There are several steps further that I can think of before we get into “complete capitulation” territory
Soooo…can we call your approach a “slippery slope”?
CCW Reciprocity would protect people from New Jersey. Hearing Protection Act would protect peoples’ hearing. SBRs and SBSs are just a stupid and pointless anachronism now that Sig Braces are allowed.
You can call it whatever you like. I was asked what I wanted that I didn’t already have, so I gave some examples. Other gun owners probably have different things on their wishlists.
The right doesn’t see that as government’s purpose. The right thinks the government’s job is to give them their way so they aren’t sad. People who think women should be forced to give birth against their will because abortion makes them sad and people who think Muslims should be barred from entering the US because the thought of seeing one upsets them are but two examples.
Your side was doing better until you showed up and started JAQ-ing off.
Any response concerning my reasons for a proposed addendum to The Hearing Protection Act?
Naw, both sides don’t do it (at the same time). Your side did it when they had the political power and could essentially beat up on the other side especially on the local level. That gave us a bunch of US cities and even some states with outright bans or heavy restrictions/regulations and chipped away at the 2nd…not through the process but through the back door of fiat judicial legislature to change the meaning. for the past decade or so the worm has turned, and now the other side has the power and is using it to roll a lot of that stuff back, to change at the USSC level the interpretation and basically to push forward their agenda…while your side is just getting beat up, forced because of circumstance and shifting politics to ‘live with everything the gun-fetishists can even think of demanding’. I have no doubt that the worm will turn again…we might be seeing that happening in the last few mass shooting events and public opinion.
BTW, the irony of you using ‘anti-murder’ and saying that ‘both-sides-do-it fallacy is no more respectable’ is pretty funny (and you cleverly slipped that insult in without drawing mod ire, so well done sir, well done!). You took a page right from the pro-choice folks playbook. But certainly, both sides don’t do stuff like that. 
Entirely without getting the point. You pretend to be open to something you present as “compromise”, without recognizing that you are only willing to give up *wants *in exchange for the *need *“the other side” has to cut down the murder rate. You offer nothing, but only list further demands that do nothing to address any sort of rationally-identifiable problem. The question was stated as “wants” because you already fucking *have *anything you can plausibly present as a “need”. Meanwhile, the murders continue. *You *decline to give up anything that will help that, claiming you “need” something in return to make it a true compromise. Well, no you don’t - all you have left to get is wants.
If you’re truly not willing to work together to fix a problem, or even recognize that it exists, then the problem is you and those who think like you. Yes, it’s really that simple. So, what are you willing to say is a reasonable and prudent step to take to keep people alive? Is there in fact anything plausible at all?
It seemed like a poison pill to me, but I guess if you’re curious about it: What would the penalty be for violating the “ear muffs required” rule? Would you be OK with red states passing laws prohibiting their law enforcement officers from enforcing this federal rule (along the same lines of what CA has done with ICE)? If the answers to that are “relatively insignificant” and “yes”, I’d probably be ok with it.
Something you said did pique my curiosity. You said:
This is something I’d never heard before. Could you please elaborate?
We did? Then why are the murders continuing? And why aren’t you on the same “side”?
If you have a more accurate term to offer, please do so. If it’s just that it gets under your skin, then it probably should.
*You *would never refer to “gun-grabbers” to disparage people who merely want to stay alive, would you? No, that’s only your compatriots who do that. :rolleyes:
I think you’re categorizing “want” and “need” in an entirely pointless and partisan way.
False. See post #110.
I think New Jersey harassing the hell out of gun owners is a rationally-identifiable problem.
I consider allowing CCW-holding teachers to carry on the job (perhaps with some additional training requirements) to be a “reasonable and prudent step to take to keep people alive”.
Um…because your sides concept of what would and wouldn’t work was flawed? They thought that by banning or heavily restricting guns in large cities or state it would magically solve all the problems with murder without realizing that US non-gun murder rates are ALSO higher than those in many western nations.
Why am I not on your side? Because I found your side’s tactics to be distasteful and disingenuous in the past and I have a long memory. I’m not really on the pro-gun side either, as to me compromise is the heart of our system and because they have enjoyed the political power for the last decade or so they have pushed things too far IMHO…and consequently I fully expect your side to have it’s day in the sun again. Probably sooner rather than later. Being of the same mindset just from the opposite position they will, of course, push as hard as they can, setting the stage for the next round.
Why should I? You obviously wanted to slam the other side with a backhanded insult, since the opposite of anti-murder would be pro-murder. It’s both disingenuous to use that term and insulting (as well as inaccurate), though entertaining too. More accurate would be something like pro-gun and anti-gun, since at it’s root and in its final goal your side wants this wrt ever day citizens. Sure, not all the people on your side do, but that’s what the core and most extreme want.
Oh, I certainly would…I use that term frequently in fact. But saying your side is anti-murder while implying the other side would then be pro-murder is a bit further down the insult trail, peter rabbit. It’s also inaccurate and disingenuous, as I said…the pro-gun side isn’t pro-murder and your side isn’t anti-murder since I don’t see you expending the same energy to deal with the fact that only slightly less than half of the murders in the US are from non-gun sources. If you were REALLY anti-murder you’d be going after murder and the root causes of murder, which isn’t guns but is a lot of other stuff that’s not as easy to put into a sound bite or put on a placard.
No, I’m just discussing what compromise and problem-solving are truly about, how they truly work and how their results are truly effective. It isn’t a game of “Give me a toy or I’ll scream”.
Really? Why do you suppose they’re doing what they’re doing? Could there possibly be another problem involved? I won’t even argue your petulant use of the description “harass”.
Except for the reasonable and prudent part, as we’ve been discussing in various places.
Got anything else?
I’m having trouble finding the article about the range blocked, but in the mean time, there is this article about proper hearing protection and This one about the efffects of suppressors and what they actually do when it comes to protecting hearing.
What I’m getting so far is that(on average) suppressors will knock 30 dB off the total.
Checking on earplugs made specifically for shooting you get a slightly higher noise reduction, while earmuffs provide the best, as pointed out on this Shooting And Safety page.
Frankly, if the purpose is to protect the hearing of young children, I’d go with the plugs and or muffs because they won’t effect the how the firearm operates.
Absolutely. I didn’t even know this was in question.
If you got nothin’, just say so. Save us the trouble of pointing it out.
:rolleyes: Find a cite for any of that.
That’s all more important than the value of human life. Got it.
I’m trying to be accurate. If that gets under your skin, then you need to consider why that is instead of complaining about it.
Absolutely not. The root position of the people you dismiss as “the other side” is respect for life. The tools of ending life are actually incidental. But they do seem to be central to you.
Then quit whining.
It’s certainly in denial of it. It has a great deal of trouble explaining how it’s anything else.
The True Scotsman fallacy now, too? Seriously? Are you working down a list?
Yes, we’re all in favor of better mental health, too. Your “side” is doing nothing about that but talk and deflect, but we *are *trying. It does happen that the most effective way to reduce murders immediately is to reduce the proliferation of the tools of murder. So stop fighting and join us. Or at least get out of the way.
The irony of this is pretty well off the charts. Thanks for playing, but I think I’ll just move on from the rest of your parse vomit and see if any of the other ‘us’ have anything meaningful to say wrt either the topic of the OP or this less than interesting hijack.
I give you a nine out of ten on the rhetorical floor exercise. I’m sensing a pattern, if you can find a way to take a poster’s words the wrong way, you’ll seize it with great glee (like you’re little play on “arming a populace”, when the spirit of the OP was clearly along the lines of “having everyone with guns”). That’s pretty much a definition of arguing in bad faith, and part and parcel of cheap rhetoric. But seriously, don’t post under the influence.
To any pro-gun moderates reading this, I can’t begin to express the frustration rhetoriticians like XT pose to a necessary and healthy dialog. You (gun owning moderates) may not realize how obstructionistic these type of posts and posters are to any kind of fruitful discussion in forums like these, which are arguably new platforms for democracy. Most concerned about mass shootings and gun violence want to understand you, moderate gun owners, really, as perhaps you do the moderates of the “other side”. I remember coming across a poll that said a lot of gun owners view their right to bear arms on par with the importance with religious freedom. OK, cool, that could be one starting point. And that poll tells me more than three months slogging through threads filled with pro-gun super-trooper crapola. This is the way forward, dialog, brainstorming/troubleshooting, understanding, only too often blocked by silliness like XT’s gymnastics upthread. Like many others concerned about mass shootings and the unhealthy areas around guns in the US, I come from a place of wisdom, human reason, totally willing to hear all sides, and to bear refutation to my own. Really.
I’ll give you a zero out of ten and just move on as there is zero of substance in here, just slams…and they aren’t even good slams. As with Elvis, thanks for playing.