SERIOUS Compromise between Pro gun and gun control!

If you can split a vote and it ends up with someone else winning than you can waste your vote.

 

It will always be near 50/50 as long as people think like that

 

People vote based on the restraints FPTP forces a 2 way race. If we didn't use FPTP I would make Bernie my first choice in the general and then the Nomineee my second choice. If it was proportonal neither Dems or reps get my vote, the Labor party/workers party likely gets my vote.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

False. Anyone and everyone can vote for anyone and everyone - you are not in any way forced to vote a certain way.

 

Can you point to one FPTP country that has more than 2 dominate parties?

 

Irrelevant to the fact you proceed form a false premise.
Anyone and everyone can vote for anyone and everyone - you are not in any way forced to vote a certain way.

 

This proposed legislation is poorly worded, doesn't have a chance of passing, contains zero compromises and has nothing to do with guns.

Why do you keep on posting such useless pap?

 

Deficit of attention disorder?

 

It originally had, mag caps, required to be unloaded when traveling, and barred people who were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder from owning a gun and suspending for a year anyone who was admitted into a mental health facility and prohibited all persons convicted of a violent offense whether felony or misdemeanor.

So yes it is quite the compramise.

 

"Compramise"
We expect better from a highly-intelligent, well-educated man of world, such as yourself.

In the classic liberal definition of the term, where we demand $100 to let you live but will settle for $75, sure.
According to the actual definition, not so much.

 

The side making the demands for new firearm-related restrictions do not appear willing to repeal any firearm-related restrictions that are currently in place. Instead they are simply demanding less than they were originally, while retaining everything that is already in place.

Such is not compromise. Such is not even close to compromise.

 

They know this.
They hope the usueful idiots do not.

 

Why in the world would we need a program to have people voluntarily deliver their guns to the police? No matter what the wording, once delivered to them, the police could never return them until they were sure - by their own standards - that you were not a threat. Delivering your guns to the police, in the first place, is a defacto admission that you, yourself, consider yourself to be a threat to yourself or others so, in order to get the police to return your guns, the burden of proof would be on you to show you're not a threat.

If a person was so psychologically insecure that they claim to recognize that they're a danger then why would anyone trust them to have a gun afterwards? So there's no new law needed. If you take your guns to the police station today, they'll take them from you and, appropriately, never give them back.

Since there should be no such thing as a prohibited person then #13 is also wrong. People who have committed crimes and cannot be trusted in society belong in jails and prisons. If a person is robbed by a guy with a baseball bat, is he any less robbed than had the bad guy had a gun? If a woman is raped at knife-point rather than by a man with a gun, is she any less raped?

Gun add-ons to crimes serve only the purposes of the anti-gunners by making it appear that the crime was worse because of the gun. Guns bad. Raping at knife-point, not so bad. Our crime problem is not guns; it's soft courts and judges and easy jails.

Why does the FBI or IRS need a multi-agency task force to enforce tax law? This is just one more big-government, police-state, idea that does nothing. The laws allowing prosecuting those who do not accurately report their income and pay the taxes on that income already exist.

There are zero new laws needed and many, many, useless laws that should be eliminated. Even after eliminating every single gun-control law on the books, there are still plenty of laws to deal with crime. All we need to do is enforce them.

 

3 categories of people would be prohibited.

Felons- Anyone who was sentenced to 1 year or longer in prison.

Those who have been cited for misuse of a firearm. Basically doing stupid things or breaking the basic rules of safe use with a gun.

Those who have had audio or visual hallucinogenic episodes at some point in their life.

Also yes being robbed with a bat is not as bad as being robbed at gun point.

 

A ball bat is a deadly weapon; in every jurisdiction in the US, you may use deadly force against someone attacking you with a ball bat.

 

Regardless if robbers could only access bats and not guns we would be better off since it's harder to kill someone with a bat. I could likely take on some fool with a bat without dying, guy with a gun you have to pray they don't kill you.

 

How do you plan to remove "robbers" access to firearms without placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the the rights of the law abiding?

 

How would such ultimately be implemented? How would it be ensured that those who engage in criminal activity would not be able to physically acquire or possess firearms? Not in theory, but in actual practice where proposals must be tested in the real world.

Bear in mind, there is absolutely no legal avenue in the united states for one to gain access to illicit narcotic substances such as heroin and cocaine, and yet such is being done regularly.

 

1. Using precedent from the states of Florida and Rhode Island, set up checkpoint on roads entering the state to search for guns.
2. Require all guns used in Michigan are made in michigan.
3. Force gun makers and sellers to put serial codes and GPS tracking chips on the guns so they can be tracked.
4. Close down all gun stores that have sold to prohibited persons, knowingly or unknowingly
5. Give Sheriffs the power to decide who gets a license to carry and who does not.
This will reduce those getting guns who are already criminals drastically.

 

Good of you to demonstrate how much you hate the rights of people as protected by the constitution.

 

If you were pro police you would support UK stile gun bans because on average only 1 police officer is killed in the UK per year.
If you cared about the right for people to not be murdered you would support Japanese/south Korean gun control where less than 0.03 per 100,000 people are murdered.
If you cared about the right of citizens not to be extrajudicially killed by police you would support European gun control since the US has about the same number of people shot by police as most EU countries do in a century.

The Second amendment is archaic and I plan to make my state the first to have the guts to submit an amendment to the US constitution to repeal the second amendment hoping other states will find the courage to after.

 

Demonstrate the evidence that such a concept actually exists and is indeed being performed.

How would such actually be implemented when there are no firearm manufacturers currently operating in the state of Michigan? Will one of the current firearm manufacturers in the united states be legally required to close down their operation and relocate to the state of Michigan?

Serial numbers already exist on all modern firearms. As to the matter of tracking devices, such is a physical impossibility. Every square millimeter of available space on currently produced firearms is already occupied by currently existing components, leaving absolutely no room for incorporation of such technology. Even if such could be done, there would be no way of preventing the removal of such technology from the final product.

Such is already done as per federal law. If such was not known on the part of yourself already, there is no excuse for making proposals for new firearm-related restrictions.

Why has such not worked in the state of California? Or in any other state where such is the common legal practice?

 

How does law enforcement benefit from legal firearms ownership being declared illegal? The firearms will still remain present and circulation. The majority of firearm owners will refuse to surrender their privately owned property. What will be done then if the public of the united states refuses to follow the example of the public of the united kingdom and tells the government outright that it will not comply? How would the government address approximately one hundred million individuals who refuse to comply with the law, and are armed to the point of being able to resist with violence if need be?

How does law enforcement benefit if they are required to put their lives on the line to disarm a disobedient public that would be willing to kill them on sight for attempting to enforce a disarmament?

First, enough states must vote to convene constitutional convention, which requires thirty eight individual states working together.

Even if such could be accomplished, what would be done if the required number of states refused to ratify the proposed amendment?

 

During this pandemic Florida and Rhodeisland have been stopping people from specific states and testing them to make sure they don't have covid before letting them in.

New factory would have to be set up. A great way to create new jobs.

They could easily make them inactivate if the chip is removed, and if all guns have to be new since they are being made in the state, they can all be made with that feature

It has worked. The states that have such gun restrictions have less mass shootings and shootings over all.