# Price for gun rights is paid in PA. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 4, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005 "2009-04-04T22:55:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/501 "2009-04-09T07:24:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And I’d wonder whether or not you’d say that about someone who felt that infringing on the 1st was a violation of fundamental freedoms. Or is it only the 2nd? I guess it would depend on context. Thinking in absolutes is something I try to stay away from. So does your Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/502 "2009-04-09T07:31:18Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > If that dog is an adult human being who has offered informed consent and he/se enjoys S&M, then sure. > Of course, then that wouldn’t be a dog and your gotcha hypothetical would be rather pointless. > But you already knew that. I have a thousand more “gotcha hypotheticals”, any of which would have shown the lie in your claim that the government doesn’t (“or shouldn’t” as you misinterpreted) regulate bedroom activity. > [@](#): > > When someone says that the government has no business in people’s bedrooms they’re not talking about animal cruelty. Or child abuse. Or white slavery. Or murder. Or what-the-fuck-ever. When people talk about what they do in the bedroom, it’s a euphemism for whatever acts of freakery consenting adults engage in, not criminal violations of non-consenting individuals or non-humans. > Are you really confused on that, or just trying to score rhetorical points? No, I have a very clear point. Bedroom activity was brought up as an example where the govenment has no right to interfere with you. But that’s wrong, and leads to sloppy thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/503 "2009-04-09T07:53:22Z")
Now that that’s out of the way with, I’d like to say that I’m actually coming more and more around to a pro gun ownership stance (well, more towards it than I was before). One reason was that I guess I never really believed they were ever effective in preventing crime. Someone showed a few documented cases were it was - a very effective demonstration. Still, I’m not all the way there by any means. Think of it like I’m helping you to weed out the absolutely untenable arguments. Ones that won’t score you any points with anyone but those who are already on your side. 1. Comparing it to banning cars because cars kill more/as many people. This is a non-starter of an argument for most thinking people. The comparison is bad because no one wants to ban cars. We are all pro-car (yeah, I know there are some but they are really on the fringe). The comparison is also bad because of the utility argument - cars only kill people as a side consequence of their main purpose which is to provide us with everything we need to live life they way we like it. That’s pretty compelling. Gotta take a phone call. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/504 "2009-04-09T08:01:00Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > I guess it would depend on context. Thinking in absolutes is something I try to stay away from. So does your Supreme Court. So you’ve decided to go with weaseling? The SCOTUS has never found that a violation of any Amendment was a ‘sorta violation’. It does indeed deal with absolutes, and laws are struck down all the time as being unconstitutional, not “kinda not very constitutional maybe.” Now, would you or would you not say that not those support the 1st are wacko survivalists? Or is it only those who support the 2nd? Or will you only weasel? > [@Isamu](#): > > I have a thousand more “gotcha hypotheticals”, any of which would have shown the lie in your claim that the government doesn’t (“or shouldn’t” as you misinterpreted) regulate bedroom activity. Do you not even know what the word “lie” means? And while you’re bullshitting in order to fabricate claims of lying, please don’t also bullshit to fabricate claims of “misinterpretation”. One bit of prevarication per paragraph, if you please. Saying that the US government does not have the right to regulate private behavior among consenting adults is, indeed, saying that it should not. The US government can, and has, done all sorta of things it didn’t have the right to do. That doesn’t mean it should have done them. It’s also correct that, legally, the US government does not have that right. And on a purely factual point, you’re ignorant. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas all struck down your absurd notion that the government has the right to dictate the sexual behavior of consenting adults. You might want to learn something about American jurisprudence before you hold forth on it, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/505 "2009-04-09T08:30:34Z")
[quote=“FinnAgain, post:504, topic:492005”] And on a purely factual point, you’re ignorant. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas all struck down your absurd notion that the government has the right to dictate the sexual behavior of consenting adults. QUOTE] Prostitution is OK then? Consenting adults, no “gotcha” animals involved. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/506 "2009-04-09T10:28:32Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Is there any actual case law about banning “classes” of weapons? Machine guns are not available except to collectors – unless I am mistaken. > > There are many bolt-action rifles. There are many pump shotguns. I don’t know the right terminology to apply to what would be popularly called “Winchester” style rifles that have that have that particular form of loading/cocking action. I was quoting from Heller, so, yes. Yes, there is. And that would be ‘lever’ action. By number, the three types are relatively miniscule compared to the number of semiautomatic weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/507 "2009-04-09T11:20:47Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I’m **for** gun restrictions. Just not any more than we have now, in fact, less. > > I think we should have NCIS background checks, and the system should be open to the public. > > Excuse me? Where did I say 5 year old should be able to shoot guns? I asked: Is there anything at all beyond current law that you would find acceptable as a restriction on either gun posession or manufacture? Anything at all? You repled: > [@](#): > > No, because this presupposed that gun control is a good thing. When I asked if that even extends to 5 year olds having guns, you related a story of how you were shotting responsibly at that age. You could have said no, that’s not ok, but your story suggested you don’t have a problem with that either. > [@](#): > > You implied it would be a good idea to **force** parents out of being allowed to shoot weapons with their children, I simply stated that is a bad idea. BTW, I also misspoke. I said: Even restricting parents from taking steps to prevent children from access to their guns is off the table – no trigger guards, no gun safes, nothing at all like that? What I meant to say was: Even restrictions forcing parents to take steps to prevent children from access to their guns is off the table – no trigger guards, no gun safes, nothing at all like that? Since what I actually said was crazy on it’s face, I apologize for that. > [@](#): > > I think children should no more be allowed to carry firearms (in public) than they should drive vehicles (in public). To extend a metaphor, you should be allowed to drive a vehicle of any nature of private property, and shoot a firearm of any nature on private property. So long as you’re not endangering others in the process. You’re very specific here. Does this mean they can own, posess and carry weapons on their parents’ property? > [@](#): > > In other words, it’s the parents choice as to whether or not they want to allow their child to shoot a gun, not the governments. That said, the government shouldn’t allow children to purchase guns. How did you misinterpret my statements as saying I thought 5 year olds should be able to purchase firearms? Intentionally, no doubt. > > Since when did “Come with” mean “Purchase separately” and “requirement” mean “no law mandating”? You said: > [@](#): > > That said, I think it’s a good idea that all guns come with safety locks (like this or this one), and I believe it should be a requirement. > > However, mandating that people must have them on their firearms, when their in their homes, isn’t on my list of things I think should happen. I interpret this to mean that you are okay with forcing people to purchase gun locks with their guns. Whether it comes in the same box, or you have to buy a second box with a lock in it at the time you buy the gun is just a matter of packaging. I agree that I overstated what you said about actually using the locks. Upon second reading it seems you would agree that there may be some circumstances where using them is required, but not in the home. > [@](#): > > In fact, both of those things mean _ **just the opposite** _ of what you said they mean. I disagree with that. . > [@](#): > > Also, you can’t build these types of locks into firearms, reliably. Nor should they need to be. Kickstart ATV’s and dirtbikes, for instance, don’t need any form of external safety - it’s up to the owner to ensure they’re stored safely. > > Firearms, likewise, the same way. However, because it’s such an easy thing (2-5$) for them to come with locks, I think they should. > > Of course it’s not a compromise, it’s a reality. > > I’m not satisfied with _ **any** _ death rate. But that doesn’t mean I want to ban the object that’s used in the process. > > I want to address the actual causes. For instance, I want to address poverty, lack of social mobility, etc. > > _These_ things will lower crime/death rates. Banning firearms will simply force law abiding citizens to give up firearms, and at _best_ will simply decrease the number of firearm related deaths, while increasing the number of other types of deaths. > > The last gun ban, the Clinton “_Assault Weapon_” Ban, had no effect, in over 10 years. > > I am okay with, and fully support, Shall Issue licensing. > > You can **only** be denied licensing for violent/criminal behavior, or as determined by a judge. > > I think that Conceal Carry Permits should be all encompassing (except places with specific types of signs posted at all Entrances). > > These permits would allow you to, permanently, skip any waiting periods or Background Checks for purchasing firearms. They would require annual/bi-annual/?? renewal, like drivers licenses. > > They would **only** apply to public areas, and not private property (as in, without one, you could conceal carry on private property where you had permission from the owner), and private property owners would be allowed to bar you the right to carry in their establishment. > > Any misuse of a firearm would immediately have your license permanently revoked, with certain types barring you the ownership of firearms, period. > > Other than that, to purchase and use a firearm on private property (and to _transport, unloaded_) or where you have permission should require no licensing at all. > > I compare a firearm to a vehicle – to use one on private property, no licensing is required. To use one on public roads, it has to pass safety tests, you must be licensed, etc. > The ideas you stated (banning all semiautomatic firearms) is unreasonable and, frankly, idiotic. > > That wasn’t what was said, at all. > > You said; > Which I interpreted to mean the government should/should not be allowed to restrict what a parent does with his or her child. > > I responded the way I thought it was intended. > > Then you should be allowed to post, at the entrances, a notice that says “ **NO FIREARMS ON PREMISES.** ” in contrasting colors, of a certain size, and it should be the rule of law. > > It’s an Opt-Out System, read [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_(USA)#.22Opt-Out.22_statutes_.28.22Gun-Free_Zones.22.29). Basically your sign has to be within certain restrictions, and it would be as if the President/Mayor/Governor himself posted it. > It doesn’t. I do appreciate that you think that at least some restriction on firearms are a good thing. But all these items at the bottom, that you’re okay with, are they all the law of the land now? Wouldn’t implementing them require new laws? If so, how do you reconcile that with your answer to my question where you stated: > [@](#): > > No, because this presupposed that gun control is a good thing. And remember, I asked if there was anything, anything at all, you would find acceptable in the way of gun control laws. Well, now you’ve provided a list, instead of a flat and absolute denial. Thank you. That is progress. You might even call it compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/508 "2009-04-09T13:04:23Z")
Personally, I think there’s a difference between “meaningful regulation of firearms aimed at preventing crime while preserving people’s rights” and “gun control”–the latter seems usually to be applied to mean banning various weaponry, as opposed to licensing it and regulating it but continuing to allow law-abiding citizens to own and operate it. You’ll find, if my experiences are any indication, that as soon as the national gun control lobby starts taking gun-type bans off the table in a meaningful, complete way, the average NRA type will be much more likely to consider regulation as appropriate. The historical context is that many NRA folks believe (I can’t cite what precedent they’re thinking of, maybe someone who knows better can) that registration/licensing and tracking of firearms ownership is a obvious precursor to “knowing where the guns are so the cops can take 'em when they’re completely banned”. Since there are people at least in the local gun-control lobbies who in fact hold this exact strategic viewpoint (this is what I hear when I attend local Democratic party meetings) you’ll find many of us gun owners wary. Basically, neither side trusts the other to negotiate or compromise in good faith. I mean, look at the “assault weapon ban”–even after explanations that the ban only covers cosmetic features of little to no practical criminal use, the gun control folks are largely still in favor of it because (so it seems) they simply do not trust that gun-knowledgeable people are telling the whole truth about it. Or the continued comments that gun ownership is primarily for people who are scared or who need a portable metal penis. Or the reciprocal distrust of any scheme that means the cops know who has what guns, or the comments that people are idiots for not knowing the specifics of what the components mentioned in the AWB do. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/509 "2009-04-09T13:31:29Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > You’re very specific here. Does this mean they can own, posess and carry weapons on their parents’ property? So long as the parent approves. Of course, the parent would be held (more?) liable for anything the child did, than he would for something someone else would do. In fact, I can think of a few scenarios in which it would be a good thing a minor would carry a pistol on private property. 16 year old, out boar hunting, for instance, with a crossbow. He should probably carry a pistol with him, incase he hits it in the rump and piss it off. Those things can do a lot of damage, and move really fast, if they’re pissed off. I’ve never hunted them myself, of course. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I do appreciate that you think that at least some restriction on firearms are a good thing. Actually, in my idea there are **no** restrictions on firearms. There are restrictions on the people carrying the firearms. And that’s not ‘gun control.’ > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > But all these items at the bottom, that you’re okay with, are they all the law of the land now? Wouldn’t implementing them require new laws? No, they’re not. It would require A) all of the states implement the licensing programs independently (some already do), B) a federally mandated/run program. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > If so, how do you reconcile that with your answer to my question where you stated: > > And remember, I asked if there was anything, anything at all, you would find acceptable in the way of gun control laws. > > Well, now you’ve provided a list, instead of a flat and absolute denial. Thank you. That is progress. You might even call it compromise. Because what I’m talking about isn’t ‘gun control,’ in fact, it’s liberalizing the gun laws (liberalizing = making more free) in a few states, and keeping them the same in others. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/510 "2009-04-09T13:56:05Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > Prostitution is OK then? Consenting adults, no “gotcha” animals involved. Nope, yet another stupid gotcha attempt. The sex acts that make up a prostitute’s job, between consenting adults, are not subject to the law. The _commercial transaction_ is. Are you really this dense? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/511 "2009-04-09T14:14:57Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > …Actually, in my idea there are **no** restrictions on firearms. There are restrictions on the people carrying the firearms. And that’s not ‘gun control.’… That’s a distinction I’ve never heard. To my recollection, controlling who may possess guns is called “gun control”. I’ve never heard any other term used. But if you prefer the term “people control” or something else, more power to you. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/512 "2009-04-09T14:25:14Z")
> **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F04%2F08%2Fjiverly-wong-fired-98-sho_n_184950.html)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. Wong shot off almost 100 bullets in a minute and a half. That firepower is needed to protect your home from motorcylcle gangs and zombies. But these guns being available to nuts around the country will result in public massacres. Protecting your home is one thing. Guns that spray bullets are anti personnel weapons on a large scale. They do not fit into a weapon for protection. They are overkill. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/513 "2009-04-09T14:30:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > That firepower is needed to protect your home from motorcylcle gangs and zombies. That’s not the right weapon for zombies. You need a head shot, so you would want something a bit more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/514 "2009-04-09T14:31:23Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > That’s not the right weapon for zombies. You need a head shot, so you would want something a bit more accurate. Depends on what level you’ve reached. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/515 "2009-04-09T14:41:53Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/jiverly-wong-fired-98-sho\_n\_184950.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/jiverly-wong-fired-98-sho_n_184950.html) > Wong shot off almost 100 bullets in a minute and a half. That firepower is needed to protect your home from motorcylcle gangs and zombies. But these guns being available to nuts around the country will result in public massacres. Protecting your home is one thing. Guns that spray bullets are anti personnel weapons on a large scale. They do not fit into a weapon for protection. They are overkill. Hey, look! It’s **gonzomax**! I bet he has his cites all lined up to prove this: > [@Guns are not designed to kill people](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-are-not-designed-to-kill-people/471402/245): > > If your point is ,that there were a lot of hand guns around during the birth of our country, you would be mistaken. Note a 1800 pistol is decades after the 2nd amendment. > Washington was impressed by the citizen who augmented his army. They were helpful and he appreciated them. That is why the militia is referred to in the 2nd. amendment. They were armed with private weapons and shot at the Britts from cover. They did not confront them with dueling pistols. Pistols were not significant weapons in the revolution. The militia reference is clear. The Brits confiscated the muskets of the Americans when they could. The genesis and point of the 2nd is obvious unless you want to twist it into a handgun bill. It is not. and this: > [@Guns are not designed to kill people](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-are-not-designed-to-kill-people/471402/211): > > The constitution was ratified in 1787. Hand guns by Colt came in 1840. So how the hell did the 2nd amendment refer to handguns. That is absolute bull. No, wait…he doesn’t. I guess he’s just a lying sack of shit who has no credibility whatsoever in gun-related threads. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/516 "2009-04-09T14:48:08Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/jiverly-wong-fired-98-sho\_n\_184950.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/jiverly-wong-fired-98-sho_n_184950.html) > Wong shot off almost 100 bullets in a minute and a half […] Guns that spray bullets are anti personnel weapons on a large scale. They do not fit into a weapon for protection. They are overkill. A standard bolt-action rifle can manage about 50 _aimed_ rounds in 90 seconds if you know what you’re doing. I’d estimate you could get it up around 70 if you just kept working the bolt and pulling the trigger and reloading when it went “click”. But- and here’s the thing- 50 rounds of ammunition would, assuming 1 death per shot, result in the biggest “Lone Nut With A Gun” massacre in history- but that same 50 rounds would also only _just_ be enough (and maybe not even then) for pretty much any centrefire (or handgun) target shooting competition, which would involve no deaths per shot. And even a Winchester lever-action rifle will fire 2 shots a second; I’d hardly consider a Winchester Model 1873 a n “anti personnel weapon on a large scale”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/517 "2009-04-09T14:52:23Z")
Handguns existed at least as early as 1715, but they couldn’t save you from the Predators. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/518 "2009-04-09T14:59:03Z")
**Boyo Jim:** We gun owners have been reasonable and have compromised again and again and again and again, and every time some one does something bad with a gun, people like you come back and have the sheer fucking gall to insists that gun owners “be reasonable” and accede to _your_ views of “rational gun control,” and when we disagree, you say things like, “Well, there’s no basis for communications because you’re just not rational/reasonable.” You said very nearly those same words to **Todderbob.** I’ve read those words from others on this board, in the news. Someone upthread made a nice analogy on compromise: if gun owners want 0% gun control and gun banners want 100%, then compromise is 50%. But gun banners come back and want more restrictions, so we again compromise, and the line is now at 75%. Rinse, repeat. I say we’ve compromised enough. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/519 "2009-04-09T14:59:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Handguns existed at least as early as 1715, but they couldn’t save you from the Predators. Do you mean that this hunting of **gonzomax** over pages and pages of different threads is because of fucking blunderbusses? Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/520 "2009-04-09T15:07:24Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Do you mean that this hunting of **gonzomax** over pages and pages of different threads is because of fucking blunderbusses? Jesus. No, it’s because **gonzo** assertted a bald-faced “inaccuracy” in GD, wouldn’t back it up with a cite, ran away from the original thread, and then comes into other similar threads and makes the same blatantly untrue assertion. _Again._ Is that your standard of “debate?” Oh wait, we’re in the Pit aren’t we? And why are we debating in the Pit? Is it because the “Ban Them Now” crowd has resoundingly lost every rational, moderated debate in GD? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005.md?page=27)