Should your party work with the other side

1. I just feel registering guns would help authorities track the history of guns used in criminal violence & limit non-traceable private gun sales. Most non-gun owners still support the 2nd Amendment, but feel the lack of regulations has endangered the public. It is only a very minute minority who want to confiscate private guns, but I could see the possibility of them eventually wanting to confiscate privately owned automatic weapons.
2. Silencers/suppressors make it more difficult & less quick for authorities to respond to mass shooting incidents, simply because they would be harder to hear. We need the authorities to be capable of responding ASAP in order to save more lives.
3. I can't respond until you tell me the political issues you have with gays.
4. I agree with you about using abortion as a last ditch birth control. I've never met a woman who disagreed with you on that. In fact, I've never met anyone who disagrees with you on that--even the most dedicated Pro-Choice advocates. Yes, the pill is the answer. Abortion should be available for rape victims, incest victims, Mothers with special personal problems not resolvable any other way, or when the fetus has some severe genetic or health problem that would negatively impact its life after birth. But abortion MUST be kept available to address Mother's rights.

 

When a BG check is done the gun is also checked. The FBI turned down a purchase of a shotgun for me because the serial number on the gun and the one on the box it was in did not match. Guns are already registered and tied to the one who purchases them. A national registry wouldn't make it easier to identify or track a gun than it is today but it would certainly make it easier to send SWAT in to confiscate. You would need a ballistics registry to be able to narrow the search down to a specific weapon. I would think that would be powerful expensive.

I forgot to mention silencers. Cops don't respond to the sound of gunfire, they get a 911 call. "Silencers" are not silent, they just deaden the noise which helps protect the shooters hearing. Watch some youtube demonstrations. Personally I don't see the need for them but I don't really see why there is such a push to ban them. It's just another foot down the proverbial slippery slope so I will argue against the ban.

I don't believe in gay marriage. Wish I did but I have to be honest with myself so the best I can do is keep my peace and be tolerant. I don't like the way homosexuality is pushed into every facet of entertainment today. The purpose is so we become enured to it and it seems to be working. I'm not sure why we need to dedicate a month to celebrate it, I mean there is no national holiday dedicated to the heterosexual experience?

I don't see a baby as a fetus or a lump of gristle, it's a baby to me, start to finish. There was a time I was hard core against abortion but I got older and life intervened and made me a bit more empathetic and tolerant. I would leave RvW as it stands and let everyone wrestle with their own conscience. Here is a little secret for you though, most women see it as a baby too and always will. That is a burden I would not care to add to.

 

We already have strict legal controls over the sale of silencers. To buy one, first, you have to pay for it. Then, before you can get it from the gun dealer, you have to fill out federal paperwork, pay a $200 transfer fee, go through major fingeprinting/background check, etc., and then wait for approval from the BATF (takes 6 months to a year usually). The problem I have with compromise from the other side on some issues is that the other side is basically ignorant about the existing laws. The above also is required to buy a full auto weapon, but you have to add the step of finding a full auto weapon that had been registered with the federal government before a certain date in 1986 (which ups the price considerably).

Gun registration is futile. Canada has a handgun registration, but when they tried to institute a rifle registration, it failed miserably. Also, for your car analogy, I can buy a car/motorcycle for use on my own property or those who give me permission to use their property, and I don't need license or registration to do it. I can carry that car/motorcycle by trailer to go to other private property for use I do agree this should be part of gun laws. Guns shouldn't require registration or licensing if only used on your own private property, and they should be allowed to be legally carried in a case to other private property.

 

1. Registration is futile, especially in a country that already has 300-500 million guns. All gun registration does is harass law-abiding citizens. Criminals (per the 5th Amendment) cannot be required to register their guns. Canada's long gun registration attempt ended badly. It was an enormous waste of money.
2. This has only happened once in the history of America. Only one mass shooting has been perpetrated by a gun with a silencer. It's sort of silly to make a law based on a single incident.

 

1. Although I support actions & laws that improve individual freedoms, I admit gay marriage was a bit uncomfortable for me at first. It still feels a bit unnatural, but I recognize it expands human rights to people who are generally very deserving. Also, since it is clear that homosexuality is genetic, those practicing it are victims of genetics they had no control over. How can we in good conscience continue punishing those already victimized? In religious terms, we say God made us all. If that's true, God made gay people too, so there must be a reason. I don't pretend to understand it, but I will try to honor their differences best I can, & avoid becoming needlessly judgmental.
2.

Gun ownership &/or laws are not a big issue with me. I'm not an enthusiast, but I respect the right of others to enjoy guns as they wish, so long as they remain safety conscious. I'm not familiar with gun laws because the one gun I do own is, & has been, in a storage shed tens of miles from where I currently live, for at least 5 years. I will end this post by stating I found nothing in your post I had an issue with.

 

1. With modern computers, gun registration shouldn't be a problem.
2. One example provides ample support for copy cat crimes.

 

1. Canada failed at the turn of the 21st century--they had approximately 15 million guns to register. We have 300-500 million guns to register. Computers haven't advanced that much. Also, all the gun registration attempts to simply register "assault rifles" in the U.S. have failed. It's just a failed idea. Yes, it might work for cars, but cars are 3000 lb+ machines that can't really be concealed that well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...gistering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#183019eb5a1b https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankm...-register-their-assault-weapons/#5e117846702f

2. There are about 1.3 million suppressors in civilian hands. Copy cats won't happen. People who go through the year long trouble to buy a suppressor simply don't commit many crimes. There have averaged 44 crimes a year using suppressors in the last ten years. Its not a real problem. It's just a problem for people who don't live in the factual world. https://freebeacon.com/issues/atf-d...n-silencers-united-states-rarely-used-crimes/

 

No offense, but if you don't know anything about gun laws, you are irresponsible for suggesting more. Research the issue, then come out with ideas. I know little or nothing about SEC regulations. Hence, I don't post about SEC regulations or pontificate about them. I wouldn't insult you (or other posters) by posting unresearched views. If I don't know something, I look it up. With something called Google, it's very easy to look up almost any factual information. (of course, it's your right to post unresearched views. You are allowed to be irresponsible.)

 

unless a party has a super majority, they have no choice... if they want to get anything done... just reality

 

Trump is a lame duck President unless he works with dems

all Trump's EO's can all be revoked on day one of the next President

 

Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan are dead. So is any pretence that Democrats have the best interests of the citizens of the United States at the center of their hearts, or their minds. After watching their nauseating, anti-law, anti-American 'debates' this week, I see them as an enemy to every good thing this country has EVER stood for. F*ck ALL of them!

They all raised their hands to support giving EVERYTHING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, and trashing our laws!

They might as well have joined with Iran in chanting, "Death to America!"

 

What a shameful pile of worthless humanity. Shame on Joe Biden for pandering to them. If he's going to run he should run on who he has pretended to be all his career and see if he can breathe some life into a dormant Party.

 

Both sides should put away their agendas and just uphold the constitution.

 

I want the parties to work together. I don't want one party rule because neither party and no party has the right approach and the right answers for everything.

 

Incorrect in order for this nation to survive there should be no compromising on right versus wrong, anything else is a recipe for disaster.

 

Guns are not a problem, gays are their business and no one else's business and are not a social issue and abortions, unless needed to save the life of the mother are infanticide.

 

Then you don't understand the problems doing such will cause while solving nothing.

By this statement it becomes quite clear you know nothing about the regulations or event he correct terms surrounding suppressors.

So you support murdering another human because it might be inconvenient to raise such, that's truly sick.

 

I don't have a party and don't even approve of them. I like the gridlock. My desire is for less government. Gridlock doesn't shrink government but at least it slows its growth. I like things the way they are.

 

But the nature of human government is that the 'pendulum' always swings from one extreme to the other, in almost predictable 'cycles'.

 

How do you do that when everyone has a different personal interpretation on what's right vs wrong? Compromise is NECESSARY.

 

Anyone who supports making abortion a crime, and endangering every female in America with becoming a potential murderer, is far sicker.

 

Totally wrong, correct versus morally wrong is really not all that grey to people who have a properly working moral compass, it's only those who don't, who prefer compromise, so their version of what they feel is correct can be forced upon those who understand it is not.

And that is one of the major problem this country is facing, due to compromising what is wrong is becoming the new norm and as a result a once normal society is degrading into chaos and despair.

When anything goes, everything goes to H*** and all one has to do is look around at what is happening in the U.S. to confirm that is happening.

In a world of compromise real men and women, don't.

 

How can you possibly justify that ridiculous statement, banning abortions, other than those done to protect the mothers life, based on verifiable medical reasons, versus convenience is not endangering the female.

 

The problem with your post is that someone has to be responsible for determining what is "right" or "wrong." Who will do that? On what standards will that determination be made? What would be the source of those moral & ethical standards? What happens to those who don't fit into those standards?

I'm anxiously awaiting your response.

 

Most of those standards are already prescribed by the various laws and regulations that exist in this country.