A “compromise” has to be constitutional. And your’s isn’t.
Last time, I don’t care. I was asked for compromise, I threw out an idea. The fact that it doesn’t pass constitutional muster couldn’t concern me any less. Thank you SO much for bringing it to my attention repeatedly however.
Would it be easier for you if he asked for a compromise that wasn’t unconstitutional?
Not very familiar with medical science, I see.
Certainly not. When the opposition is going down in flames, a bit more gasoline just to make sure might be prudent.
Which is why I have long since concluded that the point of the idea is to suppress gun ownership rather than to address legitimate public safety concerns.
Yeah, I saw that, and was wondering if suddenly HIV had been cured by simple penicillin and somehow AIDS researchers over the last 4 decades had just overlooked it…
Death by a thousand papercuts in the name of compromise was the way things had been going until 1996. I just don’t know what is left to comprise with to get anything back that has been lost.
The irony is, I am not anti gun. I support the right to bear arms. But I also support a definition of “responsible gun ownership” that actually requires accountability, and is not just a toothless platitude that is trotted out to deflect debate about gun violence and how to reduce it.
And if an opponent of gun rights said the compromise was that individuals shouldn’t be allowed to own guns in their own homes, I would sure you wouldn’t mention the Second Amendment as making that impossible.
Bollocks.
You did notice that I never argued the constitutionality of my compromise, right? Go get a hard-on for someone else. I don’t want to argue. My idea doesn’t pass constitutional muster, I get it. It was the only thing that I could come up with at the time that someone else, not you, asked.
You’re right, I’m wrong. Is that good enough? For fuck’s sake, just drop it. There is another thread going about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Go argue over there.
Why would anybody go for your compromise, OP, least of all gun owners? Gun-rights advocates, and by extension gun owners, are winning without compromising. There’s nothing you’re demanding in trade that won’t already happen in the next 10-20 years.
Yes, really. It comes up time and time again when this discussion comes up on the boards and someone like Sisu or myself or one of the other knowledgeable Australians offers a point of view, observation, or fact based on the experiences here. And the response is almost universally “Fuck off, Johnny Foreigner, We Don’t Care”; as evidenced by this post from godix:
Remember, this is a discussion on a discussion board, not a UN Security Council meeting- yet we’re being told in no uncertain terms that these discussions are apparently For Americans Only. Frankly I thought the boards were better than that, but I’m not surprised.
A while back I did a post outlining the background and situation surrounding the Australian gun laws; the very edited highlights are that shooters are a minority of a minority in this country (something like 5% of the population are licensed firearms owners) and are politically insignificant; the Government can and does more or less ignore what responsible and law-abiding firearms owners think or want.
I wouldn’t say shooters in Australia are “Happy”- just realistic. But, as I noted before, the cultural and social situations in our two countries are very different.
Wow - this is what it takes for someone to have a hard on for you?
OP: What compromise would you accept as a defender of gun rights?
You: This is the compromise I would accept
Me: Um, such a compromise would violate the law of the United States and is therefore kind of moot.
You: I don’t care. It doesn’t matter that it’s in violation of the United States constitution.
Me: Kind of a pointless compromise to come up with, seeing as it’s impossible.
You: You hate me! Stop persecuting me! Go to another thread!
I’m not sure why “unconstitutional” is such a deal breaker. Isn’t it well-enough established that something is constitutional if five out of nine SCOTUS justices say it is?
I’m not sure there is a single time in US history you would have had one justice, let alone 5, willing to rule that the federal government had the right to insist that every state permit concealed carry, on conditions determined by the federal government. Maybe the other way round, but there are some things so far beyond the bounds of even conceivable Court decisions that they become, in effect, legal impossibilities.
I’d assume having a chance of being held to be, you know, actually legal would be a selling point for an alleged compromise.
Dang liberals are never happy. You’ve pretty much won on:
Gays in the military.
Gay marriage or civil unions
Abortion
Us conservatives have won on gun rights. Looks like you guys are winning.
Obama was right, you guys on the left live to complain. 
It’s quite clear that even if a gun is stolen from a safe, you would blame the gun owner and call him irresponsible.
Locked in a house and hidden. Blame the gun owner.
Like I said, nothing will satisfy the anti-gun folks.
I was never ‘pro-gun’. I would have never considered myself that until the ‘Brady Bunch’ and others came along. And posts like yours. There’s my irony back to you.
I was just a gun owner. Now that I see how completely illogical and dishonest the anti gun folks are, I have to consider myself ‘pro’ gun. The anti-gun folks are their own worst enemy.
When you figure out how that means I am anti-gun, you get back to us.
You’re way more interested in doing anything to punish gun owners rather than any consideration of reason, or fairness?
The most vociferous gun owners consider anything that imposes accountability to be unfair or unreasonable.