CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[jillian]

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.

spiteful much?

 

[jillian]

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.

they need to tell themselves that lie because it validates their disgusting behavior.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You're not being honest.

The 2nd Amendment group has been "compromising" for the last 5 decades.

It's time to stop giving up rights and time to address the REAL problem.
Leftist policies which are creating a society where people take out their anger by killing innocent people.

That is a sick society and taking away guns or adding more laws on top of the 10,000 plus gun control laws already on the books does not resolve that. It's like giving someone an aspirin.....for cancer.

No, the problem is lies contrived and propagated by conservatives about ‘liberals’ – this post being one of many examples.

 

[JGalt]

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.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

We have been bent over backward in compromising, ever since the
National Firearms Act of 1934.Then there was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the BATFE in 1972, the Crime Control Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Clinton's "assault weapons ban" in 1994, and even though they failed, Obama's "Sweeping Changes to Gun Control" in 2013.

Compromises were made in all of those federal programs, yet here we are. None of them have prevented the school shooting we are seeing.

 

[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?

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

Of course I don't know because nobody does. Ask any 100 Republicans what they want and you'll likely get 100 different answers. It is irrelevent what Republicans want which is why I deliberately left partisanship out of it. This is purely an ideological issue.

Now then, can you answer what compromises you personally would be willing to make to achieve a more peaceful, more safe America where school children are not at risk? What compromises do you think your ideological group would be willing to make? You have already answered the poll that you wouldn't accept the compromise offered in the OP. Why or why not?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Then you will no doubt choose to not post in a flawed thread. Oops. Too late, huh. But should you choose to actually show courage enough to tackle the premise of the thread and offer what you personally would be willing to compromise on, then please come back to the discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

So there are no choices that you personally would be willing to compromise on?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

We have been bent over backward in compromising, ever since the
National Firearms Act of 1934.Then there was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the BATFE in 1972, the Crime Control Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Clinton's "assault weapons ban" in 1994, and even though they failed, Obama's "Sweeping Changes to Gun Control" in 2013.

Compromises were made in all of those federal programs, yet here we are. None of them have prevented the school shooting we are seeing.

Have we? Lately I am seeing pretty strong resistance to any form of compromise on either side. Resisting but losing is not exactly what I'm shooting for here. There has been an awful lot of that and I can't see the results as being exactly positive. What I'm shooting for is a win-win solution.

Obviously, just like in the debates on virtually every point of the Constitution, nobody is going to get everything they want.

But it strongly encourages anger, resistance, even hatred when one side demands to have their way and aren't willing to allow the other side a single point. Every issue becomes a what I think is all that matters and therefore you are wrong/bad/evil kind of thing.

I hope everybody, whether left, right, or center will honestly look at their point of view and see what, if anything, they will volunteer to concede IF they get reasonable concessions from the other side.

 

[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

So there are no choices that you personally would be willing to compromise on?

why are you making up my response? your choices weren't written clearly. *shrug*

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Of course I don't know because nobody does. Ask any 100 Republicans what they want and you'll likely get 100 different answers. It is irrelevent what Republicans want which is why I deliberately left partisanship out of it. This is purely an ideological issue.

Now then, can you answer what compromises you personally would be willing to make to achieve a more peaceful, more safe America where school children are not at risk? What compromises do you think your ideological group would be willing to make? You have already answered the poll that you wouldn't accept the compromise offered in the OP. Why or why not?

I won’t take your guns away.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

​

​

Hi Foxy!

The mistake you make is assuming that liberals are in any way reasonable or logical. They will never stop with their demands and attacking the 2nd amendment. They can "say" whatever they want, but most of us realize that they will never be satisfied. The other thing is that creating laws based on the actions of CRAZY people that mostly are only going to affect law abiding citizens is, well, crazy! They don't care about the mass shootings really. What they want to do is to limit ALL of us and our rights and our freedom. Another point I would like to make is that there is a much deeper issue here, as guns have pretty much always been around in America, yet these types of shootings have not, and none of the gun control laws have worked, so it is time to try something new.

 

[Desperado]

reasonable regulation

Define "reasonable regulation"

 

[Manonthestreet]

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.

spiteful much?

Consistent.....

 

[ChrisL]

Unless a person has a committed a crime themselves, who are you to limit someone else's rights because of what someone ELSE did?

It is the whole PRINCIPLE of the thing. It is a right and a very important one too. If you let the government mess with one of your rights, what is to stop them from doing it with others just because someone may have abused their rights?

It's horrible that mass shootings happen, but this is America and we don't give up our freedoms for a little security that government might promise us (which is something that can NEVER be delivered on, which is why we have the RIGHT to defend ourselves and our property). That really goes against EVERYTHING the founders stood for. I mean, everything. It is an absolute disgrace, IMO.

 

[Picaro]

My view is that the 2nd leaves it entirely to the state govts. what control they want on firearms. I've never seen anything that indicates otherwise. Some states had definite controls, some didn't, just as some states had established religious sects with special subsidies and powers; the 1st Amendment restricted the Feds in that regard, and left it to the states whether they wanted an established church or not. This isn't rocker science, and I don't get why it needs to be constantly debated over and over and over.

The Supreme Court, and its rulings, over the years has been rendered useless as a basis for law, so citing it over and over and over pro or con is just as pointless; it and the other Federal courts are little more than feudal fiefs, essentially kangaroo courts. Reigning in lawyers and these ad hoc courts is a priority; I don't see anything changing, just more and more paralysis ahead, as state and local govts. and individuals cower under threats of lawsuits bankruptcy for doing anything effective at this point, all of which if futile no matter what they do.

You can bet the law firms that parcel out 'volunteers' to the ACLU are rabidly lining up clients in that town, and many of the victims' parents are already shopping for bling and new cars as well, or so their hopes of big paydays go.

 

[ChrisL]

I can't compromise with the liberals because I don't trust them. It is impossible to compromise if you don't trust the other side to hold up their end of the bargain. That is probably the biggest reason why most people cannot compromise when it comes to something really important like their rights.

 

[task0778]

Here's my problem with compromising on this issue: what the Left wants is a ban. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants every possible excuse to confiscate somebody's guns. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants every possible way to restrict gun ownership. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants to put gun dealers and manufacturers out of business. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing.

Compromises are based on the premise that both sides get something and give up something. I'm not seeing the Left giving up a damn thing. They want it all and they don't want to give up anything in return. Tell you the truth, I don't have or want an AR-15 or the like; I own a couple of handguns that never leave the house except for going to the range, and I live in Texas so it ain't like I'm too worried about myself here. It ain't personal, it's a question of gradually giving up my rights and freedoms, basically for nothing. If AR-15s were banned would it make a difference? No, anyone who thinks that is foolish.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Of course I don't know because nobody does. Ask any 100 Republicans what they want and you'll likely get 100 different answers. It is irrelevent what Republicans want which is why I deliberately left partisanship out of it. This is purely an ideological issue.

Now then, can you answer what compromises you personally would be willing to make to achieve a more peaceful, more safe America where school children are not at risk? What compromises do you think your ideological group would be willing to make? You have already answered the poll that you wouldn't accept the compromise offered in the OP. Why or why not?

I won’t take your guns away.

That isn't really the point here because that wasn't an option offered.

 

[Picaro]

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

So there are no choices that you personally would be willing to compromise on?

No point in 'compromising' with fake narratives, and with loons at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's my problem with compromising on this issue: what the Left wants is a ban. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants every possible excuse to confiscate somebody's guns. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants every possible way to restrict gun ownership. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants to put gun dealers and manufacturers out of business. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing.

Compromises are based on the premise that both sides get something and give up something. I'm not seeing the Left giving up a damn thing. They want it all and they don't want to give up anything in return. Tell you the truth, I don't have or want an AR-15 or the like; I own a couple of handguns that never leave the house except for going to the range, and I live in Texas so it ain't like I'm too worried about myself here. It ain't personal, it's a question of gradually giving up my rights and freedoms, basically for nothing. If AR-15s were banned would it make a difference? No, anyone who thinks that is foolish.

Most, if not all, on the left would strongly object to being characterized that way though. But almost everybody on the left would like to see manufacture and sale of weapons like the AR-15 restricted and stronger background checks for those purchasing weapons.

Just as the right strongly objects to being characterized that they are trying to force their values on everybody, while most of those on the right believe that those values would restore the peace and protect children far more than any amount of gun control will do.

The problem is that each side damns the other but no effort is ever made to find a win-win solution for the problem.

So I would like to get away from partisanship and critical views of the left and right and deal with the realities we are dealing with.

Would you say agree to a restriction on the manufacture and sale of AR-15 and similar weapons and stronger background check laws if those in the more gun-control group would agree to promote two parent families as the best circumstance for raising children? Would allow God-friendly schools again where Christmas could be acknowledged and celebrated and those children who wanted to express their religious faith could do so freely and openly? (Those who did not would not be required to.) Would agree that society must emphasize lawfulness, personal responsibility, and accountability for ALL demographics? Would agree to promoting positive values in video games, television, movies?

My personal opinion is similar to yours in that I don't think restricting certain weapons will have any effect whatsoever to reduce or eliminate mass murders/violence. But, I acknowledge that many believe it would make a difference. So, if I agree to some concessions wanted by the left who believe those concessions would make a difference, and I would get something significant in return that I believe will make a difference, I would be willing to compromise on that issue.

Would you? (Please consider that the rhetorical 'you' so anybody can answer.)