Would you give up your guns for...

a reply to: roadgravel

serious punishments are handed out for gun crimes, yet rape gets a couple years in many cases...

a reply to: Tempter

No, there is nothing we give up guns for, without guns any political promises are worth a fart in a thunder storm.

Jaden

Semi-automatic guns are used by half of the deer hunters up here, the vast majority which are not military style guns. Deer hunting in the U.P of Michigan is a big social event. Once in a while someone gets accidentally killed, but that is not linked to automatics, it is usually linked to mistakes and carelessness on the part of a hunter not looking behind the deer he or she is looking at.

No, I am not willing to give up my right to own a semi-automatic rifle. Even though I do not presently have one. I do have a semi-automatic pistol though, that would probably be banned too.

I am not a threat to society and I do want guns to protect myself if I am out in the woods where bears and other wild animals might attack me or my family.

a reply to: Tempter

The problem with the compromises you offer is that both give up something tangible for something ephemeral.

There's no way you can stop illegal immigration entirely. The our current illegal immigrant problem is a direct result of NAFTA. Future trade deals could kick start the problem all over again, and gun rights would still be lost.

You can't really force Latinos to vote Republican. Unless you just automatically count every qualified Latino as a Republican vote, it's just an empty promise, and gun rights would still be lost.

Anti-gun proponents ask for "compromise", but they offer nothing, or just smoke and mirrors.

Here's how you offer a compromise.

In exchange for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, I want:

1. The law to apply equally to everyone. If private citizens can't own it, neither can private security, law enforcement, government agencies, etc. The military can store semi-automatic rifles on base, but they can never be used against any US citizen for any reason. The punishment for any breach of this law will result not only in capital punishment for the offender, but everyone in their chain of command up to and including the President.

2. A complete repeal of the Patriot Act and all legislation associated with it. Furthermore, a formal declaration of peace and an end to all hostilities we are currently engaged in. Any sort of martial law provisions will be officially null and void. The Constitution will be in full effect, there will be no more secret courts, secret prisons, lack of due process, extraordinary rendition, warrant-less searches, etc. If I were drafting an official list, there would be a lot more I'd add to this section, but you get the idea.

3. End the Federal Reserve, end the IRS, end the CIA, end the DHS, end the NSA, and quite a few others. Cease all foreign aid. Close all military bases on foreign soil and restrict the military's role to protecting our borders, coastlines, and airspace. No one else should have to die so corporations can get the resources of another country. No more regime changes, "freedom fighter" support, military advisors, and the like.

There are probably a dozen other things I'd add to this list, but the final would go like this:

XX. If the government should ever break this agreement in any way, shape, or form, every member of Congress, every Supreme Court Justice, and the President would be subject to immediate execution. It would be incumbent on every US citizen to carry out this sentence at any opportunity. Failure to carry out this sentence would be a capital crime.


------------

That's how you start a dialogue about a compromise.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Tempter

The problem with the compromises you offer is that both give up something tangible for something ephemeral.

There's no way you can stop illegal immigration entirely. The our current illegal immigrant problem is a direct result of NAFTA. Future trade deals could kick start the problem all over again, and gun rights would still be lost.

You can't really force Latinos to vote Republican. Unless you just automatically count every qualified Latino as a Republican vote, it's just an empty promise, and gun rights would still be lost.

Anti-gun proponents ask for "compromise", but they offer nothing, or just smoke and mirrors.

Here's how you offer a compromise.

In exchange for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, I want:

1. The law to apply equally to everyone. If private citizens can't own it, neither can private security, law enforcement, government agencies, etc. The military can store semi-automatic rifles on base, but they can never be used against any US citizen for any reason. The punishment for any breach of this law will result not only in capital punishment for the offender, but everyone in their chain of command up to and including the President.

2. A complete repeal of the Patriot Act and all legislation associated with it. Furthermore, a formal declaration of peace and an end to all hostilities we are currently engaged in. Any sort of martial law provisions will be officially null and void. The Constitution will be in full effect, there will be no more secret courts, secret prisons, lack of due process, extraordinary rendition, warrant-less searches, etc. If I were drafting an official list, there would be a lot more I'd add to this section, but you get the idea.

3. End the Federal Reserve, end the IRS, end the CIA, end the DHS, end the NSA, and quite a few others. Cease all foreign aid. Close all military bases on foreign soil and restrict the military's role to protecting our borders, coastlines, and airspace. No one else should have to die so corporations can get the resources of another country. No more regime changes, "freedom fighter" support, military advisors, and the like.

There are probably a dozen other things I'd add to this list, but the final would go like this:

XX. If the government should ever break this agreement in any way, shape, or form, every member of Congress, every Supreme Court Justice, and the President would be subject to immediate execution. It would be incumbent on every US citizen to carry out this sentence at any opportunity. Failure to carry out this sentence would be a capital crime.


------------

That's how you start a dialogue about a compromise.

I like what you propose, but a compromise on guns as stated...we lose the guns BEFORE they breach the deal.

No, compromise is not possible, though I Iike what you said re: the patriot act.

Nope, no compromise is possible.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tempter
Go out and have a ranch or expanse of land with wildlife away from any kind of help, you have to have them.

That's a complete non-issue.

Even in the countries with the most restrictive gun policies, I think you'll find that most law abiding farmers are allowed to own a rifle.

So obviously that''ll never be an issue for the US, where you (apparently) have a constitutional right to own a firearm.

The main issue in the US, which Trump will inevitably address, is the loopholes in universal background checks... So basically, say goodbye to the practice of inheriting a firearm, without it first being approved by the federal government.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Do you own a firearm? I inherited 4 and bought 17. I have been background checked by the FBI on every single purchase.

a reply to: Tempter

If everyone gave up there guns, then only law enforcement, goverment and criminals would be the ones with guns. The problem would get worse not better. I can understand how the people who lost loved ones by gun violence from a few whacked out people see it. But taking the guns from everyone ain't the answer nor is it even possible.

originally posted by: BlueJacket

I like what you propose, but a compromise on guns as stated...we lose the guns BEFORE they breach the deal.

No, compromise is not possible, though I Iike what you said re: the patriot act.

Nope, no compromise is possible.

Compromise is always possible, if both sides are willing to give.

How about if we get what we want first. Our demands must be met for 100 years before the semi-automatic rifle ban goes into effect. We keep our guns for 100 years until demands 1. through XX. have been faithfully followed. Any violation will terminate the compromise.

100 years from now I don't think semi-automatic rifles firing chemically propelled lead projectiles will be a big issue. Can't lose.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Do you own a firearm?

No I don't. I live in Australia and there's a lot of red tape involved.

But if I had any real desire to own one, then there's no reason I couldn't...

a reply to: Tempter

i personally don't own a gun since i can't use one but i do support gun rights, and it's not just conservatives or even just Republicans that support gun rights either, it's most Americans in general that do. so the first mistake in your suggestion is assuming all gun owners are conservative, your second mistake is ignoring the cultural aspect of gun ownership and assuming any ban is considered acceptable, third mistake is ignoring the paranoia and fear any such ban will cause, not only that, but the last ban on such weapons didn't really reduce shootings so clearly that isn't a solution.

most importantly, our rights aren't bargaining tools to be used for negotiating deals and such a suggestion is insulting, banning is crossing the line especially right now with how paranoid the more extreme right wing is right now, that's just asking for an escalation to happen.

a reply to: BlueJacket

would you feel you needed it so much in Walmart, with your 8 year old?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I dont have ire against your position, but dont have it against mine. Given where you live, you can appreciate not being at the top of the food chain.

I refuse to not have a recourse at hand, while hunting with my daughter in the deep woods.

We subsist off nature, why should we not be able to protect ourselves from packs of wolves, or wild boar?

A revolver, or a bolt action gun might provide 2 shots before losing a
loved one...a semi auto 10mm with 16 shots...comes damn close to guarenteeing my family life.

a reply to: BlueJacket

It's actually a fascinating and complicated issue imo.

If you look at it from an overall society stance, then it's just obvious that the rate of gun deaths would be greatly reduced by more restrictive gun laws.

But then again, if you look at it from an individual stance, then it's obvious that your far less likely to become a victim of someone wishing to do you harm, if your in possession of a firearm.

I can especially totally understand the need for a firearm over there well in the wild though. I mean, with all the bears & large cats and whatnot... fortunately, kangaroos and wombats don't generally pose much of a hazard, lol.

a reply to: Tempter

That we have a nation of citizenry who are well armed, well informed, and willing to fight a tyrannical govt for our rights so that they are never lost, that's what's most important.

Jaden

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The main issue in the US, which Trump will inevitably address, is the loopholes in universal background checks... So basically, say goodbye to the practice of inheriting a firearm, without it first being approved by the federal government

I really love the idea of states and localities deciding the own rules. It is more personalized for the populace. The EU is trying to emulate it, and it's tricky.

You wouldn't have to press me hard to admit we have systemic problems. I'll admit that, but stripping rights isn't the solution IMO.

I'd rather have the choice to live the way I please though.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Nope nope nope, compromise is not on the table when it comes to our inalienable rights. I won't call a man she it zee,I won't consent to unreasonable searches or seizures and I won't give up my right to self defense against anyone including a tyrannical govt .


Jaden

i would of killed him if I could.

a reply to: Masterjaden

I understand completely.

Still, it doesn't hurt to hear what they have to offer, does it? Might come in handy for future negotiations. Or, maybe, we might find common ground outside the semi-automatic rifle issue. How many of us would like to see an end to the Patriot Act regardless of any gun issue? If a majority of Americans would like to see an end to the Patriot Act, then why are our lawmakers focusing so much on divisive issues like guns?

We could negotiate, not agree on everything, and still have a positive outcome if we agree on some things.

A simple answer from an old, white, apparently racist, Republican, so listen carefully. Not just no, but hell no!!!! I will never, ever, give up any of my rights just to please some pussy Democrats.

I’m not that crazy about AR’s and Ak’s, I’d much rather shoot a pistol or even a lever action rifle. It’s not about the type of gun, it’s about self preservation, self protection, defending tradition, and being able to protect my wife and family in a time of crisis.

If I was in New Orleans during Katrina, I’d sure as hell be happy to have a AR to protect my family. This kind of thing plays out every few years somewhere. The LA riots in 92 and so forth. I’ll keep my weapons and the Democrats can go to hell.