CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

 

[hunarcy]

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....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

I'd say no. They don't seem to regard such reasons as legitimate, nor do they believe that regulating human behavior will solve the problems, though those are the only solution to this situation.

 

[hunarcy]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

 

[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.

​

​

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....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

I'd say no. They don't seem to regard such reasons as legitimate, nor do they believe that regulating human behavior will solve the problems, though those are the only solution to this situation.

Which brings us back to the point made in the OP.

I acknowledge that both sides of the gun debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

I also acknowledge that both sides of the cultural debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

So the question is not what the problem is as we see it. The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

 

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

 

[sealybobo]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

You don't need this



Just because it's illegal to buy these does not mean your 2nd amendment has been taken away anymore than owning one of these does



No matter what

says

 

[sealybobo]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

I agree to the cultural reform.

 

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

I agree to the cultural reform.

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

 

[hunarcy]

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....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

I'd say no. They don't seem to regard such reasons as legitimate, nor do they believe that regulating human behavior will solve the problems, though those are the only solution to this situation.

Which brings us back to the point made in the OP.

I acknowledge that both sides of the gun debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

I also acknowledge that both sides of the cultural debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

So the question is not what the problem is as we see it. The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

We have been giving up rights for the last 55 years with no compromise by the anti-gun crowd and no real positive results. I don't see there's any need for more compromise from the 2nd Amendment folks.

 

[hunarcy]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

Not a thing.

 

[hunarcy]

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

I agree to the cultural reform.

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

 

[Foxfyre]

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

I'd say no. They don't seem to regard such reasons as legitimate, nor do they believe that regulating human behavior will solve the problems, though those are the only solution to this situation.

Which brings us back to the point made in the OP.

I acknowledge that both sides of the gun debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

I also acknowledge that both sides of the cultural debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

So the question is not what the problem is as we see it. The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

We have been giving up rights for the last 55 years with no compromise by the anti-gun crowd and no real positive results. I don't see there's any need for more compromise from the 2nd Amendment folks.

We haven't compromised at all because we've never gotten anything in return for concessions we have made.

Please reread the OP. This thread is about both sides giving something the other wants in order to get what we want.

 

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

Not a thing.

Understood. That is why I am a lone reed up there as the only person so far willing to have a conversation toward a win-win solution to the problem. Most say its my way or no way and it is everybody else's fault but mine.

 

[hunarcy]

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

I'd say no. They don't seem to regard such reasons as legitimate, nor do they believe that regulating human behavior will solve the problems, though those are the only solution to this situation.

Which brings us back to the point made in the OP.

I acknowledge that both sides of the gun debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

I also acknowledge that both sides of the cultural debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

So the question is not what the problem is as we see it. The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

We have been giving up rights for the last 55 years with no compromise by the anti-gun crowd and no real positive results. I don't see there's any need for more compromise from the 2nd Amendment folks.

We haven't compromised at all because we've never gotten anything in return for concessions we have made.

Please reread the OP. This thread is about both sides giving something the other wants in order to get what we want.

You are exactly right! The fact is that there is NO reason for the 2nd Amendment crowd to give up ANYTHING since we're the only ones who have given things up since the early 1960's. If I am expected to give up rights to reach a compromise, let's restore ALL gun rights and THEN start compromising.

 

[Foxfyre]

They are pretty well spelled out in the OP.

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

I agree to the cultural reform.

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

I'd say no. They don't seem to regard such reasons as legitimate, nor do they believe that regulating human behavior will solve the problems, though those are the only solution to this situation.

Which brings us back to the point made in the OP.

I acknowledge that both sides of the gun debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

I also acknowledge that both sides of the cultural debate are strongly convinced that their point of view is the right one.

So the question is not what the problem is as we see it. The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

We have been giving up rights for the last 55 years with no compromise by the anti-gun crowd and no real positive results. I don't see there's any need for more compromise from the 2nd Amendment folks.

We haven't compromised at all because we've never gotten anything in return for concessions we have made.

Please reread the OP. This thread is about both sides giving something the other wants in order to get what we want.

You are exactly right! The fact is that there is NO reason for the 2nd Amendment crowd to give up ANYTHING since we're the only ones who have given things up since the early 1960's. If I am expected to give up rights to reach a compromise, let's restore ALL gun rights and THEN start compromising.

No deal. Both sides come to the table now and mutually agree on what each side is willing to consent to in order to achieve a solution to the problem. We've had too much of 'you do that first and then I'll do this' kind of thing. The side that goes first gets left holding the bag and the other side doesn't come through.

So it needs to be a mutual and enforceable win-win agreeable by both in order to achieve a solution to a problem.

 

[hunarcy]

But, that isn't the issue. The issue is for gun owners to be stripped of their rights because the anti-gunners don't like firearms. The request for "examples" is an attempt to find words that you type to be used against you.

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

I agree to the cultural reform.

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

 

[Circe]

[ The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

Nothing, of course! There is no problem from the conservative point of view. I don't see why you suppose there is a problem for us? Just one for you, you want to grab everyone's guns but we won't let you.

 

[Foxfyre]

That IS the issue. The question is not who is wrong or who is right. The question is not which side has the moral authority.

The question is, if both sides come to the table to agree on a solution, what would you be willing to concede to get one?

I would be willing, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, to agree to the gun control measures in the OP in return for getting the cultural reform.

What would you hunarcy be willing to agree to in return for getting what you see as a solution to the problem?

I agree to the cultural reform.

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

 

[Foxfyre]

[ The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

Nothing, of course! There is no problem from the conservative point of view. I don't see why you suppose there is a problem for us? Just one for you, you want to grab everyone's guns but we won't let you.

Well that pretty well confirms that you haven't read much of the thread.