What is your bipartisan compromise on gun control?

[CLAX1911]

How about saving time and $$ and properly enforcing the gun laws we have now first? Give that a try?

We should repeal some of them.

 

[vegas giants]

How about saving time and $$ and properly enforcing the gun laws we have now first? Give that a try?

That does not work in even the most conservative area in the country. It cant be done

 

[srelick]

No AR15 or other "assaults' rifles"

Looking to clarify something...How do you define "assault weapon"?

 

[Mycroft]

Looking to clarify something...How do you define "assault weapon"?

Anything that makes someone go running down the street screaming their bloody head off when they see one.

 

[vegas giants]

Anything that makes someone go running down the street screaming their bloody head off when they see one.

So a trumper? Lol

 

[Captain Adverse]

Here's mine:

• Enhanced background checks
• Require background checks for gun show sales and internet sales
• Prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, but allow them to appeal the decision in an expedited way to ensure due process
• 50-state reciprocity agreement for concealed carry licenses
• Expansion of interstate sales (i.e., allow interstate dealers to sell handguns, rather than just shotguns and rifles)
• Eliminate all taxes/fees associated with purchasing a firearm, buying ammunition, or applying for a license

The first three items are wins for Democrats.
The last three items are wins for Republicans.

What do you think is a fair compromise on gun control?

I was going to say "no compromise," but I agree that felons convicted of crimes using a firearm should have their rights temporarily suspended for the period they are still under sentencing. I.e. while on probation or parole.

But I am an advocate of many things, in this case:

1. Commit a crime, do the time. But when the legal punishment is fully completed, a return of all rights of citizenship.

2. The right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

Thus I don't agree with:

a. licensing requirements, because agreeing to this places gun ownership by "permission" of the issuing authority. That means it is not a "right," because the issuing authority can then revoke it at any time and for any reason.

b. background checks which require listing of weapons being purchased (that's just backdoor pseudo-registration),

c. registration (IMO primary purpose to let the government know what weapons you have...so they can collect them if banned),

d. State and local laws prohibiting or limiting gun ownership.

The primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self-defense; i.e. to be sufficiently armed so as to protect oneself from any enemy either foreign or domestic. This goes hand in hand with the INHERENT right of self-defense.

Having said all that, I still don't personally own any firearms. I make this choice willingly because so far I haven't felt "threatened" enough by either my fellow citizens or my government.

However, if I ever do feel so threatened, no laws would deter me from obtaining said tools for self-defense.

 

[eohrnberger]

The only one I object to is the last one, because we need to levy taxes to help pay for some of this.
The other five all seem quite reasonable to me, a Democratic gun owner.

Surprise that there's a good deal of common ground here. Detailed below.

• Enhanced background checks (needs to be detailed?)
• Require background checks for gun show sales and internet sales (heard this was already in place)
• Prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, but allow them to appeal the decision in an expedited way to ensure due process (OK with this)
• 50-state reciprocity agreement for concealed carry licenses (yes)
• Expansion of interstate sales (i.e., allow interstate dealers to sell handguns, rather than just shotguns and rifles) (yes)
• Eliminate all taxes/fees associated with purchasing a firearm, buying ammunition, or applying for a license (certainly not $200 / semi-auto, $200 / mag / per year!)

The first three items are wins for Democrats.
The last three items are wins for Republicans.

What do you think is a fair compromise on gun control?

I'd also be looking for addressing the real problem with gun violence, namely criminals who commit crimes with guns who don't care what the laws and regulations are.

 

[Bullseye]

I think the first thing we have to do is get the NICS database working and sufficient. Have municipal state and federal police forces focus on making sure they update it when something changes. Prosecute anybody involved in the fast and furious scandal to the fullest extent of the law.

Absolutely! The database has to be as up-to-date and accurate for the system to work. This system is only as good as the data it contains; we’ve had several shooting where the shooter’s danger to himself and others was known by family, medical professionals and even LE failed to submit the data to NICS.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Put gun criminals in jail for a minimum of 20 years if they used a firearm in the commission of a felony.
No early outs, no parole 20 years plus the time for the other felony committed!
A guarantee that gun crime will disappear very quickly.
One other thing, charge them in federal court and when found guilty move them to a prison in another state.
One more reason the criminals won't abuse firearms. They don't want to do their time away from home.

Make the person responsible pay the price not lawful gun owners!

 

[Helix]

my cynical choice is to just give up on the gun issue. there are just too many one issue gun nuts who love their hobby more than they care about randomly getting mowed down by mentally ill psychos. this issue is allowing Republican assholes to remain somewhat in power even though they are batshit insane enough to elect a malignantly narcissistic game show host with a forty word vocabulary. they are probably even going to let him skate after his insurrection.

my practical choice is to work to figure out a way to prevent violent nutbag psychos from getting guns while allowing responsible people to own them with proper regulation. as this is always a useless discussion, no, i'm not going to waste time on that. i've already explained what i support.

my practical choice is not going to happen without serious consequences for Democrats. i don't want to see the next completely incompetent Republican asshole win and start taking a shit all over the country because of boomsticks. my current advice to Democrats is to give up on this issue.

 

[vegas giants]

Put gun criminals in jail for a minimum of 20 years if they used a firearm in the commission of a felony.
No early outs, no parole 20 years plus the time for the other felony committed!
A guarantee that gun crime will disappear very quickly.
One other thing, charge them in federal court and when found guilty move them to a prison in another state.
One more reason the criminals won't abuse firearms. They don't want to do their time away from home.

Make the person responsible pay the price not lawful gun owners!

No state will ever do that...not even the most conservative state in the union

 

[natman]

Here's mine:

• Enhanced background checks
• Require background checks for gun show sales and internet sales
• Prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, but allow them to appeal the decision in an expedited way to ensure due process
• 50-state reciprocity agreement for concealed carry licenses
• Expansion of interstate sales (i.e., allow interstate dealers to sell handguns, rather than just shotguns and rifles)
• Eliminate all taxes/fees associated with purchasing a firearm, buying ammunition, or applying for a license

The first three items are wins for Democrats.
The last three items are wins for Republicans.

What do you think is a fair compromise on gun control?

Here's an analogy of how gun control compromises usually work. I have 10 cupcakes. The gun control people come by and say "I'm going to take 5 of your cupcakes and give you nothing." When I refuse, they say, "OK, let's compromise. I'll only take 4 of your cupcakes and give you nothing." Then the next year it's "You still have 6 cupcakes? I'm going to take 3 of them and give you nothing again." And people wonder why gun owners don't want to "compromise".

A real compromise is when in order to get what they want, one party gives the other party something they want. Here's how a real compromise would work:

The "gun show loophole", like most anti-gun terms, is a propaganda lie. Gun shows have nothing to do with it, it means private sales between individuals should be outlawed. And it's not a loophole. It's not something that was overlooked or some underhanded workaround. 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 the couldn't get the votes. So it was deliberately left up to the states to decide whether to allow private sales without a dealer or not.

Going to Universal Background Checks would mean having the Federal government override state control of background checks. If you are going to override state control over guns, how about making all 50 states "must issue" for concealed carry licenses? Want something? - Give something. (I'm not necessarily endorsing this, I'm just illustrating how a REAL compromise works.).

See any compromises in the Biden agenda?
More later.

 

[OrphanSlug]

There is no such thing as “bipartisan” agreement on anything related to the 2nd Amendment / gun control debate.

Extremism has taken over.

Absolutes on the right do not care how many AR-15s are taken to schools to gun down kids, the thing is “gun control” advocates are all conveniently forgetting not just that the group that will be disarmed first are the very minorities they claim to want to represent but that this nation has a terrible history of turning to organized crime to obtain something the government says no to.

 

[TurtleDude]

The 2nd Amendment is very clear.

The only law I would agree to concerning gun ownership is this: Any crime committed while in direct possession of a firearm results in a mandatory death sentence.

that is a stupid suggestion. Any time you make a crime that does not result in the death of an innocent, a capital offense, you give the criminals free pass to kill the victim and eliminate a witness. Read the book THE ONION FIELD if you don't believe me

The Onion Field - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[srelick]

Put gun criminals in jail for a minimum of 20 years if they used a firearm in the commission of a felony.
No early outs, no parole 20 years plus the time for the other felony committed!
A guarantee that gun crime will disappear very quickly.
One other thing, charge them in federal court and when found guilty move them to a prison in another state.
One more reason the criminals won't abuse firearms. They don't want to do their time away from home.

Make the person responsible pay the price not lawful gun owners!

Wouldn't this seem like it would exacerbate overincarceration?

 

[srelick]

Here's an analogy of how gun control compromises usually work. I have 10 cupcakes. The gun control people come by and say "I'm going to take 5 of your cupcakes and give you nothing." When I refuse, they say, "OK, let's compromise. I'll only take 4 of your cupcakes and give you nothing." Then the next year it's "You still have 6 cupcakes? I'm going to take 3 of them and give you nothing again." And people wonder why gun owners don't want to "compromise".

A real compromise is when in order to get what they want, one party gives the other party something they want.

I actually agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. On too many issues (guns in particular), people claim to want compromise, but are also unwilling to give an inch to the other side. Compromise means if one side gets ten things that they want, the other side also gets ten things they want. That would be a compromise. It doesn't mean one side just gets five things they want and the other side gets nothing.

Here's how a real compromise would work:

The "gun show loophole", like most anti-gun terms, is a propaganda lie. Gun shows have nothing to do with it, it means private sales between individuals should be outlawed. And it's not a loophole. It's not something that was overlooked or some underhanded workaround. 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 the couldn't get the votes. So it was deliberately left up to the states to decide whether to allow private sales without a dealer or not.

Going to Universal Background Checks would mean having the Federal government override state control of background checks. If you are going to override state control over guns, how about making all 50 states "must issue" for concealed carry licenses? Want something? - Give something. (I'm not necessarily endorsing this, I'm just illustrating how a REAL compromise works.).

See any compromises in the Biden agenda?
More later.

I see. The idea behind my proposed compromise was that it would eliminate the unnecessary rules and regulations that really don't do anything to keep people safe and only gets in the way of law-abiding gun owners while also adding a few modest regulations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. To me, I would think the last three items would probably outweigh the first three items for gun owners, and for gun control advocates, the first three items would outweigh the last three items.

Do you think it's worth it to give up the first three items to get the last three items? I'm just curious to know and understand your thought process.

 

[natman]

Here's mine:

• Enhanced background checks
• Require background checks for gun show sales and internet sales
• Prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, but allow them to appeal the decision in an expedited way to ensure due process
• 50-state reciprocity agreement for concealed carry licenses
• Expansion of interstate sales (i.e., allow interstate dealers to sell handguns, rather than just shotguns and rifles)
• Eliminate all taxes/fees associated with purchasing a firearm, buying ammunition, or applying for a license

The first three items are wins for Democrats.
The last three items are wins for Republicans.

What do you think is a fair compromise on gun control?

Let's go through these one by one:

Enhanced background checks
I don't know exactly what you mean by "enhanced" and the devil is always in the details, but I will say that if you're going to have a background check system, it needs a robust infrastructure to feed it accurate information. If you are going to force people to do background checks, it comes with a responsibility to make them work. Background checks should NOT include any sort of registration or delays. The name of the program is National Instant Check System. The definition of "instant" is only ten days in the minds of government bureaucrats.

Require background checks for gun show sales and internet sales
As I said earlier, gun shows have nothing to do with it per se. The issue here is whether private sales between individuals require a background check. Internet sales are the same as any other sale; they require a background check if between buyer and sellers in different states and background checks are up to the discretion of the states for sales between buyer and seller from the same state.

Prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, but allow them to appeal the decision in an expedited way to ensure due process
No. What this does is change a fundamental cornerstone of the legal system from presumption of innocence with the burden of proof on the state, to presumption of guilt with the burden of proof on the individual. Exercising one constitutional right (the Second) does not force you to give up other constitutional rights (in this case the Fifth). The abuse of this principle and skimpy definition of due process in how Red Flag laws are implemented are bad enough; the Terrorist Watch list has no due process whatsoever. Underlying principle: being a gun owner does not make you a second class citizen.

50-state reciprocity agreement for concealed carry licenses
While it would be nice to untangle the snarled web of license reciprocity, it's not really enough. National must issue would be more like it.

Expansion of interstate sales (i.e., allow interstate dealers to sell handguns, rather than just shotguns and rifles)
The only difference is that if a buyer wants to buy a long gun in another state, he can do so as long as the transaction is legal in BOTH the buyer's home state and the state of purchase. Handguns can only be bought in your home state. Again, nice but pretty small potatoes.

Eliminate all taxes/fees associated with purchasing a firearm, buying ammunition, or applying for a license
I'm certainly opposed to any NEW taxes associated with buying firearms or ammunition. Owning a gun is not a privilege; it's a constitutional right. A gun buyer should no more have to pay any government a fee or tax to buy a gun than a voter should have to pay a fee or tax to vote.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Full registration with serial number tracking and ballistic records on both rifling and cartridges. Anyone in possession of a gun lacking that receives and automatic five year prison sentence.

Limits of high capacity clips/magazines.

No AR15 or other "assaults' rifles"

CCW requires a complete meatal health evaluation by certified psychologists and not your cousin Fred.

Stiff penalties including prison for any misuse of a firearm, including allowing it to fall into the hands of children.

Mandatory five year added sentence for any felony committed with firearm.

Mandatory two year sentence for possession of firearm while drunk or high.

Mandatory one year sentence for possession of firearm when under indictment of otherwise banned from having one, double that if the crime involved domestic violence--add the five years if the gun is unregistered as listed in item one.

Those are good places to start.

Where's the compromise part?

 

[Noodlegawd]

more than they care about randomly getting mowed down by mentally ill psychos.

It's funny, almost to the point of being absurd, how obsessed Democrats are about the practically infinitesimal chance of being "mowed down by mentally ill psychos," while being seemingly oblivious to the very significant chance of being killed on the road by drunk and lead foot drivers.

 

[Helix]

It's funny, almost to the point of being absurd, how obsessed Democrats are about the practically infinitesimal chance of being "mowed down by mentally ill psychos," while being seemingly oblivious to the very significant chance of being killed on the road by drunk and lead foot drivers.

you might have a point about those Democrats. i'll tell you something else that they ignore : time. why don't they do something about that? time is one hundred percent fatal. it kills literally everyone and everything. if allowed to go unchecked, it will even kill the sun, earth, and probably the universe. this is undisputed.

now, given that, what did Obama do about it? nothing. what has Biden done about it? again, nothing. i just don't understand why we are concerned with weekly mass shootings of innocent people by nutters with arsenals when time is murdering everything. had the Democrats given the mango mistake another four years of time, he would have likely wasted all of it and would have helped all of us in the process.

 

[Noodlegawd]

you might have a point about those Democrats. i'll tell you something else that they ignore : time. why don't they do something about that? time is one hundred percent fatal. it kills literally everyone and everything. if allowed to go unchecked, it will even kill the sun, earth, and probably the universe. this is undisputed.

now, given that, what did Obama do about it? nothing. what has Biden done about it? again, nothing. i just don't understand why we are concerned with weekly mass shootings of innocent people by nutters with arsenals when time is murdering everything. had the Democrats given the mango mistake another four years of time, he would have likely wasted all of it and would have helped all of us in the process.

That's really cute, but just tends to prove my point - Dems have no problem passing stricter laws that they mistakenly believe will save lives, as long as they don't personally have to sacrifice anything.

 

[Helix]

That's really cute, but just tends to prove my point - Dems have no problem passing stricter laws that they mistakenly believe will save lives, as long as they don't personally have to sacrifice anything.

i think that the fact that some Democrats want to keep nutters from building arsenals and shooting up places every week rather than to deal with the "every week" part of the problem shows us how just dangerous that they are. we should also remember that the iodine dipped imbecile had the nuclear codes for years, but had to wait for an excuse to use them because of Democrats. he just didn't have enough time to save us all from time.

 

[Noodlegawd]

i think that the fact that some Democrats want to keep nutters from building arsenals and shooting up places every week rather than to deal with the "every week" part of the problem shows us how just dangerous that they are. we should also remember that the iodine dipped imbecile had the nuclear codes for years, but had to wait for an excuse to use them because of Democrats. he just didn't have enough time to save us all from time.

Wow, if you didn't have an argument you could have just said so, and saved yourself a lot of typing.

 

[Helix]

Wow, if you didn't have an argument you could have just said so, and saved yourself a lot of typing.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that we really unpacked this problem.

 

[VanceMack]

My compromise is to allow those citizens that are members of the militia but that dont want to follow the guidance of the founding fathers MANDATING firearm ownership, to not own firearms.