CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[sealybobo]

I can totally understand why some liberals wouldn't be able to trust themselves with a weapon (they probably should be kept away from knives and scissors as well).

And you want us all to be able to get our hands on these weapons, without a good background check?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It’s becoming more and more clear you’re why we never get anywhere. You haven’t made it past step one in how many pages? You’re clearly a gun nut just looking to confuse obstruct delay distract misdirect us into status quo

Hey....Foxfyre....want to try compromising with this guy?

No. It's pretty obvious when you can't trust somebody to be honest about much of anything.

You tried to seem neutral but clearly you have a hidden agenda. You have nothing to offer and won’t give anything up. And nothing we say is right. It’s time to let us know your ideas. Or have we already heard enough

I have not pretended to be neutral in any way because I am not at all neutral on this topic. I put some ideas in the OP I have been up front and honest about my agenda.

My agenda is to find a way to fix a culture that I believe is the primary reason we are having all these school shootings and other acts of violence. My agenda is to stop the school shootings and other acts of violence. I am convinced that more gun control won't do it.

I would be willing to accept all the proposals I listed there and invited others to do the same and/or provide their own proposals. One way I could see to get the gun control lobby to cooperate in restoring a non violent culture was to give them something they might want enough to help do that. And that was in very good faith.

Others have at least been intellectually honest about their position on it and are not willing to deal. You have not been intellectually honest or contributed to the discussion in any honest way.

I honestly don't know why people with your point of view bother to post in this thread at all unless you get your kicks by trolling and derailing threads. Maybe the unwilling to compromise group--which is everybody on the right other than me so far--see everybody on the left as holding your point of view and it is therefore hopeless. Who knows? Do have a pleasant day.

 

[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.

I've read the whole thread, of course. No compromise. The lambs should not compromise with the wolves, and you guys are the wolves: you want everyone disarmed and under total cradle-to-grave control of government. We're not doing that.

Stay loyal to all allies, people. Know who your enemies are and don't give them ANYthing. Or they will certainly take everything and leave us all vulnerable to constant crime and marauding, as has already happened in England and Europe.

If you think I want to disarm everybody (or anybody other than those who are a danger to themselves and/or others) or that I want the federal government to do any more than it is authorized to do under the original intent of the Constitution you haven't even read the OP, much less the thread.

 

[ChrisL]

It's a highly charged topic that not many are willing to compromise on. Allowing government control over gun rights goes against pretty much America was built on, and our unique freedoms and liberties are one of the things that has always made us one of the greatest nations on earth.

 

[Foxfyre]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

 

[ChrisL]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

 

[Circe]

Do you even have anything to offer the conversation other than get your hands off my guns you filthy ape?

Nope, that pretty much covers the ground, thanx.

 

[Foxfyre]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

I understand the dynamics involved here. I really do.

I understand the frustration of the 2nd Amendment group who feel like our constitutional rights are being steadily eroded and taken away by people with fuzzy values and authoritarian motives. I don't miss the emphasis that would give an authoritarian government--one of their choosing of course--total control over every aspect of our speech, our thoughts, our beliefs, what are now our protected rights. I agree that has been their motive and game plan for quite some time now.

But on the other hand, even though I am a card carrying member of the NRA--thanks to Obama. I never wanted to join the NRA before he came along--and I own guns, I know how to use them, and I would fight to the death for the right of lawful citizens to have any amount of them they want. . .

. . .I am a bit disheartened at those who put so much importance on those guns that they would not even have a conversation about any form of compromise that could be a win-win for both and result in school children not being slaughtered as well as eliminating most other forms of violence.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me, and most of those on 2nd Amendment side as well as a few intellectually honest ones from the gun control side I fully respect and consider friends.

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

 

[Circe]

We have those conversations here all the time.....we explain our points.....then, they will suggest a new law, or a new item that should be banned....we explain why the new law and the item being banned achieve nothing.....then they start talking about penises........it gets kind of old.....

It's pointless. The best analogy is World War I trenches. They ran only 50 feet to 50 yards apart in some areas, depending on the ground. They could and did yell across to each other --- but only insults, because what would be the point to "discussion" of the fact that they were at war, enemies in entrenched opposing positions?

Should the British yell over that the Germans were being real mean to the Belgian villagers they lined up and shot, including mothers and newborn babies? Would that have stopped them? Should the Germans yell over that the British ought to go back home and not help the French, it's not their business anyway, and they ought to know the French were inferior and need to be ruled by Germany?

If any of that happened, it would have been pointless and history has not heard of it. The point is that they were enemies and no compromise was going to work for either side. The question was simply which side won. We can't win now if we give in to the gun grabbers. We have to hang in there and keep fighting.

And never give an inch to the enemy. They will strip us of everything if we do.

 

[Coyote]

Folks please remember we are in the CDZ, keep it civil and on topic.

 

[Circe]

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

Don't, then. I can't tell for sure what side you are on, but I suspect the left side.

I think you should decide what side you are on and then be loyal to that side.

This is not a war for fence-sitters.

 

[ChrisL]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

I understand the dynamics involved here. I really do.

I understand the frustration of the 2nd Amendment group who feel like our constitutional rights are being steadily eroded and taken away by people with fuzzy values and authoritarian motives. I don't miss the emphasis that would give an authoritarian government--one of their choosing of course--total control over every aspect of our speech, our thoughts, our beliefs, what are now our protected rights. I agree that has been their motive and game plan for quite some time now.

But on the other hand, even though I am a card carrying member of the NRA--thanks to Obama. I never wanted to join the NRA before he came along--and I own guns, I know how to use them, and I would fight to the death for the right of lawful citizens to have any amount of them they want. . .

. . .I am a bit disheartened at those who put so much importance on those guns that they would not even have a conversation about any form of compromise that could be a win-win for both and result in school children not being slaughtered as well as eliminating most other forms of violence.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me, and most of those on 2nd Amendment side as well as a few intellectually honest ones from the gun control side I fully respect and consider friends.

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

It is not the guns as much as it the principle of allowing the government control over one of our constitutional rights, which is the entire reason for the right to begin with. Lol. The Bill of Rights is the rights of the people, and not the rights of government to outgun, overpower or use their authority to take any one of our rights away from us.

 

[ChrisL]

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

Don't, then. I can't tell for sure what side you are on, but I suspect the left side.

I think you should decide what side you are on and then be loyal to that side.

This is not a war for fence-sitters.

She is not. She is a conservative. She is just trying to be "fair minded," but she should know better by now to try that around here. Lol.

 

[Circe]

It is not the guns as much as it the principle of allowing the government control over one of our constitutional rights, which is the entire reason for the right to begin with. Lol. The Bill of Rights is the rights of the people, and not the rights of government to outgun, overpower or use their authority to take any one of our rights away from us.

I know a lot of people think it's about the principle, but with respect, I myself think it's about the guns. That this is a very, very serious security situation in America today and all over the developed world, and insecurity was the main reason Trump was elected -- his sudden meteoric rise when he said we should ban Muslims coming in. I remember that moment: sudden hope.

Europe and Britain went with disarming the people, and as a result the citizens are now wholly at the mercy of well-armed criminals and terrorists, and as we can clearly see from terrible newscasts, the police cannot protect them.

A lot of us don't want to go that way.

 

[ChrisL]

It is not the guns as much as it the principle of allowing the government control over one of our constitutional rights, which is the entire reason for the right to begin with. Lol. The Bill of Rights is the rights of the people, and not the rights of government to outgun, overpower or use their authority to take any one of our rights away from us.

I know a lot of people think it's about the principle, but with respect, I myself think it's about the guns. That this is a very, very serious security situation in America today and all over the developed world, and insecurity was the main reason Trump was elected -- his sudden meteoric rise when he said we should ban Muslims coming in. I remember that moment: sudden hope.

Europe and Britain went with disarming the people, and as a result the citizens are now wholly at the mercy of well-armed criminals and terrorists, and as we can clearly see from terrible newscasts, the police cannot protect them.

A lot of us don't want to go that way.

Of course, the right to defend ourselves with the most technologically advanced weaponry is very important. The libs will soon have us all only able to own muskets to defend ourselves against criminals with state of the art handguns. Lol.

 

[Foxfyre]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

I understand the dynamics involved here. I really do.

I understand the frustration of the 2nd Amendment group who feel like our constitutional rights are being steadily eroded and taken away by people with fuzzy values and authoritarian motives. I don't miss the emphasis that would give an authoritarian government--one of their choosing of course--total control over every aspect of our speech, our thoughts, our beliefs, what are now our protected rights. I agree that has been their motive and game plan for quite some time now.

But on the other hand, even though I am a card carrying member of the NRA--thanks to Obama. I never wanted to join the NRA before he came along--and I own guns, I know how to use them, and I would fight to the death for the right of lawful citizens to have any amount of them they want. . .

. . .I am a bit disheartened at those who put so much importance on those guns that they would not even have a conversation about any form of compromise that could be a win-win for both and result in school children not being slaughtered as well as eliminating most other forms of violence.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me, and most of those on 2nd Amendment side as well as a few intellectually honest ones from the gun control side I fully respect and consider friends.

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

It is not the guns as much as it the principle of allowing the government control over one of our constitutional rights, which is the entire reason for the right to begin with. Lol. The Bill of Rights is the rights of the people, and not the rights of government to outgun, overpower or use their authority to take any one of our rights away from us.

I understand. But when most on the left would resist emphasis on any of the cultural changes in the OP as overreach by the right, it seems the only way to bring such people to the table is to be willing to give them something they want. It would cost us little or nothing and would be worth it if they could compromise.

I hate watching young people riot, burn, loot, commit assault and battery, and attack, threaten, and apply pressure to deny others their constitutional rights. but we see that all too often on TV. Most on the left defend it as 'free speech.' I condemn it and blame it on a society that encourages such behavior.

I can't imagine holding my bleeding child in my arms after some crazed maniac shoots up his/her school or dealing with the loss of loved ones in other hateful mass killings. Most on the left blame that on the guns. I blame it on the crazed maniac and a system that likely created him and makes it easy for him to act.

But if each side holds firm to their position and refuse to negotiate a solution because they see the other side as 'evil', it is only going to get worse.

I honestly believe if we could promote and achieve those cultural changes, we wouldn't really have two sides antagonistic toward each other. And we would still have the guns.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

Don't, then. I can't tell for sure what side you are on, but I suspect the left side.

I think you should decide what side you are on and then be loyal to that side.

This is not a war for fence-sitters.

She is not. She is a conservative. She is just trying to be "fair minded," but she should know better by now to try that around here. Lol.

Thanks Chris, my soul sister in so many ways.

If Circe would just read the thread he never would have made that kind of mistake.

 

[Circe]

She is not. She is a conservative. She is just trying to be "fair minded," but she should know better by now to try that around here. Lol.

Okay, you probably know...................

I see a few people like that here and on other forums. Very few now, who still think that discussion and compromise and "talking things over" will somehow work. But no more than one or two per forum, because many realize that the time for negotiating is past.

Now it's a question of who wins and who loses.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not the guns as much as it the principle of allowing the government control over one of our constitutional rights, which is the entire reason for the right to begin with. Lol. The Bill of Rights is the rights of the people, and not the rights of government to outgun, overpower or use their authority to take any one of our rights away from us.

I know a lot of people think it's about the principle, but with respect, I myself think it's about the guns. That this is a very, very serious security situation in America today and all over the developed world, and insecurity was the main reason Trump was elected -- his sudden meteoric rise when he said we should ban Muslims coming in. I remember that moment: sudden hope.

Europe and Britain went with disarming the people, and as a result the citizens are now wholly at the mercy of well-armed criminals and terrorists, and as we can clearly see from terrible newscasts, the police cannot protect them.

A lot of us don't want to go that way.

I strongly agree with this. There is no way that I will stand by and just cry when they come for my guns. They'll have to pry them out of my cold dead fingers.

But I would give up on some points that would make no significant difference to any of us in order to get the cultural changes that I think will fix the problem. And those proposed cultural changes have absolutely nothing to do with guns.

 

[Foxfyre]

Woo hoo. We now have 2 votes for a conversation to compromise. We're on our way.