Oh, that’s right, you wanted to know about compromise. Well how about assault weapons bans? How about universal background checks? How about gun show loopholes? These aren’t outright bans - far from it. Yet all struck down by senate republicans. That’s for starters. That may not meet your definition of compromise, but then again, any law that may possible affect gun owners in any way is considered an affront to civil liberties.
Republicans don’t want ANY gun control. So why are you pushing the most retarded form of gun control on the menu? I have supported licensing and registration for years on this board in exchange for federal preemption of all state and local gun laws, a federal carry permit, and repeal of all other federal laws pertaining to firearms. But the gun rights side won’t have it because they don’t trust the gun control side and the gun control side won’t have it because they don’t want to compromise.
Just FYI but there are plenty of pro-gun Democrats.
You still have guns, concealed carry permits, stand your ground, and your AR-15s…so I’d say that you’re not in a position to make a slippery slope argument.
Well, I wasn’t responding to you, so I don’t know what you are on about.
Really? So please provide a cite to support this statement: “He and gun rights cultists argue that there should be no compromise because the loss of an AR-15 is the end of gun rights in America, which is an absurd proposition.”
When you fail to do so, please retract your statement, then retract the statement that you were not making a straw man argument. Blame it on your drinking problem if you need to save face.
The NRA wants to repeal virtually all firearms laws in the country. How about we only repeal half of them as a compromise?:rolleyes:
You’ve supported licensing and registration, which is fine, but that’s not a reality. You’re in the minority. What conservatives seem to want is an unfettered right to own whatever weaponry that desire. There are probably hundreds of people out there - the mentally inform, the disillusioned, the radicalized - waiting to exploit that right. Over time, I predict that gun control will go mainstream. NRA and gun rights activists are going to be confronted with such raw emotion one day that they won’t be able to stop the tsunami of change.
Nope, there’s no straw man argument there. No sirreeee. Not when I’m arguing against slippery slope arguments that are cooked up by the modern day equivalent of Orson Wells.
And your side wants to get rid of all of that.
I’m not making a slippery slope argument. You were accusing me of making one but I wasn’t. I was saying that our side doesn’t trust your side because your side wants to get rid of all those things so why would we ever give you half the cake in the hopes that half the cake would satisfy you?
God, we’re going in circles, which I suspect is a page straight from the NRA playbook. You can pat yourself on the back if you wish, but I’m done having sophomoric arguments with the likes of people who just believe they have the divine right to own an AR-15.
One day…the people who kinda, sorta support gun rights now are gonna change. When gun control goes mainstream, you’re just gonna have to deal.
And what is the purpose of trying to pass ineffective meaningless bans on weapons that account for a teeny tiny fraction of gun murders and a minority of mass shooting deaths? It seems like you feel, you feel like we have to do something, ANYTHING. No matter how futile ineffective and retarded it might be.
Perhaps so but your side only needs a minority of us to swing over to get the votes you need to licensing and registration.
If 26 dead elementary school kids couldn’t do it, I don’t know what can. The fact that you are filled with irrational impotent rage does not mean that the rest of the nation is filled with that same rage.
The fact of the matter is that we are seeing lower homicide rates than we did a generation ago, much of your angst is the result of the media sensationalizing these murders. Many mass murderers are inspired by this media sensationalism to commit mass murder. Perhaps we should censor the media or is the second amendment the only one that can be curtailed in the quest to reduce these horrible but very rare events
You have lost all credibility. I don’t know if you had any to begin with.
NRA??? Pffft. Don’t blame them for being bad at debating topics you know nothing about.
But don’t let me hold you up.
buh bye.
OK, seeya later. buh-bye.
I’m one of those people who kinda sorta support gun rights. In NYC I am a gun nut and in Virginia I am loosey goosey on guns. I suspect that you think that a revolution is coming in national sentiment on guns because you live someplace where everyone is already pretty much in favor of gun control.
That’s patently untrue. Only a very, very few extremists want to take away all guns, just as only a very few extremists argue for the legalization of fully-automatic weapons.
You’ve got your extremists, we’ve got ours. It isn’t valid to say that “our side” is represented by our extremists, any more than yours is by yours.
Compromise entails rejecting extremism, almost by definition.
I’ve swatted down false fact after false fact and fallacy after fallacy in this thread. Everything from hand grenades being legal to slippery slope arguments that are paranoid delusions of the schizophrenic right. I actually don’t want a ban on guns. Just saying that if you create an environment in which compromise isn’t possible when you guys have the power, then don’t expect compromise when gun control advocates seize that control. Pretty logical.
Divine right? It’s identified as an “unalienable right” in the U.S. Bill of (INDIVIDUAL) Rights.
I’m glad that you understand that gun control is not mainstream. You do not have the votes to force your versions of gun control on the voting public. You claim that people who kinda, sorta support gun rights are gonna change. I haven’t seen any reason for them to change. I believe We The People will always be in favor of being able to defend ourselves, even with firearms, if we so desire.
(post shortened)
How does anyone ever reach a compromise with gun banners?
Elected Democrats, and the Democrat Party candidate for POTUS, “Executive Privilege Hillary” want to ban firearms. One at a time, two at a time, one type of action, one type of bullet, one type of accessory, etc. until all firearms have been effectively banned.
The logical choice is not to let Hillary return to the Whitehouse.
Oh great, I was beginning to think you couldn’t read posts that asked you to support your statements. I’m glad that’s not the case, though I do think this exemplifies another significant problem. This board converses in English primarily. What you’ve written above appears to be English, but makes no sense. You seem to be saying that an AWB, or UBC represent compromises. Of course, that’s not what a compromise is as most elementary school kids could tell you. A compromise is when an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. What you are asking for with an AWB or UBC are concessions, yet no concessions are forthcoming on the gun control side. Ergo no compromise.
And btw, your ignorance is showing when you list out universal background checks and gun show loopholes separately - those are the same thing.
It not only doesn’t meet my definition, it doesn’t meet anyone’s definition. You say you understand what a strawman is, yet here you construct one quite poorly. Perhaps you make this statement as hyperbole - then this statement wouldn’t necessarily be a strawman, it would simply be asinine.
Care to take a swing at this one:
I know the gun rights cultists enjoy shredding straw men to pieces, but I’ve never suggested that people don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. That’s made clear in the 2nd Amendment, made clear passages of the Federalist papers, and supported by Court doctrine. What’s equally clear is that the “right” is framed against the backdrop of other powers and legitimate interests of the federal and state governments. Yes, people have the right to keep guns to protect themselves against the unlikely event of tyranny, or for more mundane purposes like hunting or target shooting. But the federal government has the explicit power to regulate articles of commerce, which guns are, and implied powers to preserve national security. States also have powers to police and protect their individual states, which is why the Supreme Court has supported numerous restrictions on firearms. Your absolutist view is not correct.
Did tracking ammonium nitrate outlaw farming or fertilizer production? Have regulations on knives outlawed knives? Have hunting regulations outlawed hunting? Has disallowing tanks on public streets outlawed driving? Have FDA regulations outlawed food?
Like I said, slippery slope arguments probably seem pretty strong – to a fifth grader. But in reality the reflect a decline in American critical thinking and education. It’s actually pretty easy to see why Republicans are stuck with Donald Trump as their nominee, and why Americans are increasingly at risk of having someone equally incompetent as their president in the future.