Gun Control Compromise

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.

You want to see pure panic from the Cops? Use even one amour piercing round or one mercury tipped bullet. They are going to go ape over that and it's all hands on deck. Same goes if you get your hands on an Automatic weapon and use it in a crime. They'll stop everything and concentrate in bring in everyone involved from the person that used these things to the chain where they aquired them. Having anyone running around with the will to use such things is suicide to Cops and every citizen on the street. And I don't care if the items were stolen from your home. There is a reason that you aren't supposed to have them in the home unless you have the proper licensing and storage facility. Lots of people die in the process if you don't because criminals will break in and take your dangerous stuff if it's not properly stored.

AGAIN JUST MAKIN SHIT UP

Since Reality gets in the way of your diatribe, I guess to you it must be presented as "Making Shit Up".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

It isn't up to interpretation except for people who want to limit it...then they always interpret it to exclude more and more guns and equipment...."Shall not be infringed" is easy to read, it is short and to the point...... you want to limit it....so it is "ambiguous" .....we get it....so...No.

That is the last 4 words. Tell me how all the rest is still applicable?

 

[progressive hunter]

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.

You want to see pure panic from the Cops? Use even one amour piercing round or one mercury tipped bullet. They are going to go ape over that and it's all hands on deck. Same goes if you get your hands on an Automatic weapon and use it in a crime. They'll stop everything and concentrate in bring in everyone involved from the person that used these things to the chain where they aquired them. Having anyone running around with the will to use such things is suicide to Cops and every citizen on the street. And I don't care if the items were stolen from your home. There is a reason that you aren't supposed to have them in the home unless you have the proper licensing and storage facility. Lots of people die in the process if you don't because criminals will break in and take your dangerous stuff if it's not properly stored.

AGAIN JUST MAKIN SHIT UP

Since Reality gets in the way of your diatribe, I guess to you it must be presented as "Making Shit Up".

YOU DO IT FOR MOTHER RUSSIA!!!

 

[2aguy]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

That is not a functional proposal, as it would entail a conflict of state versus federal power. Congress can (theoretically) implement universal background checks. However, Congress does not have the power to mandate permit reciprocity, as licensing is a power reserved to the states.

Oh, so NOW you lefties care about state rights?

Tell me then: if "licensing is a power reserved to the states" then why didn't you and your ilk respect that in regards to gay marriage?

Oh so now you blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

I'm not a 'leftist' you moron.

And if you really want to complain about how state licensing power applies to marriage licenses and gay marriage, it's really quite simple. In fact, gun rights are a perfect example.

The Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right of individuals, protected by the constitution. And the same constitution's equal protection laws furthermore demand that same sex marriage be equally protected as heterosexual marriage.

The question isn't about states' rights, it's about individuals' rights. The constitution is chiefly concerned with protecting individuals' rights, not states' rights. Very simple.

Furthermore, I never said anything about states' rights. By talking about "states' rights" you are proving you are an idiot. That has nothing to do with anything. The CCW issue is about state power versus federal power. Rights and powers are two different things. Some morons can't understand the difference, because you love suckling at the state teat and bowing down to worship the almightiness of power.

Just because you have the power to do something does not mean you have the right to do it. The government has great powers. But it has limited rights. For example, a government has power to legislate. That does not mean any piece of legislation is within its rights to enact.

In the future, I suggest you refrain from saying things that are insanely stupid, as if looking for an outlet for your mindless emotions, like some kind of mental diarrhea.

If marriage was a RIGHT then YOU WOULDN'T NEED A GOVERNMENT PERMISSION SLIP TO GET ONE, DIPSHIT.

In the future I suggest YOU refrain from calling people morons until you understand the difference between a right and a permit.

Rights are not absolute. All rights have certain limitations. You have the right to free speech. That doesn't mean you have the right to make slanderous statements about people that cause them harm. It doesn't mean you have the right to set up rock concert speakers in public areas and shout your political beliefs at 3 in the morning. The government has power to regulate the exercise of rights to limited degrees. And that is where licensing kicks in.

This is usually pedestrian stuff for most middle schoolers. Hang in there, you'll get it eventually. Maybe.

Yes....we know that, you can't use your gun to murder someone else...that is the limitation on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use your gun to violate the Rights of another Citizen......just like you can't use the 1st Amendment to violate the Rights of another citizen....done, over, that is all you need to know....any other limit is an infringement on the Right to own and carry a gun.

 

[progressive hunter]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

It isn't up to interpretation except for people who want to limit it...then they always interpret it to exclude more and more guns and equipment...."Shall not be infringed" is easy to read, it is short and to the point...... you want to limit it....so it is "ambiguous" .....we get it....so...No.

That is the last 4 words. Tell me how all the rest is still applicable?

ITS BEEN EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES THAT IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT BY NOW YOU NEVER WILL

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.

YOU DIDNT CLARIFY THAT YOU WERE IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY

I humped cargo (wheat sacks) not more than 100 feet from the Soviets during disasters. Now, stay on point. Form some decent thoughts and type them so we all can read and understand them.

 

[2aguy]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.

Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.

Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.

YOU DIDNT CLARIFY THAT YOU WERE IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY

I humped cargo (wheat sacks) not more than 100 feet from the Soviets during disasters. Now, stay on point. Form some decent thoughts and type them so we all can read and understand them.

WE HAVE BEEN,,, and you just continue with lies that result in tyranny

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That is not a functional proposal, as it would entail a conflict of state versus federal power. Congress can (theoretically) implement universal background checks. However, Congress does not have the power to mandate permit reciprocity, as licensing is a power reserved to the states.

Oh, so NOW you lefties care about state rights?

Tell me then: if "licensing is a power reserved to the states" then why didn't you and your ilk respect that in regards to gay marriage?

Oh so now you blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

I'm not a 'leftist' you moron.

And if you really want to complain about how state licensing power applies to marriage licenses and gay marriage, it's really quite simple. In fact, gun rights are a perfect example.

The Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right of individuals, protected by the constitution. And the same constitution's equal protection laws furthermore demand that same sex marriage be equally protected as heterosexual marriage.

The question isn't about states' rights, it's about individuals' rights. The constitution is chiefly concerned with protecting individuals' rights, not states' rights. Very simple.

Furthermore, I never said anything about states' rights. By talking about "states' rights" you are proving you are an idiot. That has nothing to do with anything. The CCW issue is about state power versus federal power. Rights and powers are two different things. Some morons can't understand the difference, because you love suckling at the state teat and bowing down to worship the almightiness of power.

Just because you have the power to do something does not mean you have the right to do it. The government has great powers. But it has limited rights. For example, a government has power to legislate. That does not mean any piece of legislation is within its rights to enact.

In the future, I suggest you refrain from saying things that are insanely stupid, as if looking for an outlet for your mindless emotions, like some kind of mental diarrhea.

If marriage was a RIGHT then YOU WOULDN'T NEED A GOVERNMENT PERMISSION SLIP TO GET ONE, DIPSHIT.

In the future I suggest YOU refrain from calling people morons until you understand the difference between a right and a permit.

Rights are not absolute. All rights have certain limitations. You have the right to free speech. That doesn't mean you have the right to make slanderous statements about people that cause them harm. It doesn't mean you have the right to set up rock concert speakers in public areas and shout your political beliefs at 3 in the morning. The government has power to regulate the exercise of rights to limited degrees. And that is where licensing kicks in.

This is usually pedestrian stuff for most middle schoolers. Hang in there, you'll get it eventually. Maybe.

Yes....we know that, you can't use your gun to murder someone else...that is the limitation on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use your gun to violate the Rights of another Citizen......just like you can't use the 1st Amendment to violate the Rights of another citizen....done, over, that is all you need to know....any other limit is an infringement on the Right to own and carry a gun.

You also can't settle petty arguments by shooting the other person either. Actually, it happens from time to time. You can't be drunk while possessing a....... Of course you can. Laws aren't for the criminal, it's for the criminally stupid.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.

YOU DIDNT CLARIFY THAT YOU WERE IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY

I humped cargo (wheat sacks) not more than 100 feet from the Soviets during disasters. Now, stay on point. Form some decent thoughts and type them so we all can read and understand them.

and why are you humping wheat sacks???

cant find a girl that likes you???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.

YOU DIDNT CLARIFY THAT YOU WERE IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY

I humped cargo (wheat sacks) not more than 100 feet from the Soviets during disasters. Now, stay on point. Form some decent thoughts and type them so we all can read and understand them.

WE HAVE BEEN,,, and you just continue with lies that result in tyranny

You have nothing coherent to say, I see. Have a nice day.

 

[2aguy]

Maybe old Ben could have but that's about it. And he didn't have a hand in writing the bill of rights where the 2nd amendment was lifted.

Let me say that again.

Because the founders saw a full-auto that didn't work, they could not have imagined such a device ever working in the future at the time they wrote the 2A?

Think about that for a minute before you answer.

Full auto or not is irrelevant. The founders had coach guns like a blunderbuss that could kill a dozen people with one pull of the trigger.
There has never been a shortage of weapons technology, and clearly the founders wanted us all to have the best military grade weapons if the government was going to or needed them.

In 1859, new breeds of weapons were on the verge of coming out that I doubt if your FFs envisioned. The level of carnage was just unfathomable in their time. Muskets and single shot rifles were one thing but something like the old BAR introduced in late 1917 (it's called a model 1918) and not allowed to be used in WWI for fear of falling into enemy hands (we ended up using that French crap), or the improvement of the Cannon that shot balls and grapeshot being replaced by Artillery that killed more people in WWI than all the bullets and bombs put together. WWII was no different. Taking the idea of the Puckle gun and introducing the Gatlin and so on. All this in just a couple or three decades. Plus, the introduction of the Thompson introduced in 1919 because the US needed a better SMG than the crap that the Brits and the French had us use in WWI. We didn't outgrow out weapons, our weapons outgrew us.

I doubt if our FFs could envision this explosion of weapons improvement so fast. Or they thought we would grow at an equal speed. We didn't grow a bit but our weapons exploded in development. The fact remains, we are no more civilized than we were in 1775. In fact, we may be less civilized in many ways.

Moron....as more Americans own and actually carry guns our gun crime rates have all gone down, nothing you say is reflected in the actual reality of American society...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...so over 26 years, guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[progressive hunter]

Maybe old Ben could have but that's about it. And he didn't have a hand in writing the bill of rights where the 2nd amendment was lifted.

Let me say that again.

Because the founders saw a full-auto that didn't work, they could not have imagined such a device ever working in the future at the time they wrote the 2A?

Think about that for a minute before you answer.

Full auto or not is irrelevant. The founders had coach guns like a blunderbuss that could kill a dozen people with one pull of the trigger.
There has never been a shortage of weapons technology, and clearly the founders wanted us all to have the best military grade weapons if the government was going to or needed them.

In 1859, new breeds of weapons were on the verge of coming out that I doubt if your FFs envisioned. The level of carnage was just unfathomable in their time. Muskets and single shot rifles were one thing but something like the old BAR introduced in late 1917 (it's called a model 1918) and not allowed to be used in WWI for fear of falling into enemy hands (we ended up using that French crap), or the improvement of the Cannon that shot balls and grapeshot being replaced by Artillery that killed more people in WWI than all the bullets and bombs put together. WWII was no different. Taking the idea of the Puckle gun and introducing the Gatlin and so on. All this in just a couple or three decades. Plus, the introduction of the Thompson introduced in 1919 because the US needed a better SMG than the crap that the Brits and the French had us use in WWI. We didn't outgrow out weapons, our weapons outgrew us.

I doubt if our FFs could envision this explosion of weapons improvement so fast. Or they thought we would grow at an equal speed. We didn't grow a bit but our weapons exploded in development. The fact remains, we are no more civilized than we were in 1775. In fact, we may be less civilized in many ways.

Moron....as more Americans own and actually carry guns our gun crime rates have all gone down, nothing you say is reflected in the actual reality of American society...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...so over 26 years, guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

just gonna have to face it that daryl has another agenda

 

[2aguy]

I gave you his actual paper...you doofus.....

No, you gave me some NRA propaganda where other people talk about his methodology with such stupidity as "He didn't just count nice white people".

Moron, I gave you the actual research paper that he did to change the number from 43 to 2.7, and that has nothing to do with the NRA....you have been caught again, making up dumb crap, and now you spew...."But...the NRA....but....the NRA...."

 

[2aguy]

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.

If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.

This is the whole point.

Unless he lived in Japan, China, Korea or most places in Europe with higher suicide rates than the U.S..... you doofus....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.

Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.

Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

It's also gone down in areas that people don't carry gun more frequently. NYC is a good example. It went from the Murder capital of the World to the safest Metro City in the World and Guns had nothing to do with it by either criminals nor private citizens. If you make a cesspool then you get what you describe. If you clean that cesspool up using Social Programs (yes, cupcake, job creation is a social program) then the gun crime and all other crimes go down. Neighborhoods that are gainfully employed won't tolerate all this nonsense and it attracts Jobs and Businesses to it. Unfortunately, only NYC seems to have learned that lesson.

 

[2aguy]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.

Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.

Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

It's also gone down in areas that people don't carry gun more frequently. NYC is a good example. It went from the Murder capital of the World to the safest Metro City in the World and Guns had nothing to do with it by either criminals nor private citizens. If you make a cesspool then you get what you describe. If you clean that cesspool up using Social Programs (yes, cupcake, job creation is a social program) then the gun crime and all other crimes go down. Neighborhoods that are gainfully employed won't tolerate all this nonsense and it attracts Jobs and Businesses to it. Unfortunately, only NYC seems to have learned that lesson.

Moron......it is down across the country, even in places where more people own and carry guns...law abiding Americans do not increase the gun crime rate when they own and carry guns....

You are an idiot......

 

[Jarlaxle]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

That is not a functional proposal, as it would entail a conflict of state versus federal power. Congress can (theoretically) implement universal background checks. However, Congress does not have the power to mandate permit reciprocity, as licensing is a power reserved to the states.

Actually, Congress does have the authority to enact legislation authorizing state reciprocity with regard to concealed carry licenses and permits:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D

But you’re correct to note the hypocrisy of conservatives who claim to be ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights.”

Do you or do you not understand the Full Faith and Credit clause?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I gave you his actual paper...you doofus.....

No, you gave me some NRA propaganda where other people talk about his methodology with such stupidity as "He didn't just count nice white people".

Moron, I gave you the actual research paper that he did to change the number from 43 to 2.7, and that has nothing to do with the NRA....you have been caught again, making up dumb crap, and now you spew...."But...the NRA....but....the NRA...."

I stopped reading at the word Moron. You still don't get it. This type of argument only makes the other side sound more right to others that are sitting on the fence. Try being nice. If you are getting angry, "STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD", there is a wonderful world out there. My breakfast is soon to be had and that's more important than anything posted in here.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.

Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.

Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

It's also gone down in areas that people don't carry gun more frequently. NYC is a good example. It went from the Murder capital of the World to the safest Metro City in the World and Guns had nothing to do with it by either criminals nor private citizens. If you make a cesspool then you get what you describe. If you clean that cesspool up using Social Programs (yes, cupcake, job creation is a social program) then the gun crime and all other crimes go down. Neighborhoods that are gainfully employed won't tolerate all this nonsense and it attracts Jobs and Businesses to it. Unfortunately, only NYC seems to have learned that lesson.

Moron..

Most of us stopped reading after the first word again.