CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[ChrisL]

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, in 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 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 with those who believe it would make a difference, and I would get something 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.)

No. WE don't give up our rights (even a SMIDGEN) to pacify someone's misunderstandings and fear. They are much too important.

 

[miketx]

God-given constitutional right

Heads-up, Rambo!
God didn't write the Constitution!

Troll if you had read it you'd know.

 

[Picaro]

'Compromises' with the Soviet culturekampf agenda influenced 'Left' have already been made for decades. It's just stupid to claim we need more 'compromises' with the vermin. If they're unhappy about that, we can deport them to somewhere more suited to their mental and emotional needs. OR they can 'compromise' by purging the defunct Russian influence from their agendas.

 

[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.

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.)

Short answer: NO.

Longer answer:

Seriously? I gotta bargain with the progressive liberals or anybody else to promote two parent families as the best circumstance for raising children or emphasize lawfulness, personal responsibility, and accountability for ALL demographics, or promote positive values in video games, television, movies? All of these things could and probably would result in fewer problems in our society particularly among our young people, and I gotta bargain for that? Why isn't EVERYBODY for these things?

There are by some estimates around 5 million Americans who own an AR-15, probably more that own something similar or just as deadly. Why should all of them be denied their rights based on the actions of a very few? It ain't like thousands of people are being killed by AR-15s in this country; and here's the thing, even if we restricted or banned the manufacture and sale of these things it wouldn't be effective in stopping school shootings. Are we going to confiscate all those millions of weapons? I don't think so. And some people do hunt with them, some use them for home protection, and some just for recreation at a gun range somewhere.

Collective punishment should offend not just gun owners, but any American who believes in individual responsibility and due process. And, in fact, liberals generally abhor the collective-punishment model when it is imposed in other circumstances or on other populations—e.g., on Middle Easterners and Muslims by policies such as the Trump travel ban. For similar reasons, liberals also recoiled against many policies of the Bush administration, such as warrantless wiretapping and suspending the habeas corpus rights of alleged enemy combatants, imposed in the name of saving lives. Such policies were not only unconstitutional, liberals argued, they were also ineffective—precisely the points most conservatives make about gun control.

Arguments about constitutionality and effectiveness are worth having. But Americans should not let their disagreements about other measures stand in the way of the things that (a) are constitutional, (b) would be effective, and (c) both sides can agree on. Tell you what, I'd go for the idea of Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). If somebody is behaving in what might be a dangerous or threatening way, a concerned family member or neighbor who knows the person can call the cops and have them check the guy out. If they think it's warranted, they can go to a judge with the facts about what they have observed along with the person's criminal record if any, and ask the judge to temporarily suspend the person's right to purchase a firearm, any gun at all. The guy shows up and makes his case and the judge can decide if the GVRO should be cancelled or extended,or maybe refer the person to a mental health exam and treatment. If the person doesn't show, the GVRO becomes permanent. If the person does show up then it's on the mental health professional to evaluate the guy and decide whether or not the person should be allowed to own a gun.

Also, I'd allow teachers and school employees to carry a gun in school if they wish, and I'd also hire more school security guards. I'd bet money there are quite a few retirees who would sign up part time for minimum wages.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

They think it’s our goal. I’m telling you or them it’s not. They need to realize this if there is to be any compromise. If one side is stubborn because they think giving an inch will cost them a foot

 

[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.)

Short answer: NO.

Longer answer:

Seriously? I gotta bargain with the progressive liberals or anybody else to promote two parent families as the best circumstance for raising children or emphasize lawfulness, personal responsibility, and accountability for ALL demographics, or promote positive values in video games, television, movies? All of these things could and probably would result in fewer problems in our society particularly among our young people, and I gotta bargain for that? Why isn't EVERYBODY for these things?

There are by some estimates around 5 million Americans who own an AR-15, probably more that own something similar or just as deadly. Why should all of them be denied their rights based on the actions of a very few? It ain't like thousands of people are being killed by AR-15s in this country; and here's the thing, even if we restricted or banned the manufacture and sale of these things it wouldn't be effective in stopping school shootings. Are we going to confiscate all those millions of weapons? I don't think so. And some people do hunt with them, some use them for home protection, and some just for recreation at a gun range somewhere.

Collective punishment should offend not just gun owners, but any American who believes in individual responsibility and due process. And, in fact, liberals generally abhor the collective-punishment model when it is imposed in other circumstances or on other populations—e.g., on Middle Easterners and Muslims by policies such as the Trump travel ban. For similar reasons, liberals also recoiled against many policies of the Bush administration, such as warrantless wiretapping and suspending the habeas corpus rights of alleged enemy combatants, imposed in the name of saving lives. Such policies were not only unconstitutional, liberals argued, they were also ineffective—precisely the points most conservatives make about gun control.

Arguments about constitutionality and effectiveness are worth having. But Americans should not let their disagreements about other measures stand in the way of the things that (a) are constitutional, (b) would be effective, and (c) both sides can agree on. Tell you what, I'd go for the idea of Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). If somebody is behaving in what might be a dangerous or threatening way, a concerned family member or neighbor who knows the person can call the cops and have them check the guy out. If they think it's warranted, they can go to a judge with the facts about what they have observed along with the person's criminal record if any, and ask the judge to temporarily suspend the person's right to purchase a firearm, any gun at all. The guy shows up and makes his case and the judge can decide if the GVRO should be cancelled or extended,or maybe refer the person to a mental health exam and treatment. If the person doesn't show, the GVRO becomes permanent. If the person does show up then it's on the mental health professional to evaluate the guy and decide whether or not the person should be allowed to own a gun.

Also, I'd allow teachers and school employees to carry a gun in school if they wish, and I'd also hire more school security guards. I'd bet money there are quite a few retirees who would sign up part time for minimum wages.

I have to respect that though I think we have to get past the point of 'the way it has always been' before we can get to any possibility of positive change. But while I am disappointed that you wouldn't go for a compromise if both sides did so, I sincerely appreciate a well reasoned and thought out response.

 

[Rambunctious]

After 911 we fortified our airports and train stations bus stations museums stadiums and many other easy targets...now it's time to do the same to our schools...why is that so difficult to comprehend?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No one wants to take anyone's guns away.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

They think it’s our goal. I’m telling you or them it’s not. They need to realize this if there is to be any compromise. If one side is stubborn because they think giving an inch will cost them a foot

Yes, both sides view each other with disdain. But just as I responded to Task, if we don't get past the point of accusing each other and find a common goal and each side be willing to give up something to get it, we will never find a win-win solution.

I think sometimes we have to ask ourselves whether it really is a solution that we want or are does our desire to expose and punish or thwart the other for the 'evil' people we perceive them to be override any other motive?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

They think it’s our goal. I’m telling you or them it’s not. They need to realize this if there is to be any compromise. If one side is stubborn because they think giving an inch will cost them a foot

Yes, both sides view each other with disdain. But just as I responded to Task, if we don't get past the point of accusing each other and find a common goal and each side be willing to give up something to get it, we will never find a win-win solution.

I think sometimes we have to ask ourselves whether it really is a solution that we want or are does our desire to expose and punish or thwart the other for the 'evil' people we perceive them to be override any other motive?

Yet a conservative started this thread in bad faith whose premise was predicated on lies about ‘liberals’:

The lie that ‘liberals’ don’t value personal responsibility

The lie that ‘liberals’ don’t value the morality expressed in religious doctrine

The lie that ‘liberals’ don’t value positive role models

Given this and countless other examples of conservatives’ propensity for lying, the disdain ‘liberals’ have for conservatives is both appropriate and warranted.

The first and most important step in finding any solution that divides us is for conservatives to stop lying, if that’s even possible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

reasonable regulation

Define "reasonable regulation"

Simply do a search for Second Amendment case law to find that definition.

This is a good place to start:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Desperado]

The first and most important step in finding any solution that divides us is for conservatives to stop lying, if that’s even possible.

Look who is talking! Conservatives are not even in the same league when compared tp liberals. You can tell when a liberal is lying because their lips are moving. Liberals are the scum of the earth.

 

[jillian]

reasonable regulation

Define "reasonable regulation"

an infringement on the right that is commensurate with the societal interest.... like the first amendment cases.

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Pineapple​

.​

 

[Desperado]

reasonable regulation

Define "reasonable regulation"

an infringement on the right that is commensurate with the societal interest.... like the first amendment cases.

So you admit you are following the communist manifesto, good to know where you stand.
The twelve-thousand word propaganda tract written by Marx in 1848 and known as The Communist Manifesto was a concise summary of many ideas which .... of countless "selfish" individuals, a wholesale slaughter of human beings on a scale never before seen or imagined, in the service of "the greater good" of others, ...

 

[jillian]

reasonable regulation

Define "reasonable regulation"

an infringement on the right that is commensurate with the societal interest.... like the first amendment cases.

So you admit you are following the communist manifesto, good to know where you stand.
The twelve-thousand word propaganda tract written by Marx in 1848 and known as The Communist Manifesto was a concise summary of many ideas which .... of countless "selfish" individuals, a wholesale slaughter of human beings on a scale never before seen or imagined, in the service of "the greater good" of others, ...

what are you talking about? that is the most psychopathtic response anyone could ever have given to my post.

freaking loon.

 

[Desperado]

reasonable regulation

Define "reasonable regulation"

an infringement on the right that is commensurate with the societal interest.... like the first amendment cases.

So you admit you are following the communist manifesto, good to know where you stand.
The twelve-thousand word propaganda tract written by Marx in 1848 and known as The Communist Manifesto was a concise summary of many ideas which .... of countless "selfish" individuals, a wholesale slaughter of human beings on a scale never before seen or imagined, in the service of "the greater good" of others, ...

what are you talking about? that is the most psychopathtic response anyone could ever have given to my post.

freaking loon.

You are the freaking commie loon
The sacrifice involves giving over benefits to others than when. it involves giving up benefits to themselves. Under important limiting. conditions, then, citizens sometimes set aside personal interest in favor of societal interest when making political judgments.
Which is the same as what is describe as "For the greater good" in the communist manifesto

 

[2aguy]

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.

​

​

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?

AR-15s are used for both hunting and self protection......as are all the other semi auto rifles and pistols.....

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?

Do you realize that felons and criminals...under the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision do not need to register illegal guns because it would violate their Right against self incrimination...so if actual criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.....how do you expect to require legal gun owners to register their legal guns...

Gun registration was used in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California to eventually confiscate guns......and in Germany, the disarmed were murdered in gas chambers.........

Criminals do not get their guns from gun shows, they use straw buyers or steal the guns....straw buyers can pass current federal background checks which means they can pass any background check at a gun show or for a private sale.....on the other side, forcing background checks on private property increases the time and cost to people who have committed no crime. We can already arrest felons who buy guns illegally, so we don't need to increase background check laws......

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?

The problem isn't a lack of gun laws.....the problem is democrat politicians constantly releasing violent gun criminals out of jail...to shoot more people, and the government failing to deal with actually dangerous people they know about.....

Felons can't buy, own or carry guns....we can already arrest them. We don't need more laws to do this...we can do it already...

The only thing we should do...increase jail sentences for gun criminals....this is how Japan stopped the Yakuza from using guns in their latest gang war........we need to put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime, rape, robbery and murder.....this has the added benefits of no increase in pointless paperwork, no added cost to law abiding gun owners, and no legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners....we actually focus on people who use guns to commit crimes...not people who own guns for self defense..

I hope this helps....

 

[2aguy]

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.

​

​

Why didn't Rosa Parks compromise and sit in the middle of the bus when the democrats wouldn't let her sit at the front of the bus.....why didn't the kids sitting at the lunch counters simply compromise with the democrats and eat standing up.....? Why did blacks not compromise when the democrats imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests....they could have compromised by getting the democrat Poll Tax simply lowered and the number of tests on the Literacy Tests reduced....

This is what happens when you compromise on a God given Right.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

You don't have to think it....they told us exactly what they want at the CNN town hall, the Orwellian 2 minutes of rage against normal gun owners and the NRA......they want to ban all semi weapons.......and then, from that, they will also want all the other guns too....