Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, 29 people died in a knife attack carried out by numerous individuals, with 130 wounded.

And if the attackers had had guns?

Conversely, what if Harris and Klebold only had access to knives?

Harris and Klebold probably would have killed a large number of people anyways, because they were armed in an area where no one else was. They actually might have killed more because it would have taken much longer for anyone to realize what was happening because there would be no gun shots.

Or they could do what they did, and get someone to purchase one for them.

Right because someone would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars to give someone else a fully automatic weapon? Oh wait no one did do that then like they could have. Also my proposal would have deeply reduced the chance of that but you ignored my proposal.

1. Who would you suggest be armed in that situation? The teachers? The principal? The other students? Without training, you're just asking for even more kids to be killed in the crossfire.

2. Yes, there are people who would do that without thinking twice. Your proposal might reduce, but not eliminate.

[Spirit of Hope]

And that someone was under 21. Would'nt have worked.

Fine, then get someone who is 21 to do it. Or steal it from a family member or a friend's family member who collects and stores them carelessly. Or any one of a number of ways that school shooters who had no legal right to possess a firearm managed to get their hands on one, anyway.

Why are you concentrating on school killings? As tragic as they are, they are only a fraction of all homicides in the US, what we should be trying to stop is the tens of thousands of murders that happen, not the dozens occasionally killed in large shootings.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I propose nothing. There's no reason to do so when dealing with a group that is willing to accept thousands of bloody deaths a year as a necessary sacrifice to protect their rights to hold on to their guns. It shows a set of priorities that I cannot begin to comprehend. When dealing with a group of people whose inherent sense of morality is so drastically different from one's own, it becomes impossible to negotiate, as no common ground can be found. Or perhaps it can, and someone with greater insight than me will discover it. That would be nice, but I'm not holding out any great hope.

Well feel free to keep reminiscing the pro gun side of the debate I suppose I mean that doesn't get us anywhere as far as I can see. I mean I'm trying to actually offer solutions that might help some. It seems like doing something is better than nothing is it not? Look I don't want to see innocent kids killed and I think expanded background checks could help some is it going to solve everything, of course not, we're still probably going to have to accept some level of gun homicides even Japan with the strictest gun laws has few gun deaths every year. But at least we can do more to keep guns out of the hands of those who everyone agrees shouldn't have them while at the same time letting people who are responsible and law abiding gun enthusiasts own and use more guns legally and responsibly at the same time. Again that's a win win.

Okay, you want a proposal? The only one that makes sense to me?

Outright ban all gun manufacture and sales in the United States, as well as the importation of firearms. This includes sales between individuals. Grandfather in all current legal owners. Firearms may be left to a beneficiary in a will, provided said beneficiary is willing to go through police-level training in the proper use of the firearm. If a firearm is used in a crime, once appeals run out, the firearm is to be destroyed under police supervision. The smuggling of firearms will be met with harsh penalties.

This allows people to keep their firearms, strictly limits their proliferation, and will, in time, severely limit the number of gun deaths that we see every year. Also, it will never, ever, pass through Congress or the Supreme Court, since we love our guns more than we love our fellow citizens.

I'm going to go to the store now. Back to hear your varied and numerous objections later.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Fine, then get someone who is 21 to do it. Or steal it from a family member or a friend's family member who collects and stores them carelessly. Or any one of a number of ways that school shooters who had no legal right to possess a firearm managed to get their hands on one, anyway.

Why are you concentrating on school killings? As tragic as they are, they are only a fraction of all homicides in the US, what we should be trying to stop is the tens of thousands of murders that happen, not the dozens occasionally killed in large shootings.

Oh, don't worry. I'd also like to see those guns off of the streets, as well.

[Llamalandia]

And that someone was under 21. Would'nt have worked.

Fine, then get someone who is 21 to do it. Or steal it from a family member or a friend's family member who collects and stores them carelessly. Or any one of a number of ways that school shooters who had no legal right to possess a firearm managed to get their hands on one, anyway.

Well short of confiscation how do you propose to effectively prevent this? I mean even when stored in safe or with trigger locks they can still be stolen. Short of outlawing and confiscating weapons I don't see how to totally prevent bad guys from getting a hold of guns. I mean even if we did that arguably between gun smiths and now 3d printers people could still make their own weapons. But I don't want to put words in your mouth so I ask how would you prevent bad guys from stealing guns from law abiding gun owners?

[Chernoslavia]

And that someone was under 21. Would'nt have worked.

Fine, then get someone who is 21 to do it. Or steal it from a family member or a friend's family member who collects and stores them carelessly. Or any one of a number of ways that school shooters who had no legal right to possess a firearm managed to get their hands on one, anyway.

Your out of excuses are you?

[Chernoslavia]

Why are you concentrating on school killings? As tragic as they are, they are only a fraction of all homicides in the US, what we should be trying to stop is the tens of thousands of murders that happen, not the dozens occasionally killed in large shootings.

Oh, don't worry. I'd also like to see those guns off of the streets, as well.

Yum, you'd like to see these guns off of civilian hands. Okay? We get it.

[Spirit of Hope]

Harris and Klebold probably would have killed a large number of people anyways, because they were armed in an area where no one else was. They actually might have killed more because it would have taken much longer for anyone to realize what was happening because there would be no gun shots.


Right because someone would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars to give someone else a fully automatic weapon? Oh wait no one did do that then like they could have. Also my proposal would have deeply reduced the chance of that but you ignored my proposal.

1. Who would you suggest be armed in that situation? The teachers? The principal? The other students? Without training, you're just asking for even more kids to be killed in the crossfire.

2. Yes, there are people who would do that without thinking twice. Your proposal might reduce, but not eliminate.

1) No easy answer. Some schools are having armed officers either at them or near by, but this isn't always workable. I'm just pointing out that no mater what you do their are ways to get around it. If someone wants to kill another enough they will manage it, either by making explosives, drugs, knives, or ramming with a car.

2) First they could have had someone get them a fully automatic weapon at the time, and yet that isn't what they carried the attack out with. Obviously the restrictions on such guns worked there. Now if we reduce illegal transfer of weapons by say 50% with my proposal, and their is even a 25% drop in gun crimes thats ~7,000 peoples lives we've just saved. Then we look at the data and try and find another solution that might actually work and prevent gun crimes.

[Llamalandia]

Well feel free to keep reminiscing the pro gun side of the debate I suppose I mean that doesn't get us anywhere as far as I can see. I mean I'm trying to actually offer solutions that might help some. It seems like doing something is better than nothing is it not? Look I don't want to see innocent kids killed and I think expanded background checks could help some is it going to solve everything, of course not, we're still probably going to have to accept some level of gun homicides even Japan with the strictest gun laws has few gun deaths every year. But at least we can do more to keep guns out of the hands of those who everyone agrees shouldn't have them while at the same time letting people who are responsible and law abiding gun enthusiasts own and use more guns legally and responsibly at the same time. Again that's a win win.

Okay, you want a proposal? The only one that makes sense to me?

Outright ban all gun manufacture and sales in the United States, as well as the importation of firearms. This includes sales between individuals. Grandfather in all current legal owners. Firearms may be left to a beneficiary in a will, provided said beneficiary is willing to go through police-level training in the proper use of the firearm. If a firearm is used in a crime, once appeals run out, the firearm is to be destroyed under police supervision. The smuggling of firearms will be met with harsh penalties.

This allows people to keep their firearms, strictly limits their proliferation, and will, in time, severely limit the number of gun deaths that we see every year. Also, it will never, ever, pass through Congress or the Supreme Court, since we love our guns more than we love our fellow citizens.

I'm going to go to the store now. Back to hear your varied and numerous objections later.

Well actually the hint about destroying guns used in crimes I'm entirely opposed to. At least in the most horrific cases I can understand the impulse whether rational or not to get destroy a weapon that was used to commit such a tragedy and is obviously charge with emotional for many people. I'd say more minor gun crimes it would make more sense for the govt to sell off the guns rather than destroy them. And yes as I believe even you realize nonproliferation isn't reasonable to apply to guns. They're not nukes there personal weapons.

At least you seem to realize that what you're asking for here would never pass and would never be accepted even if it did somehow (short of perhaps a repeal of the 2nd amendment which is even less likely).

Given that you realize that your position is pretty much a futile effort, what would you propose that you think both sides might be able to actually agree to. I mean I think my proposal and soc bio's proposals aren't unreasonable nor as untenable as your proposal, so I would ask what else you might propose instead. At least you seem to be open to negotiation and compromise so I give you that. Hopefully we can find more common ground here. For instance as I said I'm not entirely opposed to possibly allowing guns used in Crimes to be destroyed, but to ban the manufacture or sale or importation of new weapons strikes me as completely unreasonable. I mean essentially this would aside from the grandfather clause be more restrictive legislation than even the Japanese gun and sword law.

Plus technically you realize a few grenade launchers would still be legal under your proposal ?

I mean I'm seriously trying to find a common ground settlement that might actually work in practice, so I suppose the better question to ask you is what practical proposal would you make to help solve the gun violence problem I the United States?

[Llamalandia]

1. Who would you suggest be armed in that situation? The teachers? The principal? The other students? Without training, you're just asking for even more kids to be killed in the crossfire.

2. Yes, there are people who would do that without thinking twice. Your proposal might reduce, but not eliminate.

1) No easy answer. Some schools are having armed officers either at them or near by, but this isn't always workable. I'm just pointing out that no mater what you do their are ways to get around it. If someone wants to kill another enough they will manage it, either by making explosives, drugs, knives, or ramming with a car.

2) First they could have had someone get them a fully automatic weapon at the time, and yet that isn't what they carried the attack out with. Obviously the restrictions on such guns worked there. Now if we reduce illegal transfer of weapons by say 50% with my proposal, and their is even a 25% drop in gun crimes thats ~7,000 peoples lives we've just saved. Then we look at the data and try and find another solution that might actually work and prevent gun crimes.

2) sorry what exactly was your proposal again I must have missed it perhaps you could point me to your post which contains it thanx

[Spirit of Hope]

1) No easy answer. Some schools are having armed officers either at them or near by, but this isn't always workable. I'm just pointing out that no mater what you do their are ways to get around it. If someone wants to kill another enough they will manage it, either by making explosives, drugs, knives, or ramming with a car.

2) First they could have had someone get them a fully automatic weapon at the time, and yet that isn't what they carried the attack out with. Obviously the restrictions on such guns worked there. Now if we reduce illegal transfer of weapons by say 50% with my proposal, and their is even a 25% drop in gun crimes thats ~7,000 peoples lives we've just saved. Then we look at the data and try and find another solution that might actually work and prevent gun crimes.

2) sorry what exactly was your proposal again I must have missed it perhaps you could point me to your post which contains it thanx

My proposal was simply that all firearms transactions must go through a licensed dealer who must perform a background check on the involved parties. To give it more sting any person who illegally transfers ownership of a fire arm can be liable for what is done with that fire arm, even if they had no knowledge of how it was to be used.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay, you want a proposal? The only one that makes sense to me?

Outright ban all gun manufacture and sales in the United States, as well as the importation of firearms. This includes sales between individuals. Grandfather in all current legal owners. Firearms may be left to a beneficiary in a will, provided said beneficiary is willing to go through police-level training in the proper use of the firearm. If a firearm is used in a crime, once appeals run out, the firearm is to be destroyed under police supervision. The smuggling of firearms will be met with harsh penalties.

This allows people to keep their firearms, strictly limits their proliferation, and will, in time, severely limit the number of gun deaths that we see every year. Also, it will never, ever, pass through Congress or the Supreme Court, since we love our guns more than we love our fellow citizens.

I'm going to go to the store now. Back to hear your varied and numerous objections later.

Well actually the hint about destroying guns used in crimes I'm entirely opposed to. At least in the most horrific cases I can understand the impulse whether rational or not to get destroy a weapon that was used to commit such a tragedy and is obviously charge with emotional for many people. I'd say more minor gun crimes it would make more sense for the govt to sell off the guns rather than destroy them. And yes as I believe even you realize nonproliferation isn't reasonable to apply to guns. They're not nukes there personal weapons.

At least you seem to realize that what you're asking for here would never pass and would never be accepted even if it did somehow (short of perhaps a repeal of the 2nd amendment which is even less likely).

Given that you realize that your position is pretty much a futile effort, what would you propose that you think both sides might be able to actually agree to. I mean I think my proposal and soc bio's proposals aren't unreasonable nor as untenable as your proposal, so I would ask what else you might propose instead. At least you seem to be open to negotiation and compromise so I give you that. Hopefully we can find more common ground here. For instance as I said I'm not entirely opposed to possibly allowing guns used in Crimes to be destroyed, but to ban the manufacture or sale or importation of new weapons strikes me as completely unreasonable. I mean essentially this would aside from the grandfather clause be more restrictive legislation than even the Japanese gun and sword law.

Plus technically you realize a few grenade launchers would still be legal under your proposal ?

I mean I'm seriously trying to find a common ground settlement that might actually work in practice, so I suppose the better question to ask you is what practical proposal would you make to help solve the gun violence problem I the United States?

The destruction of firearms wouldn't be an emotional response so much as a practical one designed to ensure that one more gun would be out of circulation.

Are grenade launchers currently legal? If not, I'm not sure why that would change.

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

[Llamalandia]

Well actually the hint about destroying guns used in crimes I'm entirely opposed to. At least in the most horrific cases I can understand the impulse whether rational or not to get destroy a weapon that was used to commit such a tragedy and is obviously charge with emotional for many people. I'd say more minor gun crimes it would make more sense for the govt to sell off the guns rather than destroy them. And yes as I believe even you realize nonproliferation isn't reasonable to apply to guns. They're not nukes there personal weapons.

At least you seem to realize that what you're asking for here would never pass and would never be accepted even if it did somehow (short of perhaps a repeal of the 2nd amendment which is even less likely).

Given that you realize that your position is pretty much a futile effort, what would you propose that you think both sides might be able to actually agree to. I mean I think my proposal and soc bio's proposals aren't unreasonable nor as untenable as your proposal, so I would ask what else you might propose instead. At least you seem to be open to negotiation and compromise so I give you that. Hopefully we can find more common ground here. For instance as I said I'm not entirely opposed to possibly allowing guns used in Crimes to be destroyed, but to ban the manufacture or sale or importation of new weapons strikes me as completely unreasonable. I mean essentially this would aside from the grandfather clause be more restrictive legislation than even the Japanese gun and sword law.

Plus technically you realize a few grenade launchers would still be legal under your proposal ?

I mean I'm seriously trying to find a common ground settlement that might actually work in practice, so I suppose the better question to ask you is what practical proposal would you make to help solve the gun violence problem I the United States?

The destruction of firearms wouldn't be an emotional response so much as a practical one designed to ensure that one more gun would be out of circulation.

Are grenade launchers currently legal? If not, I'm not sure why that would change.

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

Yes at least some are though each grenade round has a $200 tax to transfer. In fact an underslung grenade launcher is listed as one of the defining optional features of an assault weapon at least in some state level awb bans and Was also a part of the federal assault weapons ban or rather even just the ability to mount an underslung grenade launcher. But yes they are legal.

Yes i realized that you meant that guns would be destroyed as part of an effort to remove the total amount of guns in circulation. But as I said and you yourself seemed to realize that's not a reasonable position for most people. I was essentially saying as a counter proposal that yeah some guns used in crimes might be worth destroying so at least some of the most criminally effective weapons might be reduced (though that would depend on how popular they are with law abiding citizens as well) and more importantly it might help bring emotional closure to the friends/family of gun victims. I'm trying to show that I'm not in fact unreasonable or unwilling to try and compromise and negotiate in fair and evenhanded way.

So again I ask what reasonable proposal that would benefit both gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates a like would you proffer for consideration?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The destruction of firearms wouldn't be an emotional response so much as a practical one designed to ensure that one more gun would be out of circulation.

Are grenade launchers currently legal? If not, I'm not sure why that would change.

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

Yes at least some are though each grenade round has a $200 tax to transfer. In fact an underslung grenade launcher is listed as one of the defining optional features of an assault weapon at least in some state level awb bans and Was also a part of the federal assault weapons ban or rather even just the ability to mount an underslung grenade launcher. But yes they are legal.

Yes i realized that you meant that guns would be destroyed as part of an effort to remove the total amount of guns in circulation. But as I said and you yourself seemed to realize that's not a reasonable position for most people. I was essentially saying as a counter proposal that yeah some guns used in crimes might be worth destroying so at least some of the most criminally effective weapons might be reduced (though that would depend on how popular they are with law abiding citizens as well) and more importantly it might help bring emotional closure to the friends/family of gun victims. I'm trying to show that I'm not in fact unreasonable or unwilling to try and compromise and negotiate in fair and evenhanded way.

So again I ask what reasonable proposal that would benefit both gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates a like would you proffer for consideration?

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

[Llamalandia]

Well actually the hint about destroying guns used in crimes I'm entirely opposed to. At least in the most horrific cases I can understand the impulse whether rational or not to get destroy a weapon that was used to commit such a tragedy and is obviously charge with emotional for many people. I'd say more minor gun crimes it would make more sense for the govt to sell off the guns rather than destroy them. And yes as I believe even you realize nonproliferation isn't reasonable to apply to guns. They're not nukes there personal weapons.

At least you seem to realize that what you're asking for here would never pass and would never be accepted even if it did somehow (short of perhaps a repeal of the 2nd amendment which is even less likely).

Given that you realize that your position is pretty much a futile effort, what would you propose that you think both sides might be able to actually agree to. I mean I think my proposal and soc bio's proposals aren't unreasonable nor as untenable as your proposal, so I would ask what else you might propose instead. At least you seem to be open to negotiation and compromise so I give you that. Hopefully we can find more common ground here. For instance as I said I'm not entirely opposed to possibly allowing guns used in Crimes to be destroyed, but to ban the manufacture or sale or importation of new weapons strikes me as completely unreasonable. I mean essentially this would aside from the grandfather clause be more restrictive legislation than even the Japanese gun and sword law.

Plus technically you realize a few grenade launchers would still be legal under your proposal ?

I mean I'm seriously trying to find a common ground settlement that might actually work in practice, so I suppose the better question to ask you is what practical proposal would you make to help solve the gun violence problem I the United States?

The destruction of firearms wouldn't be an emotional response so much as a practical one designed to ensure that one more gun would be out of circulation.

Are grenade launchers currently legal? If not, I'm not sure why that would change.

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

Look, I can tell that you obviously have deep convictions and strong passions related to this topic as do I. I can understand and appreciate that and your position on the issue. What I would ask is that given that we both realize what youre currently asking for would essentially require repeal of the second amendment (which while not impossible is so highly improbable as to be nearly impossible in practice) that you at least consider alternatives that while not giving you everything you want at least give both sides something.

I mean part of the reason I proposed expanded background checks in exchange for for full auto fire, is that in fact I believe this is something that both gun enthusiasts gun lobbyist and perhaps most importantly gun manufactures could accept in fact might actually be eager even giddy about accepting.

Given that grandfather machine guns as I recall generally now start at, at least 10k for even models in poor condition and go up from there, clearly there is a demand in the market which far outstrips supply. This would be a massive windfall for the gun makers even selling at considerably lower price points given the pure volume they could do. Plus fully automatic weapons really don't pose much more if any danger than semi auto weapons. Additionally, with expanded background checks and a more robust system less criminals would be able to purchase weapons and would be forced into trying to steal them. This wouldn't take all guns off the streets but it would likely at least catch some of those violently mentally ill person and stop them from purchasing weapons, and may even deter some criminals who are willing to roll the dice (illegal attempts to buy are almost never prosecuted currently) from trying to obtain weapons through dealers.

Now as to keeping guns off the streets, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by that. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of criminals I don't think anyone here would object to that goal. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of lawabiding civilians (ie non-leo nonmilitary non-security company private adult citizen owners) then yeah, were going to fundamentally disagree. But there are ways to prevent lawful gun owners weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, for instances education on safety, gps tech, smart gun tech, and locked gun storage could all potentially be a part of a reasonable compromise solution. Is it perfect, I doubt it. Is it a better solution than essentially ban new guns from entering the market and slowly weeding out grandfathered weapons by attrition as you propose, I certainly think so.

Like I said, I know, I don't think youre an unreasonable person, I know we've had numerous disagreements even heated exchanges in the past, but I really think that there is a potential for finding agreement between us on this issue, so I'm asking to help me out here and find some reasonable exchange of concessions you think each side might be willing to at least consider making.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The destruction of firearms wouldn't be an emotional response so much as a practical one designed to ensure that one more gun would be out of circulation.

Are grenade launchers currently legal? If not, I'm not sure why that would change.

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

Look, I can tell that you obviously have deep convictions and strong passions related to this topic as do I. I can understand and appreciate that and your position on the issue. What I would ask is that given that we both realize what youre currently asking for would essentially require repeal of the second amendment (which while not impossible is so highly improbable as to be nearly impossible in practice) that you at least consider alternatives that while not giving you everything you want at least give both sides something.

I mean part of the reason I proposed expanded background checks in exchange for for full auto fire, is that in fact I believe this is something that both gun enthusiasts gun lobbyist and perhaps most importantly gun manufactures could accept in fact might actually be eager even giddy about accepting.

Given that grandfather machine guns as I recall generally now start at, at least 10k for even models in poor condition and go up from there, clearly there is a demand in the market which far outstrips supply. This would be a massive windfall for the gun makers even selling at considerably lower price points given the pure volume they could do. Plus fully automatic weapons really don't pose much more if any danger than semi auto weapons. Additionally, with expanded background checks and a more robust system less criminals would be able to purchase weapons and would be forced into trying to steal them. This wouldn't take all guns off the streets but it would likely at least catch some of those violently mentally ill person and stop them from purchasing weapons, and may even deter some criminals who are willing to roll the dice (illegal attempts to buy are almost never prosecuted currently) from trying to obtain weapons through dealers.

Now as to keeping guns off the streets, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by that. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of criminals I don't think anyone here would object to that goal. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of lawabiding civilians (ie non-leo nonmilitary non-security company private adult citizen owners) then yeah, were going to fundamentally disagree. But there are ways to prevent lawful gun owners weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, for instances education on safety, gps tech, smart gun tech, and locked gun storage could all potentially be a part of a reasonable compromise solution. Is it perfect, I doubt it. Is it a better solution than essentially ban new guns from entering the market and slowly weeding out grandfathered weapons by attrition as you propose, I certainly think so.

Like I said, I know, I don't think youre an unreasonable person, I know we've had numerous disagreements even heated exchanges in the past, but I really think that there is a potential for finding agreement between us on this issue, so I'm asking to help me out here and find some reasonable exchange of concessions you think each side might be willing to at least consider making.

Here's the agreement:

Keep on fighting for your rights to own weapons designed to kill. Let the unintended yet inevitable consequences occur, and the chips fall where they may. Let the bodies pile up, one on top of the other, till the air is thick with blood and rotting flesh, adults, children, the elderly, the innocent and the guilty, those who knew what they were getting into and those caught in the crossfire as they were going to the store. Look at the results of hundreds of years of fetishistic gun worship on the part of our nation while the rest of the Western world slowly began to understand the horrors of having these things readily available. Keep making these sacrifices. Keep the blood endlessly flowing, the carnage constantly appearing on the news till we're numb to it. Because I give up.

There is no compromise short of completely ending this disastrous gun policy, since nothing else keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

Any more "reasonable" proposal would be bereft of all reason, since it would do nothing to end or even lower the level of gun violence.

The proposal that I gave was the compromise. The other alternative would be confiscation and reimbursement, and the only reason that I'm not proposing that is due to the bloodshed that would inevitably result from self-styled constitutionalists and patriots unwilling to give up their weapons.

[Llamalandia]

Look, I can tell that you obviously have deep convictions and strong passions related to this topic as do I. I can understand and appreciate that and your position on the issue. What I would ask is that given that we both realize what youre currently asking for would essentially require repeal of the second amendment (which while not impossible is so highly improbable as to be nearly impossible in practice) that you at least consider alternatives that while not giving you everything you want at least give both sides something.

I mean part of the reason I proposed expanded background checks in exchange for for full auto fire, is that in fact I believe this is something that both gun enthusiasts gun lobbyist and perhaps most importantly gun manufactures could accept in fact might actually be eager even giddy about accepting.

Given that grandfather machine guns as I recall generally now start at, at least 10k for even models in poor condition and go up from there, clearly there is a demand in the market which far outstrips supply. This would be a massive windfall for the gun makers even selling at considerably lower price points given the pure volume they could do. Plus fully automatic weapons really don't pose much more if any danger than semi auto weapons. Additionally, with expanded background checks and a more robust system less criminals would be able to purchase weapons and would be forced into trying to steal them. This wouldn't take all guns off the streets but it would likely at least catch some of those violently mentally ill person and stop them from purchasing weapons, and may even deter some criminals who are willing to roll the dice (illegal attempts to buy are almost never prosecuted currently) from trying to obtain weapons through dealers.

Now as to keeping guns off the streets, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by that. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of criminals I don't think anyone here would object to that goal. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of lawabiding civilians (ie non-leo nonmilitary non-security company private adult citizen owners) then yeah, were going to fundamentally disagree. But there are ways to prevent lawful gun owners weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, for instances education on safety, gps tech, smart gun tech, and locked gun storage could all potentially be a part of a reasonable compromise solution. Is it perfect, I doubt it. Is it a better solution than essentially ban new guns from entering the market and slowly weeding out grandfathered weapons by attrition as you propose, I certainly think so.

Like I said, I know, I don't think youre an unreasonable person, I know we've had numerous disagreements even heated exchanges in the past, but I really think that there is a potential for finding agreement between us on this issue, so I'm asking to help me out here and find some reasonable exchange of concessions you think each side might be willing to at least consider making.

Here's the agreement:

Keep on fighting for your rights to own weapons designed to kill. Let the unintended yet inevitable consequences occur, and the chips fall where they may. Let the bodies pile up, one on top of the other, till the air is thick with blood and rotting flesh, adults, children, the elderly, the innocent and the guilty, those who knew what they were getting into and those caught in the crossfire as they were going to the store. Look at the results of hundreds of years of fetishistic gun worship on the part of our nation while the rest of the Western world slowly began to understand the horrors of having these things readily available. Keep making these sacrifices. Keep the blood endlessly flowing, the carnage constantly appearing on the news till we're numb to it. Because I give up.

There is no compromise short of completely ending this disastrous gun policy, since nothing else keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

Any more "reasonable" proposal would be bereft of all reason, since it would do nothing to end or even lower the level of gun violence.

The proposal that I gave was the compromise. The other alternative would be confiscation and reimbursement, and the only reason that I'm not proposing that is due to the bloodshed that would inevitably result from self-styled constitutionalists and patriots unwilling to give up their weapons.

umm wow, again, as I said I think youre a reasonable person and I certainly hope your aren't trying to deliberately prove me wrong on that particular point. Of course if you are I believe that the communists have a saying about how capitalist will be hung by their own rope. I would suggest that this post would clearly be your metaphorical rope so to speak.

Look, quite frankly 10,000 deaths out of 300,000,000 people quite frankly isn't that bad. That's not to minimize the impact but if youre hoping that somehow this nation is going literally tear itself apart with guns until it turns into some sort of post apocalyptic mad max hellscape, I think it's safe to say that you are in fact in error. The bodies aren't going to "pile up" as you put it.

But that's just it there are. Lots of countries have tighter gun controls than the united states some work some don't. Some of this has nothing even to do with guns. Even if every gun on the planet were destroyed tomorrow and no new weapons were produced there would still be murders and stabbings and death and carnage in the world. Hell war existed before guns did.

I mean you say that progun folks are totally unreasonable and unwilling to comrpomise but which of us is the one who has a position of essentially demanding everything they want while conceding very little if anything. It's clearly not me.

[Llamalandia]

Look, I can tell that you obviously have deep convictions and strong passions related to this topic as do I. I can understand and appreciate that and your position on the issue. What I would ask is that given that we both realize what youre currently asking for would essentially require repeal of the second amendment (which while not impossible is so highly improbable as to be nearly impossible in practice) that you at least consider alternatives that while not giving you everything you want at least give both sides something.

I mean part of the reason I proposed expanded background checks in exchange for for full auto fire, is that in fact I believe this is something that both gun enthusiasts gun lobbyist and perhaps most importantly gun manufactures could accept in fact might actually be eager even giddy about accepting.

Given that grandfather machine guns as I recall generally now start at, at least 10k for even models in poor condition and go up from there, clearly there is a demand in the market which far outstrips supply. This would be a massive windfall for the gun makers even selling at considerably lower price points given the pure volume they could do. Plus fully automatic weapons really don't pose much more if any danger than semi auto weapons. Additionally, with expanded background checks and a more robust system less criminals would be able to purchase weapons and would be forced into trying to steal them. This wouldn't take all guns off the streets but it would likely at least catch some of those violently mentally ill person and stop them from purchasing weapons, and may even deter some criminals who are willing to roll the dice (illegal attempts to buy are almost never prosecuted currently) from trying to obtain weapons through dealers.

Now as to keeping guns off the streets, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by that. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of criminals I don't think anyone here would object to that goal. If you mean keeping them out of the hands of lawabiding civilians (ie non-leo nonmilitary non-security company private adult citizen owners) then yeah, were going to fundamentally disagree. But there are ways to prevent lawful gun owners weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, for instances education on safety, gps tech, smart gun tech, and locked gun storage could all potentially be a part of a reasonable compromise solution. Is it perfect, I doubt it. Is it a better solution than essentially ban new guns from entering the market and slowly weeding out grandfathered weapons by attrition as you propose, I certainly think so.

Like I said, I know, I don't think youre an unreasonable person, I know we've had numerous disagreements even heated exchanges in the past, but I really think that there is a potential for finding agreement between us on this issue, so I'm asking to help me out here and find some reasonable exchange of concessions you think each side might be willing to at least consider making.

Here's the agreement:

Keep on fighting for your rights to own weapons designed to kill. Let the unintended yet inevitable consequences occur, and the chips fall where they may. Let the bodies pile up, one on top of the other, till the air is thick with blood and rotting flesh, adults, children, the elderly, the innocent and the guilty, those who knew what they were getting into and those caught in the crossfire as they were going to the store. Look at the results of hundreds of years of fetishistic gun worship on the part of our nation while the rest of the Western world slowly began to understand the horrors of having these things readily available. Keep making these sacrifices. Keep the blood endlessly flowing, the carnage constantly appearing on the news till we're numb to it. Because I give up.

There is no compromise short of completely ending this disastrous gun policy, since nothing else keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

Any more "reasonable" proposal would be bereft of all reason, since it would do nothing to end or even lower the level of gun violence.

The proposal that I gave was the compromise. The other alternative would be confiscation and reimbursement, and the only reason that I'm not proposing that is due to the bloodshed that would inevitably result from self-styled constitutionalists and patriots unwilling to give up their weapons.

See this is the thing, I don't want to just "let the chips fall...or let the bodies pile up" I want to reach across the battle lines and engage in a real and meaningful dialogue designed to at least reduce and mitigate the casualities and at the same time preserve a long cherished and much enjoyed right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes in this country. I would hope that you would largely feel the same way.

If not, then I must say, that you are unfortunately far less reasonable a person than I had previously thought much to my disappointment and sadness. And if that's the case then yes, quite frankly if you are as unreasonable and inflexible as the above post implies and if you represent even a sliver of the gun control advocates, then unfortunately I can begin to comprehend the absolute hardline stance taken by the progun people like wayne lapierre who are so often demonized as inflexible and uncompromising.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Here's the agreement:

Keep on fighting for your rights to own weapons designed to kill. Let the unintended yet inevitable consequences occur, and the chips fall where they may. Let the bodies pile up, one on top of the other, till the air is thick with blood and rotting flesh, adults, children, the elderly, the innocent and the guilty, those who knew what they were getting into and those caught in the crossfire as they were going to the store. Look at the results of hundreds of years of fetishistic gun worship on the part of our nation while the rest of the Western world slowly began to understand the horrors of having these things readily available. Keep making these sacrifices. Keep the blood endlessly flowing, the carnage constantly appearing on the news till we're numb to it. Because I give up.

There is no compromise short of completely ending this disastrous gun policy, since nothing else keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

Any more "reasonable" proposal would be bereft of all reason, since it would do nothing to end or even lower the level of gun violence.

The proposal that I gave was the compromise. The other alternative would be confiscation and reimbursement, and the only reason that I'm not proposing that is due to the bloodshed that would inevitably result from self-styled constitutionalists and patriots unwilling to give up their weapons.

umm wow, again, as I said I think youre a reasonable person and I certainly hope your aren't trying to deliberately prove me wrong on that particular point. Of course if you are I believe that the communists have a saying about how capitalist will be hung by their own rope. I would suggest that this post would clearly be your metaphorical rope so to speak.

Look, quite frankly 10,000 deaths out of 300,000,000 people quite frankly isn't that bad. That's not to minimize the impact but if youre hoping that somehow this nation is going literally tear itself apart with guns until it turns into some sort of post apocalyptic mad max hellscape, I think it's safe to say that you are in fact in error. The bodies aren't going to "pile up" as you put it.

But that's just it there are. Lots of countries have tighter gun controls than the united states some work some don't. Some of this has nothing even to do with guns. Even if every gun on the planet were destroyed tomorrow and no new weapons were produced there would still be murders and stabbings and death and carnage in the world. Hell war existed before guns did.

I mean you say that progun folks are totally unreasonable and unwilling to comrpomise but which of us is the one who has a position of essentially demanding everything they want while conceding very little if anything. It's clearly not me.

See this is the thing, I don't want to just "let the chips fall...or let the bodies pile up" I want to reach across the battle lines and engage in a real and meaningful dialogue designed to at least reduce and mitigate the casualities and at the same time preserve a long cherished and much enjoyed right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes in this country. I would hope that you would largely feel the same way.

If not, then I must say, that you are unfortunately far less reasonable a person than I had previously thought much to my disappointment and sadness. And if that's the case then yes, quite frankly if you are as unreasonable and inflexible as the above post implies and if you represent even a sliver of the gun control advocates, then unfortunately I can begin to comprehend the absolute hardline stance taken by the progun people like wayne lapierre who are so often demonized as inflexible and uncompromising.

To hell with real and meaningful dialogue. When one side is so right and the other side is so wrong, there's nothing to talk about.

It's like if my neighbor had a giant stockpile of napalm in his basement, and took it out to burn shit down once a week, and I complained. So my neighbor responds "Well, I have a right to this napalm, but I'll tell you what. As part of a deal, because I want to be reasonable, I'll limit the burnings to once every other week, and give you a heads up." That's ridiculous. The only reasonable answer when it comes to keeping the neighborhood safe is to get rid of the napalm, or at least to make sure that he doesn't use it at all.

Similarly, the only reasonable way to limit gun deaths in the United States involves actually getting the guns off of the streets on the federal level. However, there's no way that the gun rights crowd will be willing to accept that, and since they have such an incredible amount of pull in politics, that's never going to happen. So there's no use in negotiating anything.

Oh, and I'll try to live with your disappointment in me.

[Riftend]

Arguments I often hear for no gun control:

1. Guns don't kill people, People kill people!
People with guns kill many more people than a person without a gun. Being able to shoot 10 people dead before the guy to your left has finished beating someone to death with a bat. Guns may not kill people but they are a tool used by men to kill people at a much faster rate than what they could without a gun!

2. But if everyone was armed we would be able to stop murders with guns!
If that's true why is it trained enforcers of the law in situations like that often freeze up and don't take the shot; not to mention some redneck with a pistol.

3. We have laws that we can enforce!
There minimal and riddled with loopholes that people get through. Ignoreing how poorly written they are you also must understand they do not restrict people from owning guns...the ultimate point of gun laws.

4. If we restrict guns only criminals will have them!
It's not that we are going to make guns disappere from the face of the earth. It's that you make it harder for criminals to get hold of the guns. Make it harder for the crazy person to get a gun and go on a shooting spree.

5. But the constitution...
All things are made to be edited as time goes on. When the constitution was written it wasn't intended so everyone could walk around with a damn gun in there pocket.

6. Widespread gun ownership stop tyranny!
Oh does it? let me direct your eyes to syria....or egypt....Guns give people the ability to do whatever they deem fit without recognising the concequences on another party. Not to mention not everyone is stable enough to be wielding a firearm!

7. We don't want them!
Search up opinion polls and they show quite clearly majorites stating they wish for resstriction. Even more clealrly they wish assult wepones to be banned. Heres some proof (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0 ... n-society/)

------------------------------------------

Ultiamtly 30,000 americans are killed every year due to gun violence....a large price to play so you can feel like a cowboy -.-

[Llamalandia]

umm wow, again, as I said I think youre a reasonable person and I certainly hope your aren't trying to deliberately prove me wrong on that particular point. Of course if you are I believe that the communists have a saying about how capitalist will be hung by their own rope. I would suggest that this post would clearly be your metaphorical rope so to speak.

Look, quite frankly 10,000 deaths out of 300,000,000 people quite frankly isn't that bad. That's not to minimize the impact but if youre hoping that somehow this nation is going literally tear itself apart with guns until it turns into some sort of post apocalyptic mad max hellscape, I think it's safe to say that you are in fact in error. The bodies aren't going to "pile up" as you put it.

But that's just it there are. Lots of countries have tighter gun controls than the united states some work some don't. Some of this has nothing even to do with guns. Even if every gun on the planet were destroyed tomorrow and no new weapons were produced there would still be murders and stabbings and death and carnage in the world. Hell war existed before guns did.

I mean you say that progun folks are totally unreasonable and unwilling to comrpomise but which of us is the one who has a position of essentially demanding everything they want while conceding very little if anything. It's clearly not me.

See this is the thing, I don't want to just "let the chips fall...or let the bodies pile up" I want to reach across the battle lines and engage in a real and meaningful dialogue designed to at least reduce and mitigate the casualities and at the same time preserve a long cherished and much enjoyed right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes in this country. I would hope that you would largely feel the same way.

If not, then I must say, that you are unfortunately far less reasonable a person than I had previously thought much to my disappointment and sadness. And if that's the case then yes, quite frankly if you are as unreasonable and inflexible as the above post implies and if you represent even a sliver of the gun control advocates, then unfortunately I can begin to comprehend the absolute hardline stance taken by the progun people like wayne lapierre who are so often demonized as inflexible and uncompromising.

To hell with real and meaningful dialogue. When one side is so right and the other side is so wrong, there's nothing to talk about.

It's like if my neighbor had a giant stockpile of napalm in his basement, and took it out to burn shit down once a week, and I complained. So my neighbor responds "Well, I have a right to this napalm, but I'll tell you what. As part of a deal, because I want to be reasonable, I'll limit the burnings to once every other week, and give you a heads up." That's ridiculous. The only reasonable answer when it comes to keeping the neighborhood safe is to get rid of the napalm, or at least to make sure that he doesn't use it at all.

Similarly, the only reasonable way to limit gun deaths in the United States involves actually getting the guns off of the streets on the federal level. However, there's no way that the gun rights crowd will be willing to accept that, and since they have such an incredible amount of pull in politics, that's never going to happen. So there's no use in negotiating anything.

Oh, and I'll try to live with your disappointment in me.

Well, no ok, try and set aside for a moment your philosophical objections. I mean, i would prefer an absolutely (or very nearly so) unrestricted right to gun ownership in this country. I believe that would be consistent with the 2nd amendment. But i know that won't happen anytime soon, and likely will never happen. It's a matter of being pragmatic, surely youre at least as capable of that as I am. Given that your desired goal of 0 guns on the streets and what i presume is zero gun deaths if not zero homicides period is obviously unrealistic I ask you to consider what reasonable pragmatism could agree to. I believe I and others here have offered some such proposals and are now waiting to here whether you either agree with us on their pragmatic merits or what resonable practical counter proposals you would offer instead.

I'm not unwilling to consider new ideas, and creative solutions to the problem, what I don't think anyone wants to hear is "I'm right and youre wrong and I won't change no matter what, just give me what I want". I don't think that's where this discussion is at.

SO again, I ask you to cnsider from a pragmatic perspective what you would accept offer or otherwise propose to mitigate the gun violence problem, realizing that no solution not even confiscating and destroying every gun in the world is gonna solve the problem of all violent crime, what you would like to see happen and what you would pragmatic solutions you would propose.

[Llamalandia]

umm wow, again, as I said I think youre a reasonable person and I certainly hope your aren't trying to deliberately prove me wrong on that particular point. Of course if you are I believe that the communists have a saying about how capitalist will be hung by their own rope. I would suggest that this post would clearly be your metaphorical rope so to speak.

Look, quite frankly 10,000 deaths out of 300,000,000 people quite frankly isn't that bad. That's not to minimize the impact but if youre hoping that somehow this nation is going literally tear itself apart with guns until it turns into some sort of post apocalyptic mad max hellscape, I think it's safe to say that you are in fact in error. The bodies aren't going to "pile up" as you put it.

But that's just it there are. Lots of countries have tighter gun controls than the united states some work some don't. Some of this has nothing even to do with guns. Even if every gun on the planet were destroyed tomorrow and no new weapons were produced there would still be murders and stabbings and death and carnage in the world. Hell war existed before guns did.

I mean you say that progun folks are totally unreasonable and unwilling to comrpomise but which of us is the one who has a position of essentially demanding everything they want while conceding very little if anything. It's clearly not me.

See this is the thing, I don't want to just "let the chips fall...or let the bodies pile up" I want to reach across the battle lines and engage in a real and meaningful dialogue designed to at least reduce and mitigate the casualities and at the same time preserve a long cherished and much enjoyed right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes in this country. I would hope that you would largely feel the same way.

If not, then I must say, that you are unfortunately far less reasonable a person than I had previously thought much to my disappointment and sadness. And if that's the case then yes, quite frankly if you are as unreasonable and inflexible as the above post implies and if you represent even a sliver of the gun control advocates, then unfortunately I can begin to comprehend the absolute hardline stance taken by the progun people like wayne lapierre who are so often demonized as inflexible and uncompromising.

To hell with real and meaningful dialogue. When one side is so right and the other side is so wrong, there's nothing to talk about.

It's like if my neighbor had a giant stockpile of napalm in his basement, and took it out to burn shit down once a week, and I complained. So my neighbor responds "Well, I have a right to this napalm, but I'll tell you what. As part of a deal, because I want to be reasonable, I'll limit the burnings to once every other week, and give you a heads up." That's ridiculous. The only reasonable answer when it comes to keeping the neighborhood safe is to get rid of the napalm, or at least to make sure that he doesn't use it at all.

Similarly, the only reasonable way to limit gun deaths in the United States involves actually getting the guns off of the streets on the federal level. However, there's no way that the gun rights crowd will be willing to accept that, and since they have such an incredible amount of pull in politics, that's never going to happen. So there's no use in negotiating anything.

Oh, and I'll try to live with your disappointment in me.

Also not to be a jerk but . I mean, seriously even Wayne Lapierre doesn't talk like this.

[Llamalandia]

Arguments I often hear for no gun control:

1. Guns don't kill people, People kill people!
People with guns kill many more people than a person without a gun. Being able to shoot 10 people dead before the guy to your left has finished beating someone to death with a bat. Guns may not kill people but they are a tool used by men to kill people at a much faster rate than what they could without a gun!

2. But if everyone was armed we would be able to stop murders with guns!
If that's true why is it trained enforcers of the law in situations like that often freeze up and don't take the shot; not to mention some redneck with a pistol.

3. We have laws that we can enforce!
There minimal and riddled with loopholes that people get through. Ignoreing how poorly written they are you also must understand they do not restrict people from owning guns...the ultimate point of gun laws.

4. If we restrict guns only criminals will have them!
It's not that we are going to make guns disappere from the face of the earth. It's that you make it harder for criminals to get hold of the guns. Make it harder for the crazy person to get a gun and go on a shooting spree.

[b]5. But the constitution...
All things are made to be edited as time goes on. When the constitution was written it wasn't intended so everyone could walk around with a damn gun in there pocket.[/b]

6. Widespread gun ownership stop tyranny!
Oh does it? let me direct your eyes to syria....or egypt....Guns give people the ability to do whatever they deem fit without recognising the concequences on another party. Not to mention not everyone is stable enough to be wielding a firearm!

7. We don't want them!
Search up opinion polls and they show quite clearly majorites stating they wish for resstriction. Even more clealrly they wish assult wepones to be banned. Heres some proof (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0 ... n-society/)

------------------------------------------

Ultiamtly 30,000 americans are killed every year due to gun violence....a large price to play so you can feel like a cowboy -.-

I'm sensing fresh copypasta here. It's best if you offer your own words and opinions here rather than regurgitating things from elsewhere. IF i'm in error and this wasn't a copy paste job then I apologize most sincerely.

I'll stick to only addressing the part on the constitution for the moment and begin by conceding that yes, the constitution was meant to be edited over time, there is clearly procedure for doing so laid out in the document itself and in fact it has been changed many times. So i would say fair enough if you can actually convince 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states to pass and ratify a repeal or revision of the 2nd amendment (or achieve amendment through a constitutional convention) then go ahead and try. I'll even listen to your arguments for doing so. But that's never or rather is very rarely what i hear control advocates saying. They want to do things without regard for the constitution and that's something that should concern every true freedom honoring and liberty loving redblooded american. If we can ignore the constitution when it comes to guns how long until we ignore what it says about free speech or unreasonable search etc in the name of serving the public good?

[Llamalandia]

umm wow, again, as I said I think youre a reasonable person and I certainly hope your aren't trying to deliberately prove me wrong on that particular point. Of course if you are I believe that the communists have a saying about how capitalist will be hung by their own rope. I would suggest that this post would clearly be your metaphorical rope so to speak.

Look, quite frankly 10,000 deaths out of 300,000,000 people quite frankly isn't that bad. That's not to minimize the impact but if youre hoping that somehow this nation is going literally tear itself apart with guns until it turns into some sort of post apocalyptic mad max hellscape, I think it's safe to say that you are in fact in error. The bodies aren't going to "pile up" as you put it.

But that's just it there are. Lots of countries have tighter gun controls than the united states some work some don't. Some of this has nothing even to do with guns. Even if every gun on the planet were destroyed tomorrow and no new weapons were produced there would still be murders and stabbings and death and carnage in the world. Hell war existed before guns did.

I mean you say that progun folks are totally unreasonable and unwilling to comrpomise but which of us is the one who has a position of essentially demanding everything they want while conceding very little if anything. It's clearly not me.

See this is the thing, I don't want to just "let the chips fall...or let the bodies pile up" I want to reach across the battle lines and engage in a real and meaningful dialogue designed to at least reduce and mitigate the casualities and at the same time preserve a long cherished and much enjoyed right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes in this country. I would hope that you would largely feel the same way.

If not, then I must say, that you are unfortunately far less reasonable a person than I had previously thought much to my disappointment and sadness. And if that's the case then yes, quite frankly if you are as unreasonable and inflexible as the above post implies and if you represent even a sliver of the gun control advocates, then unfortunately I can begin to comprehend the absolute hardline stance taken by the progun people like wayne lapierre who are so often demonized as inflexible and uncompromising.

To hell with real and meaningful dialogue. When one side is so right and the other side is so wrong, there's nothing to talk about.

It's like if my neighbor had a giant stockpile of napalm in his basement, and took it out to burn shit down once a week, and I complained. So my neighbor responds "Well, I have a right to this napalm, but I'll tell you what. As part of a deal, because I want to be reasonable, I'll limit the burnings to once every other week, and give you a heads up." That's ridiculous. The only reasonable answer when it comes to keeping the neighborhood safe is to get rid of the napalm, or at least to make sure that he doesn't use it at all.

Similarly, the only reasonable way to limit gun deaths in the United States involves actually getting the guns off of the streets on the federal level. However, there's no way that the gun rights crowd will be willing to accept that, and since they have such an incredible amount of pull in politics, that's never going to happen. So there's no use in negotiating anything.

Oh, and I'll try to live with your disappointment in me.

Well but that's just it, most neighbors aren't usually so unreasonable. Also if someone has a right to something and you try and take it away or advocate taking it away that automatically puts [b]you[/b in the wrong. That's why theyre called rights after all.

But seriously, I can think of far more real world examples where neighbors do have conflict can recognize that they each may have certain rights and in fact come to a mutual compromise that works for both of them,. it's called being a good neighbor. I mean, most neighbors might object to say an especially loud party, but they don't usually jump straight away to calling the cops they instead ask not that you even disband the party but merely that you lower the noise to a more reasonable level. Now some people may comply and some may not, but they don't generally just imediately jump to the hardest position they can and stay there. They compromise and work together to solve mutual problems which is the same thing I'm trying to do here.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

There have been 2 crimes with legally owned full auto/select fire weapons in the 80 years since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was implemented, and one of those was by an off duty police officer with a personally owned Mac-11. Apparently, there's no real need for the Hughes Amendment to FOPA, since crimes committed with legally owned full auto/select fire weapons are statistically insignificant.