Seriously, LOUNE, you sound ilke a ten year old. If you promised everyone who gives up their handguns daily oral sex by a supermodel, you’d probably be surprised by a) how quickly the supermodel business dried up and b) how many people would refuse to take you up on your offer. It’s not a situation that anyone will agree to.
It would be akin to going into a birth control debate and saying “we’ll let you have any kind of birth control you want, except abortion…what does that take?” Since both contraceptives and abortion are pretty readily available in this country, you’re going to get told to go pound sand. And because of the large amount of people who view abortion as a right, they will still never agree to allow you to take one of their rights away.
You’ve asked, what would it take to ban all handguns. I’ll tell you what it would take: a forced lobotomy on just about every member of the NRA, and many other people besides. Good luck getting them to agree with that.
stomping feet
No I don’t sound like a ten year old!
The right to an abortion isn’t necessarily the right that’s being infringed upon; it’s the right to be able to choose to have that abortion.
Let’s see, the NRA’s membership is a sliver of the population…would it be cost effective to…hm…
If you can have any kind of birth control you want (with no barriers towards getting it), which would be birth control of the woman’s choice for every woman, I think you’d see the number of abortions go down overall. That’s fine by me.
I get to carry select-fire long guns free of legal hassles.
You now have something you wanted but didn’t have. I have something I wanted but didn’t have. Win-win.
Or is it that you actually aren’t interested in any true win-win compromises?
Note that I even tabled the idea of hanging anybody who proposes additional restrictions for purposes of this discussion.
Not quite: The AR-15 is a rifle, but the M1-A1 is a tank. Of course, one can make a pretty good case that the Second Amendment ought to apply to tanks already: A militia without tanks wouldn’t stand a chance versus a military with them.
I am 65. So when I was a teen about 50 years ago gun crimes and neighborhood shootings were not common. Whether you like it or not .it was a safer more comfortable time. We have flooded the country with guns. So if you live in a dangerous neighborhood a gun may make you feel safer. But with 2 more guns, the country is a little less safe.
When a person got shot in the 60s it was a story. Now it is so common it is a non story. The local news would not have time to show the weather if they followed every gun incident.
If we could confiscate every damn gun in America, it would be a better ,safer place to live. Just leave hunting rifles for the hunters. Make sure those are locked up,
But the gun nuts won. That bell can not be unrung. We are ass deep in lethal weapons and goof balls will shoot each other and innocent bystanders. Schools will get shot up. Wifes and husbands will shoot each other. Life goes on a little uglier ,a little more dangerously and a bit more crudely.
Seriously? You’d pick owning a handgun over daily oral sex? I think you’re overestimating how many people are with you on that one. I, for one, would go out and buy a handgun just so I could get in on the offer to give it up.
I’m talking about completely unrestricted carry of any kind of shoulder arms. This means no hassle from cops or other LE, no registration, no taxes. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I want to be able to walk into any store that wants to have a gun department and say to the clerk “I’ll take that M-4 carbine, 10 30 round magazines, and 1000 rounds of green-tip ammo, please.” Pay cash. Leave.
Prices set by market forces, not artificial government restraints on supply or by onerous taxes.
After I have my new assault rifle, I can carry it where I want. No permit necessary. No licenses. No federal, state, county, or local restrictions on where I may carry my fully loaded long gun.
No bullshit end-runs like insane taxes or restrictions on ammo, either.
Any rifle, shotgun, carbine, SMG, or PDW of any caliber I wish to carry, I can carry. Select fire if I want it. High capacity magazines, which I can also carry in any number I wish. Whatever type of ammo I wish. Lasers, lights, optical sights, and so on are completely unrestricted; as are folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash hiders. If I want a sound suppressor, I can get that too with no legal or financial hassles.
IOW, in exchange for the handgun ban, I get unrestricted access to and carry of whatever long arms I want, no matter how scary you end up finding them.
I don’t care about scariness, but I see no reason why we can’t register the guns before they’re bought. Licenses are fine as well. I’m all for making licenses and registration accessible and easier if that helps.
Really? One of your sticking points is the ability to have a silencer? Guns are tools for killing, silencers only make it that much more apparent. Laser sights, too? I’m fine with them anyways, but you’re lumping these in there in order to break the compromise. Let’s not go off the deep end here, shall we?
Are you amenable to a 5% or $5 (whichever is cheaper) tax on these weapons? The tax would go to law enforcement and education.
You asked what I would expect. In minimal form, I gave it to you…and you’re chiselling already in what is only a hypothetical discussion. This is exactly why there can be no compromise with anti’s.
Excuse my miss-speak. I meant the M1A. The civilian version of the M14. Not the M1-A1. Though if the anti-gun folks would let me trade a .22 for an M1-A1, I might have to look at that too.
Have you ever fired a gun? …Without hearing protection? They’re fucking loud. Discharging one round from a .45 will leave your ears ringing painfully, and everything else will sound muffled for minutes after. A suppressor is a safety device; it allows you to discharge a firearm without going deaf, and without needing the heavy earmuffs or earplugs that would also drastically reduce your ability to hear anything else. They’re also a courtesy to anyone who happens to be nearby when you’re shooting.
gonzomax, you keep bringing this up. What exactly do you think has changed in the last 50 years, aside from even more gun control? We were ass deep in lethal weapons back then, too; lethal weapons that could be ordered by mail and delivered to your doorstep. Again, why do you think guns suddenly changed everything in the last few decades?
You want me to just give up my two handguns? Where is this compromise you talked about?
Registration? Fine, I spoke to that. You did not respond. Let me re-cap. I’ll register my guns when I can be guaranteed that the registration will not be used to confiscate firearms because of a new ban.
And since you would like to see hand guns banned, I should be able to replace them with something else. Two rifles. If the handguns are banned, I should be compensated for them.
You talked about win-win. I guess you think that rifles are OK since you only want to ban handguns?
Or, are rifles next?
I would rather not lose my pistols, but might consider a trade. (this is all hypothetical)
What type of weapons should I be allowed to own? Hunting rifles?
But what about hunting rifles? They are called sniper rifles in the military. There is no difference. I suspect that the AWB will die like it should. But what will be next? A SWB (sniper weapon ban)?
No, no, no. The abortion rate doesn’t go “down” it ceases to exist. There are now zero allowable abortions. How do you feel about that?
I’ll tell you what, let’s make it even better. You can have the handguns when (you must do all of these):
You put a complete ban on homosexual marriage.
You outlaw all abortions
You remove all pollution controls from all businesses.
You arrange for me to be serviced by supermodels every day.
(for the record, these are not necessarily positions I espouse, I just want to see how many of your liberal ideals you’re willing to compromise for this one step toward what you beleive is a greater good.)
No we were not. Our gun factories have had decades of churning out guns since then. I knew nobody who carried a gun back then. I knew nobody who actually saw or was around a shooting. I knew nobody who was robbed by a gun wielder. I did not grow up in a fancy suburb. There was plenty of trouble. It was not settled by guns.
You weren’t paying attention. There was no national media machine like we have now to rub your nose in crimes that happened thousands of miles away. Your Norman Rockwell memories may be true of the locality where you grew up, but your experience does not speak for the whole nation.
Funny, but I’m the one that’s been actively talking about compromise. You’re saying that we can’t come to a deal because of me because I won’t compromise. I’m relatively fine with the deal we’ve brokered so far. Now I’m asking if the additional concessions are too much to ask. I feel they’re perfectly reasonable. I take it you don’t. That’s certainly not my fault.
Already said I haven’t fired a gun, but I’m definitely willing to go out with someone to try it out. Yes, guns are loud. Why is that my problem? Earmuffs, headpieces, plastic bags, whatever is fine at the range. Silencers weren’t created to be courteous at the range.
Actually, I don’t know that last sentence for sure. Does anyone have the reason for the invention of silencers?
No, the abortion rate does go down. Even if it’s from the percentage it is right now, to 0, that’s “going down”. Now, you’re looking to stamp out abortion. I’m looking to outlaw handguns. If I were looking to outlaw all guns, we’d have an apt comparison, so we don’t (and you don’t).
Now you’re trying to pick a fight. Why can’t gay people get married? Why would you want to pollute more? Why would a supermodel want to lay her hands (or any other part) on you? These are all fodder for another debate. If anything, you and I are working (at least for your 4 examples) from very different definitions of the greater good".
