CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[sealybobo]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

What if you brought back the assault weapons ban and armed the teachers? That’s a win for both sides

 

[sealybobo]

There is no compromise. The Second Amendment and my God-given constitutional right to arm myself is not up for debate. Far more people have died while protecting the rights and freedoms we so graciously have, than those murdered by criminals.

Infinitely far more people have died in this world because their countries were not blessed with the same rights we have.

Imagine if back when all we had was 5 shot revolvers we said no to guns with clips. Only military get glocks and ak47

 

[sealybobo]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

Silly. It’s conservatives who won’t allow any regulations because of that very paranoia

 

[Desperado]

Guns are not your problem nor are they the cause of these killings
50 Years ago it was not out of the question to see a students pickup in the school parking lot with a rifles in its rifle rack, School shootings were inconcievable. The the only "law" in school were the safety patrol. Now they have cops stationed in schools. Tell me what has changed? When you get that figured out then come up with solution. A hint it is not banning any type of weapons.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

What if you brought back the assault weapons ban and armed the teachers? That’s a win for both sides

Not for the left who want fewer and/or less dangerous weapons out there. From my point of view, both sides have to be willing to concede something to solve the problem. I think the problem is the toxic society we have created. Somebody else thinks the problem is that the USA has more guns per capita than any other country and that is the problem.

I have my own views about which side is the more right but I also know that if you want somebody to voluntarily do something he/she doesn't want to do, you have to give him/her something in return.

 

[sealybobo]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

What if you brought back the assault weapons ban and armed the teachers? That’s a win for both sides

Not for the left who want fewer and/or less dangerous weapons out there. From my point of view, both sides have to be willing to concede something to solve the problem. I think the problem is the toxic society we have created. Somebody else thinks the problem is that the USA has more guns per capita than any other country and that is the problem.

I have my own views about which side is the more right but I also know that if you want somebody to voluntarily do something he/she doesn't want to do, you have to give him/her something in return.

What do republicans want?

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

What if you brought back the assault weapons ban and armed the teachers? That’s a win for both sides

Not for the left who want fewer and/or less dangerous weapons out there. From my point of view, both sides have to be willing to concede something to solve the problem. I think the problem is the toxic society we have created. Somebody else thinks the problem is that the USA has more guns per capita than any other country and that is the problem.

I have my own views about which side is the more right but I also know that if you want somebody to voluntarily do something he/she doesn't want to do, you have to give him/her something in return.

What do republicans want?

The OP is not about political parties or partisanship. Please take that discussion to a thread more appropriate for it.

I want to discuss how both sides of the gun debate can get most of what they want by compromising. Could we please focus on that?

 

[sealybobo]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

What if you brought back the assault weapons ban and armed the teachers? That’s a win for both sides

Not for the left who want fewer and/or less dangerous weapons out there. From my point of view, both sides have to be willing to concede something to solve the problem. I think the problem is the toxic society we have created. Somebody else thinks the problem is that the USA has more guns per capita than any other country and that is the problem.

I have my own views about which side is the more right but I also know that if you want somebody to voluntarily do something he/she doesn't want to do, you have to give him/her something in return.

What do republicans want?

The OP is not about political parties or partisanship. Please take that discussion to a thread more appropriate for it.

I want to discuss how both sides of the gun debate can get most of what they want by compromising. Could we please focus on that?

I’m asking a question
. If you don’t know please say so.

 

[sealybobo]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Ok I re read your post and I 100% agree. I think this is the only way we can solve our problems. People who shouldn’t be having kids stop having them. And it wouldn’t piss me off if they stopped making grand theft auto so sleazy. My little nephews were playing and I noticed a water bong on the screen. Wtf!

 

[sealybobo]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

I’m with you so far

 

[sealybobo]

I would accept the Presidents package providing the age for voting, drinking, and being drafted also goes up.
I would also do a cigarette type lawsuit on big pharma in regards to all the drugs they get kids on.

That’s a great idea. 21 year old men don’t want to die in Iraq or Vietnam nam. It’s amazing we send our babies to war then they come back all ptsd

 

[sealybobo]

There is no compromise. The Second Amendment and my God-given constitutional right to arm myself is not up for debate. Far more people have died while protecting the rights and freedoms we so graciously have, than those murdered by criminals.

Infinitely far more people have died in this world because their countries were not blessed with the same rights we have.

You won’t mind if we pull 20 round clips off the shelves. You keep yours. In fact the value of yours skyrocketed because they don’t make them like that anymore

 

[sealybobo]

There is no compromise. The Second Amendment and my God-given constitutional right to arm myself is not up for debate. Far more people have died while protecting the rights and freedoms we so graciously have, than those murdered by criminals.

Infinitely far more people have died in this world because their countries were not blessed with the same rights we have.

Okay I can appreciate that but there was no option to give up our right to arm and defend ourselves. There was an option to compromise on some weapons in return for a national effort, including the left, to restore the values that kept the schools one of the safest places on the planet up until the last few decades.

Why should there be a compromise for law-abiding citizens to give up "some" of their own personal property? Should we also force others to give up their televisions, radios, and internet because at the time of the writing of the First Amendment, the only means of free speech were hand-operated printing presses?

You aren’t giving up anything. Just can’t buy them new anymore

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

There should be no interest in a deeply flawed thread premise that fails as a strawman fallacy, incorrectly maintaining that ‘liberals’ find no truth in the importance of responsible parents, the importance of positive role models, and the importance of personal responsibility.

And the vast majority of ‘liberals’ are persons of faith who teach love and respect for others.

Consequently, there is nothing for ‘liberals’ to ‘concede’ given the fact they’ve always acknowledged these truths.

Clearly the flawed thread premise is predicated on lies as to who ‘liberals’ actually are.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

Are you rich?

 

[sealybobo]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

There should be no interest in a deeply flawed thread premise that fails as a strawman fallacy, incorrectly maintaining that ‘liberals’ find no truth in the importance of responsible parents, the importance of positive role models, and the importance of personal responsibility.

And the vast majority of ‘liberals’ are persons of faith who teach love and respect for others.

Consequently, there is nothing for ‘liberals’ to ‘concede’ given the fact they’ve always acknowledged these truths.

Clearly the flawed thread premise is predicated on lies as to who ‘liberals’ actually are.

And they can’t tell us what they want. They say we are unreasonable but they say no to everything.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There cannot be any compromise on the Second Amendment. End of story

Acknowledging the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ is not to ‘compromise’ – it’s to recognize the fact that as with other rights, the Second Amendment right is subject to regulation and restriction by government consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[jillian]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

your choices aren't clear

 

[jillian]

There cannot be any compromise on the Second Amendment. End of story

why on earth would you think that reasonable regulation violates the 2nd?

we'll wait.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

Incorrect.

‘Liberals’ do not seek no guns at all, the notion is a ridiculous lie.