***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Question for those claiming that the "assault weapon" tag targets purely cosmetic features... why, if these features are purely cosmetic, does it matter to you if they are targeted?

 

[Bull Dozier]

yeah a per gun / annual tax aka penalty for owning something that we are rightfully entitled too will not fly

this just wreaks of big brother

it's not the solution

You pay taxes on a whole host of things that you own.

You say that like its a good thing.

Don't think there was a hint of good or bad in my post. Just a fact.

It's just another reason why gun owners will not comply."So you want to know about every gun I own AND you want to charge me for telling you AND you want to tax me on each one I report on an annual basis?"

You are nutty if you think the next line out of their mouths will be "Where do I sign up?"

Seriously this is the War on Drugs 2.0, except now people will be looking to buy guns illegally instead of drugs to avoid all of this costly red tape.

I'm really curious if this were to go through what the penalty would be for someone defending their life as well as their family's life with an unregistered weapon in their home, a weapon that never left their home, and was solely there for self defense.

I find this line of thought interesting compared to the crowd that wants to legalize drugs. They argue that to legalize drugs, control the production and distribution and tax them would cut down on the black market and illegal drug trade.

 

[Boston]

Being cheered on by fellow whackjob gunnut empties weapon into man while he pleads for his life!

Agreed...it's too bad that she didn't let the guy who broke into her house do horrible things to her children than help him get counciling afterwards...obviously we should feel nothing but sympathy for this guy...he probably just had the wrong address or maybe he just liked the looks of the house and wanted to look at the lay-out from the inside...I'm sure if he knew they were actually home he would have waited patiently at the door to be let in...I really wish this women gave this guy an opportunity to explain why he was in the house before defending the lives of her children...gotta be some legit excuse...hopefully this guy is ok and will be allowed to break into other houses in the future...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Seriously this is the War on Drugs 2.0, except now people will be looking to buy guns illegally instead of drugs to avoid all of this costly red tape.

I'm really curious if this were to go through what the penalty would be for someone defending their life as well as their family's life with an unregistered weapon in their home, a weapon that never left their home, and was solely there for self defense.

I find this line of thought interesting compared to the crowd that wants to legalize drugs. They argue that to legalize drugs, control the production and distribution and tax them would cut down on the black market and illegal drug trade.

Yeah, I think there are a lot of strong parallels, and I think actually trying to ban guns would be just as big a disaster as the War on Drugs. I'm not sure that the more modest measures being contemplated would create the same problems though.

 

[Righetti]

the irony

 

[dickey moe]

Another story developing... Looks like there was a school shooting in Taft, CA this morning. Not a lot of info yet.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

yeah a per gun / annual tax aka penalty for owning something that we are rightfully entitled too will not fly

this just wreaks of big brother

it's not the solution

You pay taxes on a whole host of things that you own.

You say that like its a good thing.

Don't think there was a hint of good or bad in my post. Just a fact.

It's just another reason why gun owners will not comply."So you want to know about every gun I own AND you want to charge me for telling you AND you want to tax me on each one I report on an annual basis?"

You are nutty if you think the next line out of their mouths will be "Where do I sign up?"

Seriously this is the War on Drugs 2.0, except now people will be looking to buy guns illegally instead of drugs to avoid all of this costly red tape.

I'm really curious if this were to go through what the penalty would be for someone defending their life as well as their family's life with an unregistered weapon in their home, a weapon that never left their home, and was solely there for self defense.

I find this line of thought interesting compared to the crowd that wants to legalize drugs. They argue that to legalize drugs, control the production and distribution and tax them would cut down on the black market and illegal drug trade.

Today selling and buying guns is not illegal, buying and selling drugs is in many states still. The War on Drugs became an embarrassment to the government just like trying to regulate gun sales because of what it will become. Here's a parallel you should have been able to draw between the two. In many cases using drugs is not detrimental to society just like owning guns. They tried cracking down despite what a large segment of the population wants due to the government's twisted beliefs and slowly society won despite the government's efforts to control Americans' predilections.

A new poll says 46% of Canadians want to scrap the long-gun registry.

The Angus Reid poll says 40% oppose such a move and about 15% aren't sure.

The poll also says 44% said a complete ban on handguns would be justified, another 44% said it would be unjustified and 12% were unsure.

When asked if the long-gun registry has been a success, 16% said it was, 38% said it has been unsuccessful, 31% said it has had no effect on crime and 15% were not sure.

The online survey, which was conducted Sept. 15 and 16, sampled 1,011 Canadian adults and has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

69% of Canadians said a gun registry was either unsuccessful or had no affect on crime, only 16% thought it was successful.http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/09/20/15410046.html

 

[Marmalade]

Another story developing... Looks like there was a school shooting in Taft, CA this morning. Not a lot of info yet.

Shooter in custody 2 shot

 

[Bull Dozier]

yeah a per gun / annual tax aka penalty for owning something that we are rightfully entitled too will not fly

this just wreaks of big brother

it's not the solution

You pay taxes on a whole host of things that you own.

You say that like its a good thing.

Don't think there was a hint of good or bad in my post. Just a fact.

It's just another reason why gun owners will not comply."So you want to know about every gun I own AND you want to charge me for telling you AND you want to tax me on each one I report on an annual basis?"

You are nutty if you think the next line out of their mouths will be "Where do I sign up?"

Seriously this is the War on Drugs 2.0, except now people will be looking to buy guns illegally instead of drugs to avoid all of this costly red tape.

I'm really curious if this were to go through what the penalty would be for someone defending their life as well as their family's life with an unregistered weapon in their home, a weapon that never left their home, and was solely there for self defense.

I find this line of thought interesting compared to the crowd that wants to legalize drugs. They argue that to legalize drugs, control the production and distribution and tax them would cut down on the black market and illegal drug trade.

Today selling and buying guns is not illegal, buying and selling drugs is in many states still. The War on Drugs became an embarrassment to the government just like trying to regulate gun sales because of what it will become. Here's a parallel you should have been able to draw between the two. In many cases using drugs is not detrimental to society just like owning guns. They tried cracking down despite what a large segment of the population wants due to the government's twisted beliefs and slowly society won despite the government's efforts to control Americans' predilections.

Those aren't the cases I was addressing, nor do I think those are the cases that really get people "up in arms."

 

[badmojo1006]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

 

[5 digit know nothing]

yeah a per gun / annual tax aka penalty for owning something that we are rightfully entitled too will not fly

this just wreaks of big brother

it's not the solution

You pay taxes on a whole host of things that you own.

You say that like its a good thing.

Don't think there was a hint of good or bad in my post. Just a fact.

It's just another reason why gun owners will not comply."So you want to know about every gun I own AND you want to charge me for telling you AND you want to tax me on each one I report on an annual basis?"

You are nutty if you think the next line out of their mouths will be "Where do I sign up?"

Seriously this is the War on Drugs 2.0, except now people will be looking to buy guns illegally instead of drugs to avoid all of this costly red tape.

I'm really curious if this were to go through what the penalty would be for someone defending their life as well as their family's life with an unregistered weapon in their home, a weapon that never left their home, and was solely there for self defense.

I find this line of thought interesting compared to the crowd that wants to legalize drugs. They argue that to legalize drugs, control the production and distribution and tax them would cut down on the black market and illegal drug trade.

Today selling and buying guns is not illegal, buying and selling drugs is in many states still. The War on Drugs became an embarrassment to the government just like trying to regulate gun sales because of what it will become. Here's a parallel you should have been able to draw between the two. In many cases using drugs is not detrimental to society just like owning guns. They tried cracking down despite what a large segment of the population wants due to the government's twisted beliefs and slowly society won despite the government's efforts to control Americans' predilections.

Those aren't the cases I was addressing, nor do I think those are the cases that really get people "up in arms."

They are both political agendas without basis.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “#### that.”

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I’m not ####### putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

 

[Mello]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “#### that.”

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I’m not ####### putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

They don't want compromise. They've compromised for decades and people keep wanting more and more restrictions on people.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

They don't want compromise. They've compromised for decades and people keep wanting more and more restrictions on people.

In some cases, we need a whole lot more restrictions. In other cases, we need less. Threatening civil war and violence is pretty foolish.

 

[Dvorak]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “#### that.”

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I’m not ####### putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.

Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

 

[Dvorak]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

 

[JHuber77]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

Sir don't feed the animals

 

[Guest]

More good news for you Tim.

Congress can't pass a law about gun registrations! They already passed a law saying they couldn't!

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

1. I'm against banning assault weapons.2. While I'm in favor of banning high capacity magazines, I would give that up in order to get the private sales loophole removed.

3. With regards to the private sales loophole, universal background checks, a national database, and gun registration (all of which are for the same purpose) a couple of gun-rights posters have made some proposals that would reach my goal while seeking to protect the privacy of gun-owners. You can find these on the preceding 2-3 pages. I've been willing to go along with all of them.

4. The people arguing against gun-free zones have made some pretty good points and I'd be willing to do away with those, except for public schools.

So it's a little ironic that, to certain people like Mr. Two Cents and Slingblade, I've somehow become the poster boy for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and seizing all guns. I've tried to remain reasonable and open-minded in this discussion. But I DO reject the paranoia.

 

[Novice2]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

He has agreed to let you keep your six shooters and all you habe to do is send the gevernment $35 a year for the privilege of keeping it! Isn't that enough?

 

[Guest]

You don't want compromise!

You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.

Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

Are you Na'vi?

 

[timschochet]

With regard to banning "assault weapons", here is my argument. (If any of my facts are wrong, feel free to correct me, thanks!):1. Fully automatic weapons are illegal to own (and I think this is proper.)2. Semi-automatic weapons are not illegal to own. But in terms of firing capacity and "dangerous nature", there is no actual way to distinguish between them: all semi-automatic weapons are capable of firing multiple bullets and doing a whole lot of damage.3. The previous Assault Weapons Ban made certain semi-automatic weapons illegal, and kept other semi-automatic weapons legal. The distinction made between the legal and illegal weapons was almost completely aesthetic: the "more dangerous looking" weapons, such as rifles which look like the type the military might use, were the ones made illegal.Based on this, I don't see any usefulness whatsoever in banning "assault weapons", however we might define them. W'ere not banning all semi-automatic weapons; jus the scary looking ones. That seems stupid to me, and while it may make non-thinking people feel better, it won't have any positive effect. I believe in gun control, but only when it makes logical sense to me.

 

[Jewell]

Recent gun control proposals, in a way, resemble Voter ID proposals.  It can be argued that both gun control and Voter ID are reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights, and those restrictions are meant to forward a compelling state interest (fair elections; safer society).  Yet many of the people most opposed to the reasonable restrictions on the right to vote are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms; and many of the people most opposed to reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to vote.Granted, people split on their application of restrictions on these two rights likely disagree on whether the respective restrictions are reasonable and/or whether the state interest in the two examples is compelling.  It seems to me, though, that if you're opposed to reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights then you should apply that rule uniformly or else you appear driven by ideology and not principle.

 

[Dvorak]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

1. I'm against banning assault weapons.2. While I'm in favor of banning high capacity magazines, I would give that up in order to get the private sales loophole removed.

3. With regards to the private sales loophole, universal background checks, a national database, and gun registration (all of which are for the same purpose) a couple of gun-rights posters have made some proposals that would reach my goal while seeking to protect the privacy of gun-owners. You can find these on the preceding 2-3 pages. I've been willing to go along with all of them.

4. The people arguing against gun-free zones have made some pretty good points and I'd be willing to do away with those, except for public schools.

So it's a little ironic that, to certain people like Mr. Two Cents and Slingblade, I've somehow become the poster boy for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and seizing all guns. I've tried to remain reasonable and open-minded in this discussion. But I DO reject the paranoia.

Yeah, exactly what I thought.Not one of those is a compromise with pro-2nd people from the status quo. Not one.

The only one even close being lifting gun free zone regulations. But since the only gun-free zones besides schools are police stations, courtrooms, aircraft and other government buildings it seems like a pretty dubious compromise to make schools "off the table" when the others are pretty much prohibited for a very good reason.

If you are talking about private property, I am against forcing anyone to accept guns on their own property against their will.

 

[Guest]

Recent gun control proposals, in a way, resemble Voter ID proposals.  It can be argued that both gun control and Voter ID are reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights, and those restrictions are meant to forward a compelling state interest (fair elections; safer society).  Yet many of the people most opposed to the reasonable restrictions on the right to vote are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms; and many of the people most opposed to reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to vote.Granted, people split on their application of restrictions on these two rights likely disagree on whether the respective restrictions are reasonable and/or whether the state interest in the two examples is compelling.  It seems to me, though, that if you're opposed to reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights then you should apply that rule uniformly or else you appear driven by ideology and not principle.

We did this pages ago. They're not really similar.What's similar to registering guns is registering to vote which nobody has a problem with.

 

[Guest]

Although as a general principle, sure, reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights where there is a compelling state interest is a non-controversial statement. As you point out, the devil is in the details which is where most of the Voter ID discussion fractures.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

1. I'm against banning assault weapons.2. While I'm in favor of banning high capacity magazines, I would give that up in order to get the private sales loophole removed.

3. With regards to the private sales loophole, universal background checks, a national database, and gun registration (all of which are for the same purpose) a couple of gun-rights posters have made some proposals that would reach my goal while seeking to protect the privacy of gun-owners. You can find these on the preceding 2-3 pages. I've been willing to go along with all of them.

4. The people arguing against gun-free zones have made some pretty good points and I'd be willing to do away with those, except for public schools.

So it's a little ironic that, to certain people like Mr. Two Cents and Slingblade, I've somehow become the poster boy for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and seizing all guns. I've tried to remain reasonable and open-minded in this discussion. But I DO reject the paranoia.

Yeah, exactly what I thought.Not one of those is a compromise with pro-2nd people from the status quo. Not one.

The only one even close being lifting gun free zone regulations. But since the only gun-free zones besides schools are police stations, courtrooms, aircraft and other government buildings it seems like a pretty dubious compromise to make schools "off the table" when the others are pretty much prohibited for a very good reason.

If you are talking about private property, I am against forcing anyone to accept guns on their own property against their will.

Wow. I guess we have a very different definition of compromise.

 

[Dvorak]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

1. I'm against banning assault weapons.2. While I'm in favor of banning high capacity magazines, I would give that up in order to get the private sales loophole removed.

3. With regards to the private sales loophole, universal background checks, a national database, and gun registration (all of which are for the same purpose) a couple of gun-rights posters have made some proposals that would reach my goal while seeking to protect the privacy of gun-owners. You can find these on the preceding 2-3 pages. I've been willing to go along with all of them.

4. The people arguing against gun-free zones have made some pretty good points and I'd be willing to do away with those, except for public schools.

So it's a little ironic that, to certain people like Mr. Two Cents and Slingblade, I've somehow become the poster boy for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and seizing all guns. I've tried to remain reasonable and open-minded in this discussion. But I DO reject the paranoia.

Yeah, exactly what I thought.Not one of those is a compromise with pro-2nd people from the status quo. Not one.

The only one even close being lifting gun free zone regulations. But since the only gun-free zones besides schools are police stations, courtrooms, aircraft and other government buildings it seems like a pretty dubious compromise to make schools "off the table" when the others are pretty much prohibited for a very good reason.

If you are talking about private property, I am against forcing anyone to accept guns on their own property against their will.

Wow. I guess we have a very different definition of compromise.

Hey Tim, give me $1,000,000.I'll tell you what, let's compromise and you give me $100,000. I just saved you $900,000. That's a hell of a deal.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

1. I'm against banning assault weapons.2. While I'm in favor of banning high capacity magazines, I would give that up in order to get the private sales loophole removed.

3. With regards to the private sales loophole, universal background checks, a national database, and gun registration (all of which are for the same purpose) a couple of gun-rights posters have made some proposals that would reach my goal while seeking to protect the privacy of gun-owners. You can find these on the preceding 2-3 pages. I've been willing to go along with all of them.

4. The people arguing against gun-free zones have made some pretty good points and I'd be willing to do away with those, except for public schools.

So it's a little ironic that, to certain people like Mr. Two Cents and Slingblade, I've somehow become the poster boy for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and seizing all guns. I've tried to remain reasonable and open-minded in this discussion. But I DO reject the paranoia.

Yeah, exactly what I thought.Not one of those is a compromise with pro-2nd people from the status quo. Not one.

The only one even close being lifting gun free zone regulations. But since the only gun-free zones besides schools are police stations, courtrooms, aircraft and other government buildings it seems like a pretty dubious compromise to make schools "off the table" when the others are pretty much prohibited for a very good reason.

If you are talking about private property, I am against forcing anyone to accept guns on their own property against their will.

Wow. I guess we have a very different definition of compromise.

Hey Tim, give me $1,000,000.I'll tell you what, let's compromise and you give me $100,000. I just saved you $900,000. That's a hell of a deal.

ME: these mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measures to help deal with them. YOU: No.

ME: I'm not talking about banning guns. Just a few reasonable changes to the law.

YOU: No.

 

[Dvorak]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

1. I'm against banning assault weapons.2. While I'm in favor of banning high capacity magazines, I would give that up in order to get the private sales loophole removed.

3. With regards to the private sales loophole, universal background checks, a national database, and gun registration (all of which are for the same purpose) a couple of gun-rights posters have made some proposals that would reach my goal while seeking to protect the privacy of gun-owners. You can find these on the preceding 2-3 pages. I've been willing to go along with all of them.

4. The people arguing against gun-free zones have made some pretty good points and I'd be willing to do away with those, except for public schools.

So it's a little ironic that, to certain people like Mr. Two Cents and Slingblade, I've somehow become the poster boy for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and seizing all guns. I've tried to remain reasonable and open-minded in this discussion. But I DO reject the paranoia.

Yeah, exactly what I thought.Not one of those is a compromise with pro-2nd people from the status quo. Not one.

The only one even close being lifting gun free zone regulations. But since the only gun-free zones besides schools are police stations, courtrooms, aircraft and other government buildings it seems like a pretty dubious compromise to make schools "off the table" when the others are pretty much prohibited for a very good reason.

If you are talking about private property, I am against forcing anyone to accept guns on their own property against their will.

Wow. I guess we have a very different definition of compromise.

Hey Tim, give me $1,000,000.I'll tell you what, let's compromise and you give me $100,000. I just saved you $900,000. That's a hell of a deal.

ME: these mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measures to help deal with them. YOU: No.

ME: I'm not talking about banning guns. Just a few reasonable changes to the law.

YOU: No.

$50,000 then. That's reasonable. Stop being such an extremist.

 

[Slingblade]

With regard to banning "assault weapons", here is my argument. (If any of my facts are wrong, feel free to correct me, thanks!):1. Fully automatic weapons are illegal to own (and I think this is proper.)2. Semi-automatic weapons are not illegal to own. But in terms of firing capacity and "dangerous nature", there is no actual way to distinguish between them: all semi-automatic weapons are capable of firing multiple bullets and doing a whole lot of damage.3. The previous Assault Weapons Ban made certain semi-automatic weapons illegal, and kept other semi-automatic weapons legal. The distinction made between the legal and illegal weapons was almost completely aesthetic: the "more dangerous looking" weapons, such as rifles which look like the type the military might use, were the ones made illegal.Based on this, I don't see any usefulness whatsoever in banning "assault weapons", however we might define them. W'ere not banning all semi-automatic weapons; jus the scary looking ones. That seems stupid to me, and while it may make non-thinking people feel better, it won't have any positive effect. I believe in gun control, but only when it makes logical sense to me.

You can own a fully automatic if you have enough cash.

 

[Hoosier16]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

I think I missed the other 8500 subway car murders last year.

 

[Hoosier16]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

I think I missed the other 8500 subway car murders last year.

You are clearly missing, or ignoring, the point but I'll play along. How many of the homicides committed last year in NYC involved the so-called "assault rifles"?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress."Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "#### that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not ####### putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

How much different is this from Mr. Two Cents and a couple of other posters here? They haven't threatened to start killing people, but they have warned "civil war" if Obama uses executive order to impose a few minor gun restrictions. How can we compromise with people like this?

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.

Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.



Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

have you read my posts in this thread? I've agreed to several compromises.

Refresh my memory

1. I'm against banning assault weapons.2. While I'm in favor of banning high capacity magazines, I would give that up in order to get the private sales loophole removed.

3. With regards to the private sales loophole, universal background checks, a national database, and gun registration (all of which are for the same purpose) a couple of gun-rights posters have made some proposals that would reach my goal while seeking to protect the privacy of gun-owners. You can find these on the preceding 2-3 pages. I've been willing to go along with all of them.

4. The people arguing against gun-free zones have made some pretty good points and I'd be willing to do away with those, except for public schools.

So it's a little ironic that, to certain people like Mr. Two Cents and Slingblade, I've somehow become the poster boy for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and seizing all guns. I've tried to remain reasonable and open-minded in this discussion. But I DO reject the paranoia.

Yeah, exactly what I thought.Not one of those is a compromise with pro-2nd people from the status quo. Not one.

The only one even close being lifting gun free zone regulations. But since the only gun-free zones besides schools are police stations, courtrooms, aircraft and other government buildings it seems like a pretty dubious compromise to make schools "off the table" when the others are pretty much prohibited for a very good reason.

If you are talking about private property, I am against forcing anyone to accept guns on their own property against their will.

Wow. I guess we have a very different definition of compromise.

Hey Tim, give me $1,000,000.I'll tell you what, let's compromise and you give me $100,000. I just saved you $900,000. That's a hell of a deal.

ME: these mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measures to help deal with them. YOU: No.

ME: I'm not talking about banning guns. Just a few reasonable changes to the law.

YOU: No.

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

I think I missed the other 8500 subway car murders last year.

You are clearly missing, or ignoring, the point but I'll play along. How many of the homicides committed last year in NYC involved the so-called "assault rifles"?

Probably not many. New York already bans assault rifles.

 

[Slingblade]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Exactly.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the #### act of 1902.Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."I say, "No, it's my cake."You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

 

[Hoosier16]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

I think I missed the other 8500 subway car murders last year.

You are clearly missing, or ignoring, the point but I'll play along. How many of the homicides committed last year in NYC involved the so-called "assault rifles"?

Probably not many. New York already bans assault rifles.

I thought you guys always argued the criminal can easily get them elsewhere? Even so, how many before the ban or, better yet, in the entire history of NYC? To give you a target, there were 55 subway deaths in 2012.

 

[Jewell]

Recent gun control proposals, in a way, resemble Voter ID proposals.  It can be argued that both gun control and Voter ID are reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights, and those restrictions are meant to forward a compelling state interest (fair elections; safer society).  Yet many of the people most opposed to the reasonable restrictions on the right to vote are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms; and many of the people most opposed to reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to vote.Granted, people split on their application of restrictions on these two rights likely disagree on whether the respective restrictions are reasonable and/or whether the state interest in the two examples is compelling.  It seems to me, though, that if you're opposed to reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights then you should apply that rule uniformly or else you appear driven by ideology and not principle.

We did this pages ago. They're not really similar.What's similar to registering guns is registering to vote which nobody has a problem with.

First, apologies for not following all 115 pages closely.Second, so you'd be cool with not checking gun purchasers' IDs? Because that also seems similar.

 

[timschochet]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions. We'll see.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/10/biden_hints_at_universal_gun-buyer_background_checks_116652.html

Racing to complete consultations with stakeholders in the national debate about guns and mass shootings, Vice President Biden suggested Thursday that “universal” background checks for all gun buyers will likely be one of the recommendations forwarded to President Obama by Jan. 15.

Biden, who convened three separate meetings Thursday with interest groups -- including with the National Rifle Association -- said the study team he heads has been especially attentive to recurring recommendations it has heard since 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

The task force will present ideas for Obama’s consideration, leading to what the vice president said could be an initial splash of momentum, with additional initiatives possibly to follow.

“It doesn’t mean that this will be the end of the discussion, but the public wants us to act,” he said.

Concerned that the national shock after Newtown may fade -- even as school shootings continue to occur -- White House aides expect the president to endorse legislation and act where Congress will not, steps timed to his upcoming State of the Union address. Congressional debate about upholding the Constitution’s Second Amendment is expected to be heated, and Biden suggested the White House is being realistic about what can be done.

In tandem with the Newtown initiatives, the president is embroiled in struggles with Republicans over the debt ceiling and spending cuts; some of his early Cabinet nominees; and a major push to enact comprehensive immigration reform after years of failed efforts.

“I’m not sure we can guarantee this will never happen again, but as the president said, even if we can only save one life, it would make sense,” Biden said. “And I think we can do a great a great deal without in any way imposing on and impinging on the rights of the Second Amendment.”

Obama’s State of the Union address will take place within weeks of his Jan. 21 inauguration, likely by mid-February.

The vice president, with reporters present Thursday, described other proposals as examples of where Obama may take action. The first was improved and universal background checks for both commercial and private sales of guns, changes that Biden said could be bigger than eliminating the so-called gun show loophole.

(Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper made a similar proposal Thursday during his State of the State address, which touched on the July theater massacre in Aurora. “We shouldn’t be restrained from discussing any of these issues,” the Democrat told the General Assembly. “Our democracy demands this type of debate. Let me prime the pump: Why not have universal background checks for all gun sales?”)

Other ideas raised by the vice president included restrictions on the sale of high-capacity ammunition; safety recommendations or requirements for gun owners; and new federal reporting requirements aimed at collecting and analyzing data about guns used in violent crimes. He said accurate information about weapons used in crimes and suicides nationwide is essential to the research that could save lives. He noted that automobile safety improved after the government mandated crash data collection in the 1970s.

Biden did not mention a revival of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, but Obama has publicly mentioned it and House and Senate lawmakers have vowed to introduce such legislation later this month.

Within hours of its visit to the White House, the NRA issued a terse statement pledging to convey its opposition to such measures to allies in Congress.

“We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals,” the gun rights group, which represents 4 million members, said in a short, unsigned release.

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners -- honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans,” the NRA continued.

“It is unfortunate that this administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of Congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works, and what does not.”

The vice president, who will continue meetings and conference calls Friday, walked through a lengthy list of stakeholders, including clergy, state and local officials, and advocacy groups, consulted by the administration since December. The discussions have explored guns, mental health, education and school safety, law enforcement, and the influence of the entertainment industry.

“We realize this requires all the stakeholders to give us their best ideas [about] what is -- as I said at the outset -- a complicated problem. There is no single answer,” Biden said.

 

[timschochet]

The NRA statement was predictable, disappointing, and for me personally, infuriating:

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

The bolded is the most infuriating part. There is not ONE aspect of what is being discussed: universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, even a ban on certain assault weapons (to which I am opposed, BTW) that has ANYTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Yet this continues to be thrown out in response to these proposals, as a means to eliminate all reasonable discussion and increase the paranoia of gun owners. It's disgusting.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

I think I missed the other 8500 subway car murders last year.

You are clearly missing, or ignoring, the point but I'll play along. How many of the homicides committed last year in NYC involved the so-called "assault rifles"?

Probably not many. New York already bans assault rifles.

I thought you guys always argued the criminal can easily get them elsewhere? Even so, how many before the ban or, better yet, in the entire history of NYC? To give you a target, there were 55 subway deaths in 2012.

Sorry, thought we were talking about homicides.

 

[Hoosier16]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

I think I missed the other 8500 subway car murders last year.

You are clearly missing, or ignoring, the point but I'll play along. How many of the homicides committed last year in NYC involved the so-called "assault rifles"?

Probably not many. New York already bans assault rifles.

I thought you guys always argued the criminal can easily get them elsewhere? Even so, how many before the ban or, better yet, in the entire history of NYC? To give you a target, there were 55 subway deaths in 2012.

Sorry, thought we were talking about homicides.

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

 

[Dvorak]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

 

[timschochet]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

 

[Mister CIA]

Squeaky heels in this thread are hurting my ears.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here is a good argument for Gun Control

Unbelievable.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg, "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. . . . Unfortunately, there are people who are mentally deranged".Does anyone from the gun control side see the hypocrisy here? Some mentally deranged person kills people and we need a ban on guns. A couple of people are pushed in front of subway trains and even though there is a solution that would actually prevent that from happening again (platform doors), he says we need to keep it in perspective.

I think I missed the other 8500 subway car murders last year.

You are clearly missing, or ignoring, the point but I'll play along. How many of the homicides committed last year in NYC involved the so-called "assault rifles"?

Probably not many. New York already bans assault rifles.

I thought you guys always argued the criminal can easily get them elsewhere? Even so, how many before the ban or, better yet, in the entire history of NYC? To give you a target, there were 55 subway deaths in 2012.

Sorry, thought we were talking about homicides.

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

I'm pretty sure I very specifically said "murders" in my response. I did say that, right? That's why I only included the over-8500 deaths number rather than a much larger one?According to this study:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=149721

Using the definition of "assault weapon" in the New York assault weapon bill, in the year 1993

A particular firearm was positively identified with the killing 169 times This involvement was established through a match between ballistic evidence found in the deceased or at the homicide scene and an assault weapon recovered. It was determined that assault weapons were used in at least 43 homicide cases. Thus, assault weapons were involved in 16 percent of the 271 homicides where discharged firearms were recovered and 25 percent of the 169 homicides where a recovered firearm was positively linked with ballistic evidence from the crime. If the victims of the assault weapons homicides identified by this analysis represent the same proportion of all firearms homicide victims, then the number of possible homicide victims against whom assault weapons were used in New York City in 1993 could range from 240 (15.9 percent) to 383 (25.4 percent).

I'm afraid I don't have numbers for every year. 383 from 1993 would probably come pretty close to the number of people murdered with subway cars in the last several decades, though, right?How many homicides have been committed with actually-called subway cars in the entire existence of NYC?

I should also mention, I'm not in favor of banning "assault weapons" necessarily, nor have I signed any petitions to that effect, nor would I support a candidate on that basis. But the "CARS AND SUBWAYS KILL MORE PEOPLE!!!1111" arguments are pretty monumentally ridiculous.

 

[Dvorak]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

When both sides make concessions to the status quo, that is called a compromise. Get it?