Kurt Schlichter proposes a reasoned compromise on gun control with the democrats.........

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,969
52,237
2,290
Considering that everything being proposed by the democrats would have done nothing to stop the various mass public shooters.....and that each thing they demand is simply a baby step toward banning and confiscating guns...with their golden ticket first step being gun registration, with the plan to later use the registration list to ban and confiscate guns....

The actual compromise we should make with the democrats as voiced by Kurt Schlichter.......

Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let's also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry. I think this compromise fairly balances our respective legitimate interests regarding guns. Our legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. Your legitimate interest in limiting our ability to do so is non-existent.
-------------
The idea of a compromise involves getting something you want but giving away something to get it. So far, so good – that's how negotiating works. But the key point is to get something you want. Here, what we get is that we lose less than they want us to ultimately lose. Instead of banning "assault rifles" completely – every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen should have a real military assault rifle, but that's a tangent – the proposed "compromise" seems to be just to ban them completely for some younger adult citizens. See, I'm missing the part where we get something in return instead of merely losing less. But the durwoods of the softcon wing of the GOP seem pretty eager to fail less spectacularly than they might otherwise and call it a victory.


 
I've told you my idea.

Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued. You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.
People need to start suing the government for a lack of police response, like the school shooting in Texas.

Police departments that are defunded need immediate litigation for every crime that occurs afterward.
 
commit a crime with a firearm?

first offence:
1654510400054.png
 
Prosecutors are elected, and unless you want to pay your whole salary in taxes to lock up everyone, some people are going to get released.

We have 100 million people with police records. Do we lock them all up?
I want everyone who committed a violent felony to get a strike & at least see the inside of a jail cell followed by mandatory counseling. If they decide to repeat that crap a couple more times, then they can rot for 20 years or die.

Clinton cut crime in half this way.
 
People need to start suing the government for a lack of police response, like the school shooting in Texas.

Police departments that are defunded need immediate litigation for every crime that occurs afterward.

Uh, sorry. The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia - 1981

Compromise for the Left looks like this, we get a handful of things we ask for and you get nothing.

I guess the question is, why are you guys so invested in mass shooters being able to do mass shootings?

You see, when I go to the airport, I have to get my shoes x-rayed and I have to go through a body scanner. I know damned well I have no intention of hijacking that aircraft, but it's a reasonable comprimise to make sure no one else does.

I find it annoying when I open a pill bottle and have to remove THREE safety seals, but I am also relieved that

When I applied for my last home loan, I really didn't like all the paperwork I had to submit, forgetting that this is the Sixth time I've gone through the mortgage process with my third home, and I haven't missed a payment in 35 years. But I like the security that they aren't going to have another bank collapse because they gave loans to people who shouldn't have had them.

But you tell a gun owner that, hey, maybe we are going to make sure we give you some extra scrutiny to make sure you aren't a nut who is going to shoot up a school, and listen to you guys howl.
 
I want everyone who committed a violent felony to get a strike & at least see the inside of a jail cell followed by mandatory counseling. If they decide to repeat that crap a couple more times, then they can rot for 20 years or die.

Clinton cut crime in half this way.

No, he didn't.

Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965. Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.

We lock up 2 million people, we have another 7 million on probation or parole, and we have 100 million with police records.
Do you feel any safer? I don't.
 
No, he didn't.

Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965. Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.

We lock up 2 million people, we have another 7 million on probation or parole, and we have 100 million with police records.
Do you feel any safer? I don't.
And you will never acknowledge the fact that we lock up mostly nonviolent criminals and let the violent ones back on the streets.
 
That makes as much sense as allowing automobile manufacturers and liquor producers to be sued every time some drunk driver causes a fatal accident.

You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.

As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars. Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.

1654512037400.png

"but, but, but...the founding fathers said I can have guns...."
 
Uh, sorry. The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.

Which means that we need to retain, as much as possible, the abilities to protect ourselves.

But you consistently oppose that. Of course, that is in keeping with your broader position, wherein you always take the side of subhumans criminal pieces of shit, against the side of human beings. Always.

And you always advocate positions that make it safer and easier to be a subhuman criminal piece of shit, and less safe to be a law-abiding human being. You lie about wanting to reduce crime, yet you always take positions that are obviously intended to facilitate crime. Do you really believe that you are fooling anyone?
 

Forum List

Back
Top