Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, Jun 12, 2019.
O I dont want the status quo: I'll be wanting my rights back please and thank you.
Oh, and you do want the status quo. You and your rights.
I know lots of people on the "left" who own guns.
Yeah no, I want more than the status quo. I'll fight you to keep status quo, but I also want back the ground we've lost. I'll not stop or be satisfied with merely the status quo.
Look at you - STILL ignoring the fallacy of "negotiating" with the anti-gun left.
I know lots of people on the "right" who don't own guns....what does that mean?
Well......people on the right tend to have more "fears". They fear Muslims, Mexicans, socialists, blacks, the deep state, their Medicare taken away, George Soros....that makes them want a gun.
If there's no legitimate need to own gun for protection, why do we need more gun control laws?
What ground did you lose?
Whatever that means
Ain't that the truth!
Pray tell, exactly which currently existing firearm-related restrictions are you willing to give up and see repealed, in order for there to be any true negotiation?
Negotiation and compromise requires all participants to give up something they already have, rather than one party demanding more and more without relinquishing anything.
I explained it - your willful refusal to understand is on you.
I'm sorry - did you just avoid my question?
Yes, yes, you did.
Depending upon the state, the legal ability to purchase two or more firearms within a given thirty day period.
That's not how negotiation and compromise works. It is more a balance of wants and needs. If my mate wants a corvette and I want a minivan we may compromise with a sport utility. I may want a total ban on guns but I'll take less.
While at the same time refusing to give up anything that is already possessed. Thus it is not negotiation, nor is it compromise.
Demanding far-reaching firearm-related restrictions, in order to force the other side to accept certain limited concessions in the place of something far more extensive, is not negotiation, nor compromise. Such is not how either of those matters work.
Thank you for demonstrating you have no intention to compromise, as you have nothing to offer those who you seek to take from.
Pray tell, exactly what new regulations are you willing to accept because there must be changes. I am an ex-gun owner and am contemplating the purchase of a handgun for protection. However, I am not stupid enough to recognize that changes will be legislated
if there is no give on the part of gun owners. So agree to some basic **** and move on.
You two don't seem to understand what a compromise is. It is an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. So what is a concession? It is accepting something less than what you wanted.
So my statement above is a compromise.
Why should those who are ultimately being targeted for harassment be forced to accept anything, when there is nothing currently being offered to them?
Let the supporters of firearm-related restrictions offer up something first, to demonstrate their calls are indeed in good faith, and not in fact one more effort at plain harassment.
And what exactly does the other side get out of the deal, that serves as an incentive for them to even consider the discussion?
NFA, GCA, Hughes amendment, numerous state laws etc.
Here's a nice meme and if you want to learn more here's a nice article.
O that's the best part. Give him everything he wants or he'll use force to take it from you.
Separate names with a comma.