Well then this board is well seasoned with extremists that want to get rid of all guns.
I notice that you don’t reject the notion that the gun control side wants to get rid of: “concealed carry permits, stand your ground, and your AR-15s”
MANY on the gun control side WANTS to get rid of guns but they are also realists and are setting their sights on more achievable if entirely ineffective and retarded bans on bayonet lugs and pistol grips. If the gun control side of the debate had the votes and no second amendment to contend with, do you think that an Australia style gun ban would be out of the question? Or even WITH the second amendment but enough votes, that a Mexican style interpretation of the second amendment would be out of the question?
Your side is only reasonable because you don’t have the votes. So when the pro-gun side says “we don’t trust you and that is why we won’t agree to any concession” their mistrust is entirely reasonable. So either you build up your credibility and get us to trust you or you try to turn 20 senate seats from pro-gun to anti-gun. Good luck with that.
Compromise also entails some give and take. What your side is asking for is concessions. If we accept YOUR good ideas, then you accept OUR good ideas but the gun control side seems to think that they have a monopoly on good ideas.
So when I propose trading licensing and registration (and perhaps a few extra laws here and there) in exchange for federal pre-emption, repeal of all other federal gun laws, federal carry permits and HIPAA style protection of information from being misused ( and perhaps a few extra laws here and there), your side ignores it because it is in fact a compromise. Is it any wonder that we think that once we give you half the cake, you will come back for the rest when you are strong enough to take it?
You must be a hero in your own mind. I don’t even think the people on your side of the debate think you have done half of what you have achieved in your own mind.
Your definition of compromise seems to be: “Hey if you don’t give us half your shit now when you guys are in power, we are going to take ALL your shit when we are in power” The problem with that threat is that it is clear to the pro-gun side that you are going to take all our shit if you ever take power regardless of whether we give you half our shit now or not. There is no good faith or spirit of compromise from your side. If there were, your side would have supported the Coburn bill that would have given law abiding citizens the ability to run NICS checks on private sales on a voluntary basis. If your side was really interested in compromise, you would have at least considered Cornyn’s amendment on the no-fly list. But that’s not what happened.
If the Republican party hadn’t shat its pants and nominated Trump, I could see your point but Trump is a hard pill to swallow in the name of the second amendment.
I suspect we will see a picture of Hillary duck hunting in Pennsylvania (if she can keep Pennsylvania, she will almost certainly win even if she loses Florida, Virginia and Ohio). No one knows the contours of gun politics that her husband Bill http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-086443 At this point only Nixon can go to that particular China. I don’t know who the Nixon of gun control is but its not Hillary. There is not a goddam thing Hillary could do to push gun control that would backfire and she knows it.
The more conservative parts of the country might hold its collective nose and pull the lever for Hillary and they might even give her a chance to do some good things but if she starts attacking guns or religion her administration will never have a majority in congress. Hillary is much less of a threat to gun rights than Trump is to life as we know it.
You seem to think we are arguing about what is constitutionally permissible. We are talking about what is politically possible. We are arguing the merits of gun control measures and why the gun rights side of the debate should accept these restrictions.
Almost everyone agrees that licensing and registration is constitutionally permissible. Not everyone thinks it would be a good idea. A lot of the people who don’t think it would be a good idea aren’t actually that opposed to licensing and registration, they just don’t trust your side.
Is there a lobby out there that WANTS to outlaw farms, knives and driving? Because there are people out there that want to outlaw guns.
This isn’t a slippery slope argument. Its a “why should we fucking give you ANYTHING if you are just going to come back and take the rest as soon as you are strong enough?” argument.
Your choice. Do you want gun-banning Hillary to pick the next two Supremes? If 2nd Amendment supporters, those people who believe they have an unalienable right to possess arms for self-defense, hunters, target-shooters, collectors, as well as the non-firearm owners who support the rights of others to own firearms wish to see private firearm ownership banned, then they only have to vote for Hillary and give her the chance to select the next two Supremes.
If 2nd Amendment supporters prefer that the U.S. Congress ban firearms, then they only have to give control of both Congressional houses to the Democrat Party.
Hahahaha. The Democrat Party isn’t trying to ban ammonium nitrate, farming, knives. The Democrat Party is trying to ban firearms, ammunition, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, etc. It’s not the fault of the monster who chose to commit mass-murder. It’s not the fault of the gang-banger who chose to murder other gang-bangers in order to control illegal drug sales in their neighborhoods. It’s the law-abiding citizen that they want disarmed. Mass murdering monsters will find another way to commit mass murder but the law-abiding person won’t be able to defend themselves.
Banning semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines- that’s the firearms equivalent of mandating crippleware.
De-facto universal registration. "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it. " -Diane Feinstein
See above
It’s certainly an outright ban on semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines.
I don’t think that’s true at all. 27% of poll respondents said they thought there should “be a law that would ban the possession of handguns except by the police and other authorized persons”. Cite.
I am wiling to risk some degradation of the second amendment right to preserve the republic. When you have the most proxiest proxy of the Hillary campaign (if Bill Clinton isn’t a proxy for Hillary, I don’t know who is) telling everyone to back off on guns, its a good sign that they aren’t going to be focusing on it. She focused on it during the primary because it was one of the ONLY issues where she was to the left of Bernie Sanders. But the she seems to be signaling that she isn’t going to be pushing gun control very much.
As for supreme court nominees, she is not likely to nominate anyone that any other Democratic nominee would nominate and ABORTION will still be the most important litmus test of a nominee. If guns are the ONLY thing that you care about then frankly you’re not getting a much better deal with Trump than with Hillary.
Is that what happened when that gun grabbing Obama had control of both houses? Of course not. Short of a constitutional amendment, you don’t really bother passing things that will get repealed after the next election.
Banning semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines- that’s the firearms equivalent of mandating crippleware.
De-facto universal registration. "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it. " -Diane Feinstein[?quote]
To be fair, that quote is often taken out of context. She was talking about assault weapons. She would have confiscated assault weapons not all guns.
Well as long as you are allowed to own break action .22 lr rifles, they haven’t banned ALL guns. Amirite?
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I heard you the first time. You can’t produce credible evidence that there’s a movement to suspend the Second Amendment completely – nobody’s arguing for that. You’re just imagining fascism and suggesting that because we can imagine fascism that we should allow people to have a weapons cache to prepare for it. That’s not a very mature way to engage in a debate.
There are only the statements by Pelosi (D), Boxer (D), Clinton (D), etc. as well as the arbitrary gun banning bills introduced by elected members of the Democrat Party. You can chose to deny their repeated attempts to ban firearms one type, or style, or magazine at a time but you haven’t provided anything that would convince 2nd Amendment supporters that the Democrat Party isn’t willing to ban what they can now and come back for the rest later.
Wasn’t that during the timeframe when the gun-grabbing Obama was busy trying to cover up his involvement in the illegal gun trafficking of Fast and Furious? Could the Democrat controlled Congress afford to introduce more gun-banning bills while Obama was trying not to be impeached for supplying firearms to drug cartels?
No. The F&F started under Obama/Holder. The one where gun stores were ordered by BATFE and FBI agents to illegally sell guns to gun traffickers. The illegally obtained firearms were then sold to Mexican drug cartels. The Obama/Holder operation did not chose to notify the Mexican government that these firearms were coming but they did expect the Mexican government to keep track of them. Obama did remember to claim Executive Privilege in order to stop any investigation into the WH’s involvement in F&F.
The suspicious sale of AR-15s led to Operation Wide Receiver.[31]
The first known ATF “gunwalking” operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007. Licensed dealer Mike Detty of Mad Dawg Global informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February 2006 in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF’s Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.[31]
With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF “that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border”,[12] Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation.[30] These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.[6][31][32][33]
