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

[JoeB131]

There are more people in prisons right now for drug property and public order crimes than for vioent crimes

Yes, there are... and if we tried to let them out, guys like Mormon Bob would whine to the high heavens about it.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

View attachment 654507
"but, but, but...the founding fathers said I can have guns...."

A bar and the manufacturer are 2 entirely different entities.

FYI a person does not have to go to a bar to drink.

You are not allowed to sue an alcohol manufacturer for deaths their products are directly involved in

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We lock up too many people, period.

The amount of violent and destructive crime that is taking place these days proves otherwise. There are too many “people” who ought to be locked up, or put to death, that are running around free to commit these crimes.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes, there are... and if we tried to let them out, guys like Mormon Bob would whine to the high heavens about it.

So now you admit that we lock up mostly nonviolent criminals?

Didn;t you just say you would never agree to that?

 

[JoeB131]

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

Except most gun deaths aren't inflicted by criminals, they are suicides and domestic violence. The cure is worse than the disease.

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?

See, this is why we can't have Prison Reform, Blues Man guys like this Mormon piece of crap who think that even the most petty Criminal needs to be PUNISHED.

To Bob- um, here's the problem. What makes it easy to have criminals is our unwillingness as a society to address poverty, addiction, mental illness, gun proliferation. The Europeans have figured this out. The Japanese have figured this out. America is stuck on stupid.

A woman can walk by herself at night in downtown Tokyo with no worries about being robbed or raped. And it's not because the Japanese lock people up or execute them. (Japan does have capital punishment, but it's rarely carried out.) It's because they have the social programs to cure the underlying problems.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, there are... and if we tried to let them out, guys like Mormon Bob would whine to the high heavens about it.

You do not speak for me.

 

[JoeB131]

The amount of violent and destructive crime that is taking place these days proves otherwise. There are too many “people” who ought to be locked up, or put to death, that are running around free to commit these crimes.

Has it occurred to your tiny brainwashed mind that we have these problems because we are doing what you say?
Let's take prisons. We lock people up, for mostly non-violent offenses. More likely if they aren't white.
As a result, they often end up in gangs in prison for protection. This makes them more violent and anti-social.
At some point, they get out, they can't get jobs because of their records, and they often go back to committing crime. Except after five years of being brutalized over stealing a TV, they are a lot less concerned about who they hurt in the process this time.

You do not speak for me.

but you just did exactly what I predicted you would do.

So now you admit that we lock up mostly nonviolent criminals?

Didn;t you just say you would never agree to that?

Except we aren't going to let the non-violent criminals go as long as we have a prison industrial complex. American Crime is self-perpetuating. Follow the money, see who is getting rich off the status quo.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Also require gun owners to carry insurance

 

[KissMy]

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.

Because there are too many people locked up by revenue generating traffic stops, checkpoints, nonviolent crimes that could not pay bail, drug crimes instead of sending them to treatment centers, or sex crime because they had porn on their computer.

Crime is now rising rapidly again thanks to lame prosecutors like STL Kimberly Gardner not prosecuting murders & LA DA Gascon

 

[KissMy]

Except most gun deaths aren't inflicted by criminals, they are suicides and domestic violence. The cure is worse than the disease.

See, this is why we can't have Prison Reform, Blues Man guys like this Mormon piece of crap who think that even the most petty Criminal needs to be PUNISHED.

To Bob- um, here's the problem. What makes it easy to have criminals is our unwillingness as a society to address poverty, addiction, mental illness, gun proliferation. The Europeans have figured this out. The Japanese have figured this out. America is stuck on stupid.

A woman can walk by herself at night in downtown Tokyo with no worries about being robbed or raped. And it's not because the Japanese lock people up or execute them. (Japan does have capital punishment, but it's rarely carried out.) It's because they have the social programs to cure the underlying problems.

You lie & obfuscate. You claim the US population aging cut the crime rate in half in the 1990's, but US population is not inverting, unlike Japan that has actually grown old & collapsing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Negligence. They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.

How is the manufacture responsible for what the stores sell the product too?

 

[para bellum]

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.

WTF is that even supposed to mean? What criminal class? WW2 veterans?

It ain't rocket science. The decline in violent crime in the 90's was largely due to Roe v Wade and the subsequent decline of kids born to unmarried black women.

 

[JoeB131]

Because there are too many people locked up by revenue generating traffic stops, checkpoints, nonviolent crimes that could not pay bail, drug crimes instead of sending them to treatment centers, or sex crime because they had porn on their computer.

Crime is now rising rapidly again thanks to lame prosecutors like STL Kimberly Gardner not prosecuting murders & LA DA Gascon

Crime isn't rising rapidly. We had a slight spike because of Covid and the recession, but they are going back to normal.

You lie & obfuscate. You claim the US population aging cut the crime rate in half in the 1990's, but US population is not inverting, unlike Japan that has actually grown old & collapsing.

Um, you are a tad confused. America's only avoiding Japan's fate because of immigration (legal or otherwise.)

WTF is that even supposed to mean? What criminal class? WW2 veterans?

It ain't rocket science. The decline in violent crime in the 90's was largely due to Roe v Wade and the subsequent decline of kids born to unmarried black women.

Uh, okay, try to follow along here, because you seem a little slow.

Most people who commit crimes commit them before age 30. After age 30, they either smarten up, or end up in prison for life. So when the last Boomers started getting into their 30's, crime started declining.

 

[KissMy]

America's only avoiding Japan's fate because of immigration (legal or otherwise.)

Few illegal immigrants answer the census. Their anchor babies are the ones increasing the census population.

 

[JoeB131]

Few illegal immigrants answer the census. Their anchor babies are the ones increasing the census population.

Obviously, you've never been involved in a Census...

If anyone fails to answer the census, the Census Bureau sends out enumerators to check every address that didn't respond. If they still don't get cooperation, they ask neighbors, school boards, etc.

I know this because I was a census enumerator in 2000 and 2010.

The 2020 Census, however was a shit show. Partially because Trump didn't want to get an accurate count, and partially because Covid made it harder to send out enumerators.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

No Compromise on Guns

Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit.

townhall.com

I read the title of the thread and my blood was already at a simmer before I even got the page opened but this is a good article.

I've said it many times here, to many so-called, self-proclaimed, gun rights supporters, 2nd Amendment advocates, here on this site who are really just gun controllers like the Bradys. There is no such thing as compromise. Compromise is where you trade something the other side wants, and that you don't really want to give up, in order to get them to give you something you want, but that they don't really want to give up. Everyone gives a little to get a little. But there's nothing the anti-gunners can give us. We had it all, in the beginning, with "shall not be infringed".

The only thing the anti-gun crowed offered was to take it all or take a little so gun owners thought they were compromising when they replied with, "OK, just take a little." That wasn't compromise, that was surrender.

So, I appreciate the post and I appreciate Schlichter's take, but I've been saying this many times here to self-proclaimed-but-not-really 2nd Amendment supporters here who support gun control they like and then cry about gun control they don't like.

 

[JoeB131]

I've said it many times here, to many so-called, self-proclaimed, gun rights supporters, 2nd Amendment advocates, here on this site who are really just gun controllers like the Bradys. There is no such thing as compromise. Compromise is where you trade something the other side wants, and that you don't really want to give up, in order to get them to give you something you want, but that they don't really want to give up. Everyone gives a little to get a little. But there's nothing the anti-gunners can give us. We had it all, in the beginning, with "shall not be infringed".

The only thing the anti-gun crowed offered was to take it all or take a little so gun owners thought they were compromising when they replied with, "OK, just take a little." That wasn't compromise, that was surrender.

So, I appreciate the post and I appreciate Schlichter's take, but I've been saying this many times here to self-proclaimed-but-not-really 2nd Amendment supporters here who support gun control they like and then cry about gun control they don't like.

Well, this is the problem with Gun Fetishists...

Politics is ALWAYS the art of compromise.

I can't see any sane person who wants Salvador Ramos out there with a couple of AR's walking into their kids' schools, but that is exactly what the Ammosexuals are arguing for.

 

[woodwork201]

Negligence. They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.

I'd call that just plain stupid but it's not out of stupidity that you say it. You know it's not true but your goal isn't stopping crime or gun deaths; it's removal of guns.

Manufacturers didn't sell any guns to an unstable person. And the gun shops called the FBI to see if the person was unstable. If the FBI says the person is not unstable to their knowledge, how would a gun seller, and especially the gun manufacturer, be able to determine otherwise.

No, it's not stupidity that makes you give a stupid answer, it's plain dishonesty and moral bankruptcy that drives you.

 

[woodwork201]

Well, this is the problem with Gun Fetishists...

Politics is ALWAYS the art of compromise.

I can't see any sane person who wants Salvador Ramos out there with a couple of AR's walking into their kids' schools, but that is exactly what the Ammosexuals are arguing for.

Another lie. We don't want Salvador Ramos, or you, or me, walking into the schools at all, with or without an AR. But you don't really want to protect the schools and, should the AR be banned and confiscated, the next Ramos will go into the schools with a Glock 9mm and you'll be clamoring for those to be banned, too.

Eventually, you'll be crying for all pointy objects to be banned, like in the UK.