is nothing in your mind that doesn't infringe on your second amendment rights,
Click to expand...
I haven't mentioned infringements at all, especially not in a manner that supports this claim.

Anything else you'd like to make up?
bongsaway said:
It does matter what you might be willing to agree to....
Click to expand...
You will ever know until you make an offer.
- If we give you universal background checks, you will give us... what?
- If we give you a ban on 'assault weapons', you will give us... what?
While you ponder, do not forget the basis of compromise is to offer something of at least equal value to what you ask for.
bongsaway said:
and as a responsible gun owner you should be helping to find answers, not throw up roadblocks.
Click to expand...
So long as you seek acquiescence, not compromise, there's no reason for us to give an inch.
 
Mungo Jerry said:
… there's no reason for us to give an inch.
Click to expand...

The Gun Cult expects everyone to sacrifice their children to their fetish. Not one expects them to give an inch. They want your children to die.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
The Gun Cult expects everyone to sacrifice their children to their fetish. Not one expects them to give an inch. They want your children to die.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest. It's just stale, stupid bait.
 
RF667799 said:
Give it a rest. It's just stale, stupid bait.
Click to expand...

The Gun Folk are who they are. You cannot reason with a death cult. All they care about is guns. They are scum.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
The Gun Folk are who they are. You cannot reason with a death cult. All they care about is guns. They are scum.
Click to expand...

Was that three or four recent posts of content-less, derogatory baiting?
 
Here is my proposal:

- Suppressors off the NFA.
- SBRs, SBSs, AOWs off the NFA.
- Repeal of the Hughes Amendment.
- National shall issue concealed carry (we could withhold highway funds from states that don’t comply).
- National reciprocity of concealed carry permits with no stupid gun free zones allowed except in narrowly defined cases.

Oh, my compromise?
- Machine Guns can stay under the NFA.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Here is my proposal:

- Suppressors off the NFA.
- SBRs, SBSs, AOWs off the NFA.
- Repeal of the Hughes Amendment.
- National shall issue concealed carry (we could withhold highway funds from states that don’t comply).
- National reciprocity of concealed carry permits with no stupid gun free zones allowed except in narrowly defined cases.

Oh, my compromise?
- Machine Guns can stay under the NFA.
Click to expand...

Very reasonable.
 
The clown who wrote that article has no grasp on reality. Nothing like what he was proposing will ever happen.
 
Mungo Jerry said:
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
www.post-journal.com

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 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?
Click to expand...
Compromise is compromising the Constitution. Nobody talks about compromising on the 1st Amendment.
 
American said:
Compromise is compromising the Constitution. Nobody talks about compromising on the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. All the time.
 
American said:
Okay, the Left likes to compromise through proxy like when FB and Twitter quashed Trump.
Click to expand...
The difference is that when it's the First Amendment they don't talk about it. The just do it.
 
bongsaway said:
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?
Click to expand...
Rights are predicated on a need. We don’t have to provide a reason to you in order for us to exercise our rights. Yes, putting a chip in a gun to only allow one person to use it is an infringement.
 
rahl said:
Rights are predicated on a need. We don’t have to provide a reason to you in order for us to exercise our rights. Yes, putting a chip in a gun to only allow one person to use it is an infringement.
Click to expand...
Of course it is, isn't everything?
 
bongsaway said:
Really? What change would you not mind to your right to bear arms?
Click to expand...
I must have missed your response:

- If we give you universal background checks, you will give us... what?
- If we give you a ban on 'assault weapons', you will give us... what?
While you ponder, do not forget the basis of compromise is to offer something of at least equal value to what you ask for.

Well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom