60% of Americans want stricter gun laws. The negotiation would be about how much stricter. Concessions would be made and not everyone would be satisfied. The problem is we have people in Congress bought and paid for by the NRA. What will happen if the NRA runs out of money?
This is not a give and take, but it is an effort to reduce gun violence. As gun violence escalates, the better chance of legislation.
You do not give the pro-gun side any rational reason to agree to your "compromise" - and thus, we shan't. Molon Labe.
Your unsupportable "must be changes" premise aside... What new regulation do you seek and what are you willing to offer us in return?
So, you offer the pro-gun side a choice as to how much more their rights are limited, and offer nothing in return. A I said - you do not seek compromise, you seek acquiescence.
The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such make? The united states is a republic, not a democracy. If such were not the case and the united states were a democracy, the country would have never progressed beyond homosexuality being outlawed, and blacks still being slaves to this very day. Once again. What exactly does the other side get out of the deal, that serves as an incentive for them to even consider the discussion? What do supporters of firearm-related freedoms get out of the deal that makes compromise worthwhile? Exactly what is already happening in the united states.
Is the majority of firearm-related violence being committed by individuals who can legally purchase and own firearms? Or is such the direct action of prohibited individuals who cannot legally possess firearms under any circumstances, and who do not belong free in society where they pose they greatest risk of harm?
True, as long as you expect something in return. You have too much already and there is a need to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns. How to do it? I don't know and neither do you, but we need to make it difficult in some way to own a firearm and vetting is essential. This conversation is over.
The conversation is over, due simply to there being no actual desire on the part of yourself to discuss the matter, or defend the nonsensical points that have been raised as if they were valid, when in fact they are not.
Here we go again with that silly "on the part of yourself" gibberish. How about "on your part" instead, since of something right out of the 5th grade.
I am not bold and do not demand anything from one hundred million gun owners. Where did you get that from?
It doesn't. Here's a list from 1900 on mass shootings by decade. Era of no gun control laws at all, with the exception one had to have a federal permit to buy a machine gun passed in the 1930's I believe. Decade Mass shootings 1900's 0 1910's 2 1920's 2 1930's 9 1940's 8 1950's 1 1960's 6 One must remember the 1930's and 40's were the Al Capone gangster era. Now we begin with the gun control era. The era when more and more gun control laws have been added and are still being added. 1970's 13 1980's 32 1990's 42 2000's 28 2010's still counting https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990 Most mass shootings in the pre gun control era were either familicides and felony related. In other words the shooter knew his victims. In the gun control era most mass shootings are in public places against innocent bystanders. The shooter usually doesn't know whom he is shooting. In other words, it's killing for killing sake. This leads me to believe something has gone wrong with our society, it has become very ill. It's not the guns, it is the sickness of our society that has developed since the pre-gun control era.
From the record. You admit not negotiating in good faith unless I'm prepared to simply acquiesce to what you wish. The hanging implication of this entire discussion being "or else".
This is the attitude of the left in all things - our way, or else. They know "or else" will get them shot. Thus, they want to take the guns. Molon Labe.
What do you mean by negotiating? Gun violence is a serious problem in our country and it is escalating. I don't want to take your guns away, but I think that they should be registered and the owners fingerprinted. Right now, we have no regulations to speak of. The idea is to relieve our country of gun violence and certain regulations will help even though you disagree. What are you afraid of? Regulations are put into effect to deter the bad guys and unfortunately, the good guys suffer. Advertising regulations were put into effect because the bad guys were taking advantage, and the good guys suffered somewhat. That is life.
Why do you think this will have -any- effect on gun violence? Since you believe there should be negotiations and compromise, what do we get in return for this? And where we do, they fail regularly, and spectacularly See: Gilroy CA We have absolutely no reason to trust those who seek to needlessly and uselessly restrict our rights. Why do you think the penalty for violating the restrictions you seek will in any way deter people willing to - PLANNING to - commit violent felonies?
What did the honest business people get in return for the advertising regulations? Obviously, regulations don't always work in every case, but they will certainly help. Because they didn't work with Gilroy, then they never work? You get to keep your guns. What is your problem? This is not a give and take thing. .
And thus, you have no intention to negotiate or compromise - you simply demand we let you impose your will and lay whatever unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want on our rights. Since we have no reason to trust you, we will fight you for every inch.. Molon labe.