[W:255] Why won’t Democrats offer “common sense” compromise solutions?

[Colin Norris]

Instead of continuing to push the same old gun control packages that have failed to pass time and time again, why won’t Democrats offer something else as a compromise solution?

For instance, instead of pushing for a ban on 11+ round magazines (not to mention the useless ban on “assault weapons”), why not just propose a ban (or even just background checks) on 31+ round magazines instead? Biden keeps telling us that “nobody needs a 100 round magazine,” so why not actually focus on that instead of just using that mantra to mislead people?

Instead of continuing to push for “universal background checks” on all private firearm sales, requiring a licensed dealer to be involved in each transaction with the same record-keeping requirements as for sales of firearms by that dealer (i.e., de facto registration), why not try:
-limiting it to handguns (which would address 98% of the supposed problem and significantly mitigate the registration concern of certain gun rights advocates);
-allowing for private buyers and sellers to conduct the checks themselves for free through an online system (as proposed by Sen. Coburn in 2013); and/or
-allowing for alternative proof of eligibility, like a current concealed carry permit or trusted traveler card?

And instead of proposing even stricter laws for meaningless nonsense like SBRs, “pistol braces” and suppressors, why not throw a bone to gun enthusiasts and RELAX the restrictions on those things, which will realistically endanger no one?

Or even better, let the states decide for themselves and just pass a single federal law making it more difficult for private sellers to sell firearms to people from out of state? This could be as simple as requiring sellers to check ID, and not sell to anyone from out of state.

I think I know the answer on background checks at least: although Dems mostly claim that they’re not pushing for federal gun registration, that’s exactly what they are proposing. Sadly hat may have been the only issue that prevented UBCs from passing in 2013. But if what they really want is universal registration, why won’t they just be honest about it and run on that platform?

Have you ever thought of handing in half those guns you never use?
What about the thousands of rounds you've got?
Don't blame the government. You the gun owners is the problem and that filthy 2nd being deliberately misinterpreted.

Oh no. We're waiting for some tyrannical president. Chinese invasion or something.
Rubbish. It's your ego.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Have you ever thought of handing in half those guns you never use?
What about the thousands of rounds you've got?
Don't blame the government. You the gun owners is the problem and that filthy 2nd being deliberately misinterpreted.

Oh no. We're waiting for some tyrannical president. Chinese invasion or something.
Rubbish. It's your ego.

Can't respond to what I actually wrote, aye? Cool. Have a great weekend.

 

[Colin Norris]

Can't respond to what I actually wrote, aye? Cool. Have a great weekend.

I thought I covered the subject very well but you don't see it like the rest of the world.

 

[Glitch]

Have you ever thought of handing in half those guns you never use?

Who would be stupid enough to do that?

If someone finds that they are not using a particular firearm, for whatever reason, they will typically sell the firearm and attempt to recoup at least some of their investment into the firearm. Only a complete moron would hand over property that they paid for and still has value.

For example, I bought a Remington .458 Win. Mag. in Los Angeles for the purpose of taking brown bear in Alaska. However, after moving to Alaska I decided not to hunt brown bear, since I had no desire to eat one. After a few years I decided that I could no longer afford $5+ per round, so I sold the firearm. I originally paid $1,500 for the rifle and I was able to get $1,250 after about a decade of use at the range.

Anyone who hands over a $1,000+ firearm to government should never be allowed to ever own any firearms, because they are clearly mentally defective.

What about the thousands of rounds you've got?
Don't blame the government. You the gun owners is the problem and that filthy 2nd being deliberately misinterpreted.

What about them? I just spent the last two weeks at the range and went through an easy 500 rounds. It requires a great deal of ammunition to become proficient with a firearm. Like every other skill, it requires continual practice to stay good. That necessitates owning several thousand rounds of ammunition.

The only one who is misinterpreting anything here is you. Since Australia acknowledges no individual rights and Australia's parliament is the absolute authority without limit, I can certainly understand your confusion since you have no clue what it means to be free or possess a modicum of liberty.

 

[Colin Norris]

Who would be stupid enough to do that?

If someone finds that they are not using a particular firearm, for whatever reason, they will typically sell the firearm and attempt to recoup at least some of their investment into the firearm. Only a complete moron would hand over property that they paid for and still has value.

For example, I bought a Remington .458 Win. Mag. in Los Angeles for the purpose of taking brown bear in Alaska. However, after moving to Alaska I decided not to hunt brown bear, since I had no desire to eat one. After a few years I decided that I could no longer afford $5+ per round, so I sold the firearm. I originally paid $1,500 for the rifle and I was able to get $1,250 after about a decade of use at the range.

Anyone who hands over a $1,000+ firearm to government should never be allowed to ever own any firearms, because they are clearly mentally defective.


What about them? I just spent the last two weeks at the range and went through an easy 500 rounds. It requires a great deal of ammunition to become proficient with a firearm. Like every other skill, it requires continual practice to stay good. That necessitates owning several thousand rounds of ammunition.

The only one who is misinterpreting anything here is you. Since Australia acknowledges no individual rights and Australia's parliament is the absolute authority without limit, I can certainly understand your confusion since you have no clue what it means to be free or possess a modicum of liberty.

You're explanation why you have firearms is exactly what I have been saying about testosterone and ego. You're the epitome of the gun culture.

From my research, Australia has not taken away rights to own guns. That's a complete lie.
The parliament is not the absolute power and can never be in a democracy like here.
You speak of freedom and liberty as if you invented it and this is the only country who has it. That's another error you Rambos have taken on board as if gospel.

Guns in Australia are accessible like here. You get a licence, pass the necessary mental assessments and it's yours. Its registered to you and your address and must be available on request by police to see. Usually every two or three years.
You can sell or transfer that weapon to anyone qualified.

You can research those very same facts if you took the time but you cant help yourself but bellow as if you are an encyclopedia on guns. You're not. You're just another cowboy attempting to justify an armoury of guns you never use.
You're so paranoid about some commu.ist take over, a tyrannical government or having to protect yourself.
Home of the brave? I don't think so.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Why does that theory apply to what you like, but not what you don't like?

Its not about what I like or don't like its about where the BOR applies. I can ban guns in my own house if I want to since its my house, the same way I can ban certain movies, speech, music, and media in my own house (although I ban neither.)

For all practical purposes, Democrats ARE the "gun control crowd."

Not necessarily, not all democrats want more gun control and not everybody who wants more gun control is a democrat.

 

[Rucker61]

Have you ever thought of handing in half those guns you never use?
What about the thousands of rounds you've got?
Don't blame the government. You the gun owners is the problem and that filthy 2nd being deliberately misinterpreted.

Oh no. We're waiting for some tyrannical president. Chinese invasion or something.
Rubbish. It's your ego.

Why is the number of firearms I own or the amount of ammunition I own of any concern to you or anyone else?

If I no longer wanted them, why would I turn them in rather than selling them?

 

[Glitch]

You're explanation why you have firearms is exactly what I have been saying about testosterone and ego. You're the epitome of the gun culture.

Your delusional to think that buying and selling a firearm is all about testosterone and ego. I also bought a Stihl chainsaw at the same time as I bought my Remington .458 Win. Mag. Was that all about testosterone and ego as well, or just when someone buys what your clearly fear - firearms? Don't look now, but your hoplophobia is showing.

From my research, Australia has not taken away rights to own guns. That's a complete lie.

Then you clearly haven't done your research. Australians have no acknowledged right to own a firearm. Which is why the all-powerful Australian parliament can take them away any time they please. Just like they did during the 1990s.

The parliament is not the absolute power and can never be in a democracy like here.

Of course they are all-powerful. Read your constitution. There is absolutely no limit to the power your parliament may exert, and there are no acknowledged rights for any Australian.

You speak of freedom and liberty as if you invented it and this is the only country who has it.

We did invent it, and we are the only nation on the planet that has it. No other nation on the planet acknowledges within their own founding documents the individual rights of its citizens. Nor does any other nation on the planet limit and restrict their primary government to only specific powers and no others. The US is unique among nations in both the freedom afforded its citizens and its restrictions on government.

Guns in Australia are accessible like here. You get a licence, pass the necessary mental assessments and it's yours. Its registered to you and your address and must be available on request by police to see. Usually every two or three years.
You can sell or transfer that weapon to anyone qualified.

You can research those very same facts if you took the time but you cant help yourself but bellow as if you are an encyclopedia on guns. You're not. You're just another cowboy attempting to justify an armoury of guns you never use.
You're so paranoid about some commu.ist take over, a tyrannical government or having to protect yourself.
Home of the brave? I don't think so.

The very limited firearms your parliament has given you permission to own is pathetic, and underscores how much Australians are government slaves. You have absolutely no clue what it actually means to live free, which is very sad indeed. In the US it violates the US Constitution to require a permit or a license to exercise ANY individual right, including firearm ownership.

As I previously explained, I use every firearm I own. If I don't have a use for a firearm, I sell it. If I have a use for a different type of firearm, I buy it. Unlike you, I am not restricted in my choices of firearms, and I certainly don't require the government's permission.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I thought I covered the subject very well but you don't see it like the rest of the world.

No, you posted some nonsense about me personally and the 2nd amendment. This thread is about gun control proposed by Democrats. Try to keep up.

 

[mrjurrs]

You can't Constitutionally defend "assault weapon" bans, magazine capacity restrictions, purchase quantity limitations, licensing requirements, registration, training requirements or virtually any other proposal that the Democrats are proposing.

I can't, but a legal team can.

 

[Glitch]

I can't, but a legal team can.

No, they cannot. As is evidenced by the fact that everyone of those Democrat proposals have already been identified as unconstitutional by either the lower federal courts or the Supreme Court itself.

 

[bomberfox]

Democrats compromise. Republicans just block everything.

 

[mrjurrs]

If that were true then you could provide the Supreme Court case that supports your delusional view. Since you can't provide a single Supreme Court case to support your position, it is obviously just another leftist lie.

I, on the other hand, have the support of United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) where the Supreme Court held that the federal government may not usurp exclusive States powers through taxation.

Which by itself makes the Affordable Care Act, MediCare/MedicAid, Social Security, and the Department of Education unconstitutional and therefore illegal.


My belief is supported by the Supreme Court. Yours is not. Your belief that the federal government is all powerful is as delusional as it gets. A product of your leftist indoctrination no doubt.

It is true. McCullough v Maryland, 1819.

Interesting reading of Butler, this is closer to what it actually says, "...Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the U.S. Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States." Butler relates almost exclusively to New Deal programs. I'll look forward to you showing me how it's impacting govt actions today.

I never said the government is all powerful, that's a product of your fever dream not mine.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, they cannot. As is evidenced by the fact that everyone of those Democrat proposals have already been identified as unconstitutional by either the lower federal courts or the Supreme Court itself.

Lower courts determination of constitutionality only stand if the SCOTUS declines to hear the case. So, any law currently being challenged in court, unless subject to a national hold, is still constitutional.

 

[Glitch]

It is true. McCullough v Maryland, 1819.

Interesting reading of Butler, this is closer to what it actually says, "...Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the U.S. Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States." Butler relates almost exclusively to New Deal programs. I'll look forward to you showing me how it's impacting govt actions today.

I never said the government is all powerful, that's a product of your fever dream not mine.

That is not what the Supreme Court said in Butler. That is you dishonestly citing the government's argument, an argument that they lost - badly. The Supreme Court literally laughed the government's bogus argument out of court.

If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns. P. 297 U. S. 75.

 

[mrjurrs]

That is not what the Supreme Court said in Butler. That is you dishonestly citing the government's argument, an argument that they lost - badly. The Supreme Court literally laughed the government's bogus argument out of court.

That is absolutely what the court said. I notice you chose not to address the ND focus of that decision, nor the request for how it is impacting us today. If it were in fact unconstitutional, why has SS never been overturned?

 

[zsu2357]

Why does that theory apply to what you like, but not what you don't like?



For all practical purposes, Democrats ARE the "gun control crowd."

How about the anti gunners sitting back and watching you guys go at each other and laughing it up?

 

[zsu2357]

Its not about what I like or don't like its about where the BOR applies. I can ban guns in my own house if I want to since its my house, the same way I can ban certain movies, speech, music, and media in my own house (although I ban neither.)

I will ban a drunk and that's about it.

Not necessarily, not all democrats want more gun control and not everybody who wants more gun control is a democrat.

Perhaps not all democrats want gun control, but if you vote democrat it's kinda a package deal.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I will ban a drunk and that's about it.

That's your prerogative.

Perhaps not all democrats want gun control, but if you vote democrat it's kinda a package deal.

Depends on what democrat you're voting for.

 

[Bullseye]

Common sense and Democrats are mutually exclusive. Does that answer your question?

 

[Noodlegawd]

How about the anti gunners sitting back and watching you guys go at each other and laughing it up?

Yeah, imagine that. People who support the 2A disagree with each other on some things, instead of just being brainwashed lemmings. How embarrassing.

 

[Rucker61]

I can't, but a legal team can.

Not so much.

 

[Colin Norris]

No, you posted some nonsense about me personally and the 2nd amendment. This thread is about gun control proposed by Democrats. Try to keep up.

Gotcha.

 

[Colin Norris]

Your delusional to think that buying and selling a firearm is all about testosterone and ego. I also bought a Stihl chainsaw at the same time as I bought my Remington .458 Win. Mag. Was that all about testosterone and ego as well, or just when someone buys what your clearly fear - firearms? Don't look now, but your hoplophobia is showing.


Then you clearly haven't done your research. Australians have no acknowledged right to own a firearm. Which is why the all-powerful Australian parliament can take them away any time they please. Just like they did during the 1990s.


Of course they are all-powerful. Read your constitution. There is absolutely no limit to the power your parliament may exert, and there are no acknowledged rights for any Australian.


We did invent it, and we are the only nation on the planet that has it. No other nation on the planet acknowledges within their own founding documents the individual rights of its citizens. Nor does any other nation on the planet limit and restrict their primary government to only specific powers and no others. The US is unique among nations in both the freedom afforded its citizens and its restrictions on government.


The very limited firearms your parliament has given you permission to own is pathetic, and underscores how much Australians are government slaves. You have absolutely no clue what it actually means to live free, which is very sad indeed. In the US it violates the US Constitution to require a permit or a license to exercise ANY individual right, including firearm ownership.

As I previously explained, I use every firearm I own. If I don't have a use for a firearm, I sell it. If I have a use for a different type of firearm, I buy it. Unlike you, I am not restricted in my choices of firearms, and I certainly don't require the government's permission.

You are under a great misapprehension about Australia. In fact you know nothing.
You're just another loud mouthed gun owners who thinks the sun rises to shine on America. You're as ignorant as a row of cats watching tv.

 

[Rucker61]

You are under a great misapprehension about Australia. In fact you know nothing.
You're just another loud mouthed gun owners who thinks the sun rises to shine on America. You're as ignorant as a row of cats watching tv.

If you have to have a license from the government that the government can deny for any reason, you don't have a right. You have a privilege.