Guns In America

My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

What about semiautomatic handguns? Some modern semi-auto handguns can have capacities north of 18 rounds. They kill far more than the "dreaded" AR-15.

You do realize that it really doesn't take much time to do a mag swap on rifles or handguns, so what is the point of limiting mag capacities?

Do you really think this is a "gun" problem or a society and criminal problem? Sane law abiding people with morality don't go on shooting sprees.

Driving cars into crowds is more of a threat than an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

a reply to: AntiTrump

Even if we could all come together on a "compromise", the libs will not stop there. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Today it is "high capacity magazines", the next it's taking away anything that isn't a bolt action rifle or revolver, then after that it's everything. There will be no pleasing the government until we are all helpless little sheep, ripe for the slaughter.

No compromise needed, shall not be infringed is pretty cut and dry.

Liberals are trying to dress up a mental health issue as a gun problem. Guns have never been, and will never be, the problem.

a reply to: panoz2177

You can't use reasoning and logic, nobody understands it.

There has been more than enough compromise as they put it. The real issue we have is a problem with violent criminals that isn't being adressed.

a reply to: AntiTrump

No
More
Compromise

Period

a reply to: DBCowboy

Now I want some cake.....

a reply to: AntiTrump

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

None.

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

Every damn time I hear about "sensible" gun reform, it involves me losing part of my Right To Bear Arms.
I've "compromised" all I'm going to.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

I'm sorry ,but there is zero room for compromise if you understand just one thing.....shall not be infringed.....with some 20,000 gun laws on the books (according to NRA) ....how many more would you suggest ?? Also , considering the frazzled political climate and the widening divide between left and right there won't be anything non-violent coming from pushing anti-semiauto gun laws.

a reply to: AntiTrump

shal not be infringed.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

Your questions are valid.
Compromise is important.
That said the issue isn’t about an inanimate object.
It’s about government control.

a reply to: AntiTrump

Compromise hahahahaha!
Hey, 1A people: The FEMA coffin will accommodate you and your poster board.

Hey, 2A people: The high tech weaponry from Afghanistan has been shipped back Stateside along with the men, and will deploy from your local U.N. military installation. Also, Space Farce has TR3B's with beam weapons to clean up whatever the Tesla death ray cellphone towers pump into oblivion. Saw this data on YouTube so it must be true.

Hey, Faith people, God bless your slingshot.

a reply to: AntiTrump

My rights don't end where theirs begin. We have a right to bear arms. If they're offended and scared then find another country or learn how to use a firearm so they're not afraid of them.

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

Illegally procured guns should be banned. 99.9% of the problem solved.

I refuse to give up anything to these tyrannical leftest a-holes period, they can go pound sand and F off. All the people pushing to take your guns are the same ones with armed guards with scary looking guns and high cap mags, the same people releasing criminals back into society that repeatedly do harm to citizens. No, I’m not conceding or compromising one single inch to these hypocrites.

Like others have already mentioned, it will never be enough. You give a little, you’ll eventually have nothing.

I think we all know there’s too many guns in this country in the wrong hands. So, who in their right mind would give up their ability to defend themselves, family and others that may be in harms way. Most of America is clueless to how well armed the gangs are in this country. Do they seriously think gangbangers and other assorted losers are going to show up at the police station to turn in their scary guns and high cap mags?



Not giving up my fishing poles either. 😁

a reply to: AntiTrump

Liberals only accept NO guns, not even BB guns, as a final result. Then, the government can put you in any camp they want to, even lining you up in front of a deep ditch and shooting you in the back of the head. Can't happen? It already has in the Soviet Union, China and Germany. No thank you.

As a side note, someone is passing out Glock "switches" for pistols in the large cities. Might be the same ones who put drugs on the street in the '60s...

a reply to: AntiTrump

While not truly an anti-gun liberal, I will share that I think the statistics over the past 4 decades supports getting firearms out of the hands of most americans. I grew up on US Army bases around the world. Most, not all and I'll get to that, were kept in armories. My father, an officer, kept his sidearm at home, in a gun safe that I never even knew where it was and it was only taken out when he was officer of the day and required to wear one. That's two points 1) verifiable statistics and 2) how the military handles firearms under their purview.

Now to the Responsible Gun Owner trope. I know several gun owners that are very responsible in storing and maintaining their 'arsenal' however few of those practice their 'skill' regularly on a range (and I mean weekly). This ain't the movies folks - if you don't practice you don't hit what you are aiming at which isn't so good for 'sefl-protection' (maybe that's why gun enthusiasts prefer semi or full auto weapons, a simple lack of skill).

Now to a point that includes hunters in it. I have no trouble with hunting per se (see the semi/full auto remark above) so let's get to the 'responsibility' issue once again. Why is no liability insurance required on all weapons for damage to life and property like is required for our home, our vehicles and our professions?

A nationwide insurance mandate (nasty word that - I'll say again mandate) would begin to draw down the sheer number of firearms in the hands of 'responsible' people. Yes, I know you will say that criminals and other less than responsible citizens, will not comply which further argues against the "responsible gun owner' trope. Prove that you are responsible and have thought through your ownership.

It is a shame that there are more weapons designed to kill people in the hands of americans then there are citizens. And those weapons are in only 40% of households.

Think on this.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

No. The serialized portion of a firearm is a requirement from the ATF to sell it, regardless of whether it holds 5 or 50 rounds, is a bolt action, muzzleloader, or semi-auto or anything in between.

the 2nd doesn't specify " firearms/muskets/etc.", it's about the tools of self-defense SHALL be available to the people. I'm of the opinion that if it is available to the standing armed forces, it should be available to the average person, yes...even tanks/flamethrowers/RPGs/etc.

The compromise has already been made, and agreed to by limiting short barrel shotguns, small concealable pistols, and fully automatic rifles. Anything more is just an attempt to suppress the populace.

If you truly want to see a decrease in firearms deaths, return hunter safety courses at a high school level to teach a healthy respect to what a firearm can do to a person.

What is the left "compromising" on, exactly?

What are they giving up?

a reply to: DBCowboy
None of them will answer.
It’s a drive by thread.

Honest discussion of this subject is not possible by those seeking “compromise”.


Hard 25 for any crime with a weapon would stop this crime tomorrow.