Immigration Stance Proves Democrats Don’t Really Care About Gun Violence

One may decide this, but if the weapon is constitutionally protected, one cannot simply pass a statute. Besides, according to Mother Jones, "assault weapons" in mass shootings average about 20 deaths per year. Water is used to murder more people every year.

Just don't violate Constitutional protections. And make it effective, enforceable, would be enforced and necessary.

 

Yet somehow prevention works at the border? Or does it? LOL

 

Laws should not be passed with the idea of "inconvenience" or to "harass". Also they should not be passed for to "make a moral statement".

Doesn't really matter what the "state" desires whether by state you mean individual states or the collective. Gun control or restriction is a Constitutional issue and needs to be addressed as such.

"...one can decide" and who is that one who decides? The "potential negative impact" would be to compromise the Constitution. While those looking to impose more gun control may have "fine and honorable" goals it does not make them "fine and honorable legislative goals". We already have many laws which are supposed to make "stupid" "more difficult". If they are not working we need to take a serious look at why they are not. Passing additional laws which will not work just to make some of the people feel better is not the answer.

Or conversely, the wrong direction.

 

Criminal law cannot prevent people from committing crime - so, no. Your false premise remains false.
Any law enacted with the intent to prevent someone from breaking another law will fail at its purpose; as such, any restrictions it lays upon the rights of the law abiding are not just unnecessary, but unjust.

 

Unsupported opinion

 

It also means it is harder for an honest, law abiding citizen to exercise their rights. I am not willing to compromise any further. I have drawn my line in the sand. Fix the problem. You know damn well the real problem is not guns and yet you insist pushing forward with your ideas. I for one feel that a few lives lost are worth the cost if it means that we as a nation have not compromised the Constitution and the rights of all the people. You may argue about the rights of those lost to guns. I say the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. I have lost brothers-in-arms who answered the Nations call. We all knew going in what it meant. That is the cost of liberty and the cost of being a nation.

I don't know where you live or what your community is like but where I live in the American Redoubt people are done with compromise. It is actually a rather scary outlook around here. More and more people are moving to the Northwest U.S. just because of some of the issues like gun control and immigration. It is interesting as my politics are primary liberal except for a couple specific issues which continue to make me side with the conservatives. I, unlike many, did not choose to move here. I came to this area almost five decades ago with my parents. Yes I have stayed as I like my rural lifestyle. I like my "homestead" with it's fruit trees and vegetable garden and greenhouse and root cellar. I like cutting firewood and hunting out my backdoor in the fall. I have seen lots of change and lots of people move here just because almost everyone already here owns guns and almost everyone is Right leaning. There is not a day that can go by where I live that I do not hear gun fire (no not Chicago). People here own guns, lots of guns. They like their guns. Big guns, little guns, machine guns. Yes I often hear machine gun fire. One guy here even has a canon.

I know you say this is for fun and we are not going to change anyone's mind here. You are almost certainly right on that but views being stated here are the same views we take out into society on a daily basis. This forum may not be a microcosm of that society but if you want to see a microcosm of the Right just take a look at this forum:
http://www.survivalistboards.com/
I am surrounded by these types of people and they are not going to give up their guns.

I have great respect for your opinions even if I don't agree with them. As the saying goes: I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Just my rambling thoughts.

Rich

 

You have to present your passport as you are a law abiding citizen. The Illegal immigrants just find another place to cross.

 

This is a well thought out post. Here are my thoughts.

You say you are done compromising. My question is when did you start? You have the most lax gun laws of any first world country on the planet. You can own guns and do things with them that would be impossible in any comparable country. The compromise has not even started. I know you fear the slippery slope. If you give an inch they will want a mile. I get it. And there are some that would love to ban guns for sure. But we can't be driven by the extremes. Men of good faith should be able to reach a reasonable compromise. We have the most lax gun laws and the most gun deaths. That is even true if it is broken down by state. There HAS to be a connection. Gun control is not the answer to all our problems but to say it can not even be part of the conversation I think is just putting on blinders. Sandy hook was it for me. And then the Vegas shooting in my own hometown. I like to think of myself as a man of action and I think it is time for reasonable and limited action. I know you disagree and I get it. People like you should be able to own all the guns they want. But not everyone is like you.

And those are just my ramblings that won't change a single person's mind.

 

This is a gun control forum. Go to the Border Security forum if that's what you want to talk about.

 

Gun control works. It saves lives. Better? LOL

 

At least your lies are now relevant lies.

 

Is this debate? LOL

 

What do you care? You don't take this seriously, right? You're just here to troll, not debate.

 

And why are you here 6Gunner? I have to hear this.

 

Thank you and thank you.

You ask about compromise. My father was a gun owning adult when the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934. That Act imposed excise tax on specific firearms and mandated registration of them. But that was not enough. When I was a kid my dad bought guns by mail. The Gun Control Act of 1968 changed that. Since I have been an adult the citizenry of this country has had imposed on them the Undetectable Firearms Act - 1988, the Gun-Free School Zones Act -1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1993, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban - 1994-2004. I know you are familiar with all of those. Those are what I see as my compromises. Each time our leaders impose a new gun law they say it is necessary and will solve the problem but they keep coming back for more. Many will not be happy until they have all the guns and we are all subjects. You mention Sandy Hook was "it" for you. Each shooting is "it" for me. Every time one occurs I go out and buy another gun because each time I think it may be my last chance.

"Men of good faith should be able to reach a reasonable compromise." I agree 100%. I'm just not sure we can find enough men of good faith. I am in favor of "reasonable compromise" but as the firearms laws above would seem to indicate, compromise means different things to different people and maybe nothing to some. I would honestly give up all my guns and never shoot or hunt again if I could be guaranteed that even 90% of all gun crimes and suicides and accidents could be prevented. I don't expect 100% just give me 90%. Sorry but I'm unwilling to give up my guns to save just a few, give me thousands and I will work with you. Most of these laws came in response to specific incidents or series of incidents. Each was supposed to solve the problem. As each law fails to accomplish everything hoped for the bleeding hearts come back for more. What should be happening when the laws don't achieve the desired effect is the law should be thrown out and a new law written. Stop piling them up on the people. That poor bastard in AZ may honestly not have known he was doing anything illegal. It was just that the rules were too confusing to figure out. You want waiting periods, licensing, training, registration, background checks. I will give you all that if you will wipe out all the previous gun laws. Let me have any kind of arms I want. No additional taxes, no fees. I want to buy an M60 or M2 and mount it on my front porch I can do it as long as I jump through your hoops. I want an M1A1 or Howitzer, no problem. I give you what you want, you give me what I want - compromise!

If these hypothetical new laws above; registration, background checks, etc. are implemented but only apply to purchases after that "new law" is passed what good is that. There are by some estimates over 300 million firearms out there in the U.S. Do you expect people to voluntary register those guns they already own? The people I know will not go easily, they will not register their guns much less turn them in. Gun sales could still go on with those unregistered 300 million guns. I understand if this hypothetical new law makes those sales illegal then those selling without compliance would now be considered criminals. But what would we do with all these new criminals? You have mentioned before the costs and effort required to keep people in prison.. So how do you enforce these new laws. How do you punish offenders. Suppose I sell a gun to someone who then uses it to murder a person. Do you put him in prison for killing someone or me because I sold him the gun. To hear some of the gun control people talk the person who sold the gun is worse than the actual killer. OMG Doug Haig sold AP rounds to a murderer lets put Mr. Haig in jail. Maybe we could let murderers and child molesters out and put guys who sell guns to their friends in jail instead. I know, I'm being facetious. But how do we enforce it? If I am told I have to register my guns I automatically become a criminal. If you think the "compromise has not even started" then you better brace yourself. I know many hard line gun owners like me who feel they have done their part and will give no more.

May not change anyone's mind but as you said in another post, "maybe fine tune your argument a little". I know it is helping me tune mine and has been wonderful for my typing skills. You offer food for thought.

Rich

 

Honestly? I'm not sure anymore. Lately I've even been thinking about walking away from it.

I'm old enough to remember when I could go onto a message forum and actually have respectful and stimulating conversations with people about the issues. I could talk to someone who had a different viewpoint, and we could have an honest give-and-take, discuss the disparities in our views, and come away from it having had an enlightening and friendly exchange. I actually have a couple of people who are now good friends who I met that way. There was nothing quite so enjoyable as a stimulating exchange, especially when you came away from it having had someone say: "Well, you've given me a lot to think about!" or "Hey, I'd never thought of it that way!"

I suppose there are moments when I still hold out hope that we can get back to being able to talk to each other as a country; as opposed to just yammering at each other. But we've become so balkanized as a people I don't know if we shall ever see such heady days again.

So, why am I still here? I guess at this point it's because I know that sometimes people who are on the fence regarding assorted issues come to forums like this just to lurk and read through the arguments to see if they can learn enough to make informed decisions on the issues. If the only people posting are the anti-gunners they might think there is merit to their position and vote accordingly. On the other hand, having a voice for the other side means those lurkers at least have alternatives to consider. I know I'm not going to convince the hard core antigunners... but at least I can expose their agenda for what it is for those who haven't made up their minds yet.

 

I for one would love to get back to respectful and stimulating conversation. I would love to not have to defend myself from accusations that I am a gun banner or someone who hates the constitution and this country. I love this country and everything it stands for. If I have personally insulted you or attacked you let me take this time to apologize. I am sorry. I have said before I think your positions are well thought out and that you say what you say because you believe that is what is best for the country and yourself. I admire your conviction and your passion even if I disagree with your views. But I also believe in my views very strongly. And I don't back down. But I hope that we can dispense with personal attacks and stick to the arguments. Nothing would make me happier.

I have said that no one really changes their mind here. Actually that is not completely true. My position has evolved a little based on what I have heard hear. I said that once before and got a lot of grief for it but I am open to change if it makes sense. A lot of what I hear on here has given me things to think about and I have learned a lot. For that I am grateful. It is also something mildly amusing to do between boring meetings. My wife thinks I am a little addicted to this and she is probably right. LOL. So after all that all I can say is I hope you stay. And if we can both find a way to keep the conversation respectful and stimulating then we both benefit.

 

........ Well, here's one of those moments I mentioned above: the one where "you've given me a lot to think about."

I do appreciate the apology in your message.... but if I'm going to be 100% honest with myself I have to own my own contributions to the acrimony of our exchanges, and offer my own apologies in return. I know how I feel when someone attacks my integrity or my dedication to what's best for our country, so if I engage in the same behavior then I'm no better than they are.

You mentioned your position evolving, and I recognize mine has too. Ironically, I realize I've become even more entrenched and inflexible in my own positions; at least partially in response to insults and attacks making me unwilling to give any rhetorical ground whatsoever... but then do I contribute to the problem by seeing someone espouse an opposing position and thus being less than diplomatic in my response to them when they have said nothing offensive directly to me, thus causing them to be more combative?

Either way, just so you know, I don't enjoy caustic and acrimonious exchanges. But, as you noted, if I feel attacked I'm not going to back down or give ground in any way; no, I'm going to push back and push back hard. But... perhaps too many years of combative exchanges and disagreements have me too primed and ready to push back; even to the point of seeing an attack when none is intended by the other party. Or, maybe I've just gotten old enough to have become the same kind of caustic curmudgeon that used to exasperate the Hell out of me when I was younger.

Either way, I appreciate the olive branch you've extended. There are certain things you and I disagree on, and disagree fundamentally and fiercely, and we will most likely never shake the other's beliefs; but that doesn't mean we can't be civil about it.

 

Renting any space?

 

There has indeed been much presented in this discussion as of late.

 

Sure. What you give me for a couple paragraphs worth?