• 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!

What is your bipartisan compromise on gun control?

vegas giants said:
You dont post honestly. Because you are afraid to answer a simple question

Dismissed
Click to expand...
I already answered. You are apparently refusing to read it or understand it. So par, for you?
 
Blue Donkey said:
Unless you can prove me wrong, which conservatives rarely try to do, a Democrat did say something to the effect of, "If you are on the no-fly list, you should not be allowed to have a gun." I forget who said it though.

President Biden's agendas are unifying America, improving its international reputation, and reversing all the damage done by his opponent.
Click to expand...
The issues I have with the No Fly/No Gun as it currently stands are there is not clear parameters that are easily avaliable to the public of how someone get on the No Fly List. The person often times is not notified they are on the NO Fly List. Although it has gotten better there still seems to be a large amount of errors on who is on the list. The process for petitioning your name to be removed if you think it was an error needs to be worked on.
Once those issues are addressed it is probably a good idea to adopt the No Fly No Gun policy.
 
vegas giants said:
Should we have any gun laws?


Watch this folks
Click to expand...

I said, we already have gun laws. I disagree with some of them. I did not state we shouldn't have any. Its not a binary question, its a very complicated issue.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I said, we already have gun laws. I disagree with some of them. I did not state we shouldn't have any. Its not a binary question, its a very complicated issue.
Click to expand...
There it is folks.


I will answer for you.


You support some gun control.
 
vegas giants said:
Do you see how you can never just answer a question.


My god it's so dishonest
Click to expand...
In the irony category we have you refusing to answer the exact same question. Is that dishonest on your part?
 
OpportunityCost said:
In the irony category we have you refusing to answer the exact same question. Is that dishonest on your part?
Click to expand...
I will answer that question with a question because that is the game you play.


This is ridiculous.


You have conceded at this point
 
vegas giants said:
There it is folks.


I will answer for you.


You support some gun control.
Click to expand...
Yet you do not understand that some gun control doesn't mean keep passing more. You fail to see the implications of your repeated call for more.
 
jamesrage said:
A compromise implies both sides give up something in order to get something in return. What you listed is no compromise. Because of the 2nd amendment we don't need a license to buy and carry a gun. At one point we were able to buy any kind of gun we wanted without background check. You could literally walk into a store and buy a machine gun with no tax stamp and no background check.Now we got background checks, defacto bans on machine guns, and some states banning semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban and some states turning the 2nd amendment into a state granted privilege. So you want the pro-2nd amendment side to allow the 2nd amendment to be further chipped away while the anti-2nd amendment side gives up nothing under the guise of a compromise?

Try your compromise with any of the other bill of rights. For example.. Enhanced background checks to be a member of the press. Background check to print,air, or publish a news story. A license to be a member of the press. a 50 state reciprocity press license. No fees to run a background check on news stories, or press licenses.
Click to expand...
I think we should take it one step further. The Constitution CLEARLY protects the rights of citizens in a very clearly defined manner regarding gun ownership, yet anti-gun banners believe states should be able to pass their own restrictive laws on a Constitutionally protected right, So....

We should also allow the states to ban gay marriage. I mean hell...marriage isnt found anywhere in the Constitution so states should have the right and authority to ban gay people from marrying, should require that they have background checks before they can hold certain jobs..should be able to allow business owners and property owners to discriminate against them.

Makes as much sense as advocating for states to have the right to infringe on Constitutionally protected rights.
 
vegas giants said:
You admit that scotus decisions are wrong sometines....right?
Click to expand...

You're the one who brought the decision up though.

You brought up the decision thinking it meant something you agreed with and when it was shown to not mean that, you then dismissed it, saying that decision are wrong sometimes.

Seems a bit dishonest.
 
vegas giants said:
I will answer that question with a question because that is the game you play.


This is ridiculous.


You have conceded at this point
Click to expand...

Its self evident SCOTUS has made mistakes or they wouldn't have overturned their own decisions in some cases. That doesn't imply every case should be overturned.

Just because A=B that doesn't mean A has to =C
 
ataraxia said:
The most conservative members of the SCOTUS disagree with you:

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
-Antonin Scalia
Click to expand...
Perhaps he doesn't understand "shall not be infringed", either.
 
Blue Donkey said:
I was very clear what I want to do in this thread is avoid arguments about the Constitution and just focus on the original topic: compromises for gun control. What do you think that means?


Learn about how, why, and when the no-fly list was created. There is absolutely no comparison to it.


You tell me why they SHOULD be allowed to carry guns in checked luggage - based on nothing but how important having guns far away from home is.
Click to expand...
So you are good with allowing states to ban gay marriage...right? ANd heck...before the Supreme Court decided to include marriage and homosexuality into te 14th amendment there were a LOT of states that were banning it. So...that should be allowed...right?
 
srelick said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your second one is a biggie for me, 'buyers need to undergo a background check if you buy a gun online, through a gun show, or through some private sales'.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its self evident SCOTUS has made mistakes or they wouldn't have overturned their own decisions in some cases. That doesn't imply every case should be overturned.

Just because A=B that doesn't mean A has to =C
Click to expand...
God you are terrified to just answer a question directly. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Dismissed
Click to expand...
I am trying very hard to have a decent conversation with you. If you don't start putting forth some dialogue and explanation for reasoning, I will have to assume you are, again, trolling.

Do you see the point being put forth? Just because someone agrees with some gun control doesn't mean they support or have to support calls for ever more gun control until the right becomes impossible to exercise. Can you understand that line of thinking?
 
OpportunityCost said:
I am trying very hard to have a decent conversation with you. If you don't start putting forth some dialogue and explanation for reasoning, I will have to assume you are, again, trolling.

Do you see the point being put forth? Just because someone agrees with some gun control doesn't mean they support or have to support calls for ever more gun control until the right becomes impossible to exercise. Can you understand that line of thinking?
Click to expand...
Answer directly.

Be honest


Stop playing games


Or else you are dismissed
 
ataraxia said:
You know what's hyperbole? Saying that "right to arms shall not be infringed" means you can haul around anything you like anywhere you like.
Click to expand...
Whats funny is your hyperbole earlier fell very flat because not only cant you buy nuclear arms at Wal-Mart, you cant buy guns there anymore as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom