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

[woodwork201]

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

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia - 1981

Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you do understand that the police won't protect you, as do the parents in Uvalde, but you want to take away our means of protecting ourselves like they do in the UK. You want Americans arrested and imprisoned, as they do in the UK, for defending themselves from violent attack while the attacker goes scott free.

The thing I don't understand is why. Why do you want to make us all victims, unable to defend ourselves from violent attackers?

 

[woodwork201]

Nope, I won't... because it's bullshit.

We lock up too many people, period.

We'd lock up far fewer people if we locked up violent criminals until they were too old or feeble to be violent again. It is a fact that most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. We could reduce crime in half by simply locking up violent offenders on their first offense for a violent crime.

Then, when prisons are a terrible enough place to be, and sentences are long enough to deter, younger people considering their first offense will choose not to commit crimes. When we take away the juvenile protections, sentencing juveniles as adults, as we should, juveniles aren't going to commit as many crimes.

When we quit rewarding child-birth outside of wedlock or stable homes, when homes have two parents, the actual genetic parents of children as often is possible, parents committed to each other and their families, then juvenile violent crime will nearly disappear. And as juvenile crime goes, so goes adult crime since most criminals chose life as a criminal in their youth.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Naw, man, what's stupid is that we let the gun industry make the gun laws, and exempt them from liability.

Let's take Tylenol. In 1982, some twisted fuck poisoned some bottles of Tylenol, and seven people died. As a result, the manufacturers of Tylenol and all other OTC drugs redesigned the bottles to have multiple safety seals, redesigned the pills themselves to you couldn't mix poison in with them, etc. In short, they as a company acted responsibly.

Some nitwit tried to light his shoes on fire to blow up a plane in 2001. As a result, the airlines began screening everyone's shoes to make sure they aren't laced with explosives.

The gun industry has had dozens of incidents of mass murder perpetrated with their products. They resist ANY attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. They've watered down NICS to be completely ineffective. They oppose closing the private sale or gun show loopholes.


You have to ask yourself why? Mostly because the gun industry WANTS criminals to have guns. They could design a far more effective system of background screening than the government ever could, they just don't want to. Crooks with guns means everyone else will want them, too.

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.

Works for me. but again, reasonable compromises. The problem here is that Salvador Ramos starts out with the assumption that he is ENTITLED to an AR-15. Then we have to prove that there's a good reason why he shouldn't have it. Well, that incident where he was thrown out of school for threatening his classmates when he was 14 should have been one, but that was in a sealed juvenile record.

 

[woodwork201]

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...."

Suing the bar for serving a drunk is not in any way similar to suing the gun manufacturer. Suiing the bar would be like suing the gun shop for selling a gun to a guy who walks in and says, "Which gun would be the most effective for shooting up an elementary school?" And, yes, you should sue the bar owner and you should sue that gun shop.

But you are, as usual and as expected, being completely dishonest when you try to liken suing gun manufacturers to suing the bar.

 

[JoeB131]

So you do understand that the police won't protect you, as do the parents in Uvalde, but you want to take away our means of protecting ourselves like they do in the UK. You want Americans arrested and imprisoned, as they do in the UK, for defending themselves from violent attack while the attacker goes scott free.

The thing I don't understand is why. Why do you want to make us all victims, unable to defend ourselves from violent attackers?

Okay, here's the thing. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. (And, no 2AGuy, I don't want to hear your usual "Kellerman was the devil" shit.) Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic violence and accidents. It's another case of the "cure" being worse than the disease.

We'd lock up far fewer people if we locked up violent criminals until they were too old or feeble to be violent again. It is a fact that most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. We could reduce crime in half by simply locking up violent offenders on their first offense for a violent crime.

We lock up 2 million people. If prisons were the answer, we'd have the LOWEST crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest. We can't lock up old violent offenders because we don't have room for the NEW violent offenders.

Then, when prisons are a terrible enough place to be, and sentences are long enough to deter, younger people considering their first offense will choose not to commit crimes. When we take away the juvenile protections, sentencing juveniles as adults, as we should, juveniles aren't going to commit as many crimes.

Yup, we tried all that... it doesn't work. You can't have grinding poverty for one sector of the population and then whine about crime.

When we quit rewarding child-birth outside of wedlock or stable homes, when homes have two parents, the actual genetic parents of children as often is possible, parents committed to each other and their families, then juvenile violent crime will nearly disappear. And as juvenile crime goes, so goes adult crime since most criminals chose life as a criminal in their youth.

You know what, we aren't going backwards... The sexual revolution happened, and women don't have to marry their sperm donors if they don't want to. Sorry, that's just how it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Kurt Schlichter is your typical rightwing liar and demagogue.

No one is ‘anti-gun,’ whatever that’s supposed to be; no one is suggesting anyone ‘give up’ his guns.

There is no effort to ‘ban’ guns, there is no effort to ‘confiscate’ guns.

This is yet another example of the reprehensible right refusing to address the issue of gun crime and violence; another example of the reprehensible right refusing to at least consider solutions that have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And another rightwing liar and demagogue chimes in.

 

[JoeB131]

Suing the bar for serving a drunk is not in any way similar to suing the gun manufacturer. Suiing the bar would be like suing the gun shop for selling a gun to a guy who walks in and says, "Which gun would be the most effective for shooting up an elementary school?" And, yes, you should sue the bar owner and you should sue that gun shop.

But you are, as usual and as expected, being completely dishonest when you try to liken suing gun manufacturers to suing the bar.

Really? So let's look at this...

Someone is in your bar and he's getting shitfaced drunk. That's when you cut him off and maybe drop a line to the cops.

Someone walks into your gun store acting like the Joker and asks for an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine, you assume he's up to no good.

Yeah, he looks normal!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Okay, here's the thing. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

A flat-out lie that has been refuted over and over and over again, and even retracted by the lying piece of shit who first told it.

By now, you have no excuse to not know that this was a lie, yet you keep repeating it.

 

[woodwork201]

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

No one has been locked up for sex crimes for porn on their computer unless that porn is kiddie porn - and you're right; those people should not be locked up, at least not any longer than it takes to get a new rope.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes….you are fascist we get it, you don’t have to keep telling us

 

[woodwork201]

Really? So let's look at this...

Someone is in your bar and he's getting shitfaced drunk. That's when you cut him off and maybe drop a line to the cops.

Someone walks into your gun store acting like the Joker and asks for an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine, you assume he's up to no good.

View attachment 657033
Yeah, he looks normal!

You're changing the argument. We're talking about suing the manufacturer. Did he walk into the manufacturer's factory looking like that? In fact, he didn't walk into the gun store looking like that. And you offer this picture as rebuttal to my statement that the gunshot should be sued when there's evidence they sold a gun to an obviously crazy person.

But, even in spite of the two lies you made above - changing the argument from the gun manufacturer to the gun store, and the lie that we hadn't already said the gun shop should be sued for selling a gun to a known crazy person, there's a third lie. Honestly, I've never seen someone able to lie three times in a single sentence. You are like the most proficient, prolific, liar I have ever known.

The third lie: Here's Holmes' booking photo.

He didn't look like the picture you showed when he bought the gun. The gunshop called the FBI and asked them if the guy is known to be a maniac with mass killings in his future and the FBI told the shop that they had no reason to suspect anything wrong with Holmes and that it was OK to sell him the gun. So, if you're going to sue anyone, sue the FBI, though that would be as wrong as suing anyone else you've proposed suing. Not only are you an idiot, you're a lying idiot.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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

Should the local Chevy dealer be charged with negligence if a customer gets drunk, runs a red light, hits a minivan and kills a young family?

If your answer is "no", then the same logic should be applied to gun dealers and manufacturers. If your answer is yes, then you're stupid...

 

[JoeB131]

A flat-out lie that has been refuted over and over and over again, and even retracted by the lying piece of shit who first told it.

By now, you have no excuse to not know that this was a lie, yet you keep repeating it.

No one has proven that number a lie, and frankly, if anything, I suspect it's understated...

The FBI's own figures only count 200 homicides with guns a year by civilians as "justified" out of 42,000 gun deaths.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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.

What would be the purpose of registering firearms?

If we can come to a compromise on those measures which will cut down on gun violence and make school yards and shopping malls safer, I'm absolutely willing to have that conversation.

How does registering and licensing them make us safer?

I'll wait...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Really? So let's look at this...

Someone is in your bar and he's getting shitfaced drunk. That's when you cut him off and maybe drop a line to the cops.

Someone walks into your gun store acting like the Joker and asks for an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine, you assume he's up to no good.

View attachment 657033
Yeah, he looks normal!

except you can not actually point to any such case of someone going to a firearms shop and acting crazy.

 

[Canon Shooter]

So, if you're going to sue anyone, sue the FBI, though that would be as wrong as suing anyone else you've proposed suing. Not only are you an idiot, you're a lying idiot.

Joe is incapable of reasoned discussion, nor is he willing to compromise an iota on the issue.

Hence, he's easy to ignore...

 

[JoeB131]

You're changing the argument. We're talking about suing the manufacturer. Did he walk into the manufacturer's factory looking like that? In fact, he didn't walk into the gun store looking like that. And you offer this picture as rebuttal to my statement that the gunshot should be sued when there's evidence they sold a gun to an obviously crazy person.

The gun manufacturers work with licensed dealers... they have about as much credibility as the piano player at the whorehouse who claimed he had no idea what was going on upstairs.

But, even in spite of the two lies you made above - changing the argument from the gun manufacturer to the gun store, and the lie that we hadn't already said the gun shop should be sued for selling a gun to a known crazy person, there's a third lie. Honestly, I've never seen someone able to lie three times in a single sentence. You are like the most proficient, prolific, liar I have ever known.

Wahhhhh,.. I don't want that to be true.... Waaaahhhhhhh

He didn't look like the picture you showed when he bought the gun. The gunshop called the FBI and asked them if the guy is known to be a maniac with mass killings in his future and the FBI told the shop that they had no reason to suspect anything wrong with Holmes and that it was OK to sell him the gun. So, if you're going to sue anyone, sue the FBI, though that would be as wrong as suing anyone else you've proposed suing. Not only are you an idiot, you're a lying idiot.

Uh, actually, he did look like that.

And you can't blame the FBI when you don't let the FBI, and more importantly, the ATF do it's job. As stated, NICS is a system that is flawed by DESIGN. We need something a little better than "Well, I typed in his name and nothing came up. I hope I spelled it right!"

When I got my last mortgage, I had to provide a LOT of paperwork to prove I was credit worthy. It didn't matter that I had an 800+ Credit score or that I had previously gotten three mortgages and two home equity loans (all paid off but one) previously, had no credit card debt, and never had a bankruptcy. They checked every last damned financial transaction that had my name on it.


When I was hired for my last job, it didn't matter that a current employee vouched for me, they did a thorough background check that involved checking my credit, criminal record (I don't have one), employment history and residency history.


In short, if you care, you check.


So if the gun industry REALLY WANTED To keep guns out of the hands of the crazies, they could set up a system of checking people. They just refuse to do so. Why not? They've gotten themselves exempted from liability no matter how reckless their business practices are.

 

[JoeB131]

except you can not actually point to any such case of someone going to a firearms shop and acting crazy.

funny thing about crazy people... you can usually tell if they are crazy pretty quickly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

funny thing about crazy people... you can usually tell if they are crazy pretty quickly.

No you cant crazy people that want things are more then capable of acting sane, further if they were so insane why hadnt any action been take against them legally?