NationStates

Recreational nukes are a public necessity of course.

Tule wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
It's not that we don't want to compromise, it's that there's no real compromises being offered. We're expected to just give up more of our rights and pray they don't alter the deal down the road. Which they have and will.

Even if they do, which isn't necessarily the case (gun control is very much uncontroversial in most of Europe because people feel that the laws sthey have there work, and the tendency is for gun laws to get less strict) atleast you would be slowing down the enroachment. Not giving an inch will just make gun control advocates more aggressive.

Neville Chamberlain wrote:I believe it is peace for our time.

I'd rather not be caught with my pants down like that fellow, appeasement sucks.

Torrocca wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Sure, but you aren't a Democratic lawmaker. They haven't offered a single compromise in 20 years at this point, they just want to take more and more.

This is why we need a new political party that addresses rightly the woes of the workers on both sides of the political spectrum!

Unironically this.

Torrocca wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Sure, but you aren't a Democratic lawmaker. They haven't offered a single compromise in 20 years at this point, they just want to take more and more.

This is why we need a new political party that addresses rightly the woes of the workers on both sides of the political spectrum!

Tbh I’d rather we switch to a non-partisan system instead, political parties almost always end up being garbage.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Compromise? What exactly do you want for a compromise?

Bump stocks and other such devices (trigger cranks, hellfire triggers etc etc) being added to the NFA

Didn't you tell me once those are easy to make on your own?

whilst short barrel rifles/shotguns and suppressors get downgraded to normal Title 1 status and the Hughes amendment gets axed.

Soooo unless I am not understanding something; that seems a rather lopsided compromise?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Bump stocks and other such devices (trigger cranks, hellfire triggers etc etc) being added to the NFA

Didn't you tell me once those are easy to make on your own?

whilst short barrel rifles/shotguns and suppressors get downgraded to normal Title 1 status and the Hughes amendment gets axed.

Soooo unless I am not understanding something; that seems a rather lopsided compromise?

Gun control advocates get something they have been demanding, while a number of things that are heavily over regulated have their regulations reduced to a more reasonable level. Seems like a great compromise, I'd be sold on such a compromise even if we only got the reduction in regulation of silencer or the removal of hughes.

Telconi wrote:

Tule wrote:
Even if they do, which isn't necessarily the case (gun control is very much uncontroversial in most of Europe because people feel that the laws sthey have there work, and the tendency is for gun laws to get less strict) atleast you would be slowing down the enroachment. Not giving an inch will just make gun control advocates more aggressive.

Neville Chamberlain wrote:I believe it is peace for our time.

I'd rather not be caught with my pants down like that fellow, appeasement sucks.

I live in a country where gun appeasement was the method of choice. Guns aren't banned. They are restricted certainly, but they are becoming less so over time. 5 years ago you couldn't get a suppressor. You can now. 10 years ago, you couldn't get semi-auto rifles, you can now. 30 years ago you couldn't get semi-auto or pump-action shotguns. You can now. 40 years ago you couldn't get bolt action rifles larger than .22. You can now.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Hey now, I offered the compromise of focusing on the core issues instead of stealing guns!

Sure, but you aren't a Democratic lawmaker. They haven't offered a single compromise in 20 years at this point, they just want to take more and more.

Manchin-Toomey 2013.

A ban on a central gun registry, including up to 15 years in prison for anyone attempting to centralise gun records. Expansion on interstate sales to include hand guns via licensed sellers. Military members able to buy guns in their home state as well as the state they're stationed in Liability shield to private sellers who sell to a person who passed a background check. Increased funding for the NICS. A reduction in waiting times before a seller can complete a transfer in the event the check with NICS is taking time. A commission to study the causes of gun violence including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media.

All to require background checks on all sales at gun shows and over the internet.

Seems like quite a compromise to me....

Spirit of Hope wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:

Didn't you tell me once those are easy to make on your own?



Soooo unless I am not understanding something; that seems a rather lopsided compromise?

Gun control advocates get something they have been demanding, while a number of things that are heavily over regulated have their regulations reduced to a more reasonable level. Seems like a great compromise, I'd be sold on such a compromise even if we only got the reduction in regulation of silencer or the removal of hughes.

Now if only we could get gun control advocates to respect it for more than ten years.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Bump stocks and other such devices (trigger cranks, hellfire triggers etc etc) being added to the NFA

Didn't you tell me once those are easy to make on your own?

whilst short barrel rifles/shotguns and suppressors get downgraded to normal Title 1 status and the Hughes amendment gets axed.

Soooo unless I am not understanding something; that seems a rather lopsided compromise?

They're stupid easy to make, but almost every gun is nowadays. I can't go too into details yet but I happen to know some guys who have perfected 3D printed machine gun receivers for example.

Tule wrote:

Telconi wrote:


I'd rather not be caught with my pants down like that fellow, appeasement sucks.

I live in a country where gun appeasement was the method of choice. Guns aren't banned. They are restricted certainly, but they are becoming less so over time. 5 years ago you couldn't get a suppressor. You can now. 10 years ago, you couldn't get semi-auto rifles, you can now. 30 years ago you couldn't get semi-auto or pump-action shotguns. You can now. 40 years ago you couldn't get bolt action rifles larger than .22. You can now.

And I'm supposed to believe that someone like you is going to give it back after taking it? Yeah, I'll pass.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
This is why we need a new political party that addresses rightly the woes of the workers on both sides of the political spectrum!

Tbh I’d rather we switch to a non-partisan system instead, political parties almost always end up being garbage.

Abolish parties entirely, complete anarchy!

Telconi wrote:

Tule wrote:
Even if they do, which isn't necessarily the case (gun control is very much uncontroversial in most of Europe because people feel that the laws sthey have there work, and the tendency is for gun laws to get less strict) atleast you would be slowing down the enroachment. Not giving an inch will just make gun control advocates more aggressive.

Neville Chamberlain wrote:I believe it is peace for our time.

I'd rather not be caught with my pants down like that fellow, appeasement sucks.

"Peace in our time" aka "The biggest Curb Your Enthusiasm moment in history."

Telconi wrote:

Tule wrote:
I live in a country where gun appeasement was the method of choice. Guns aren't banned. They are restricted certainly, but they are becoming less so over time. 5 years ago you couldn't get a suppressor. You can now. 10 years ago, you couldn't get semi-auto rifles, you can now. 30 years ago you couldn't get semi-auto or pump-action shotguns. You can now. 40 years ago you couldn't get bolt action rifles larger than .22. You can now.

And I'm supposed to believe that someone like you is going to give it back after taking it? Yeah, I'll pass.

I don't know about the US but where I live ex post facto legislation is illegal. Guns that are still banned but were purchased when they were legal are still possessed by those who originally purchased them. I think that is fair.

Tule wrote:

Telconi wrote:
And I'm supposed to believe that someone like you is going to give it back after taking it? Yeah, I'll pass.

I don't know about the US but where I live ex post facto legislation is illegal. Guns that are still banned but were purchased when they were legal are still possessed by those who originally purchased them. I think that is fair.

Possession is a continuous act. It's pretty easy to legal ban possession of an item without breaching ex post facto rules.

Tule wrote:

Telconi wrote:
And I'm supposed to believe that someone like you is going to give it back after taking it? Yeah, I'll pass.

I don't know about the US but where I live ex post facto legislation is illegal. Guns that are still banned but were purchased when they were legal are still possessed by those who originally purchased them. I think that is fair.

Which isn't relevant to a ban...

Tule wrote:

Telconi wrote:
And I'm supposed to believe that someone like you is going to give it back after taking it? Yeah, I'll pass.

I don't know about the US but where I live ex post facto legislation is illegal. Guns that are still banned but were purchased when they were legal are still possessed by those who originally purchased them. I think that is fair.

Yeah, the Democrats don't respect that kinda stuff. California is excellent evidence of the slippery slope being real.

Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

But it passes the time until we die.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Come up with a reasonable idea?

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Have you considered offering ideas that tackle the core issues leading to gun violence rather than ideas that tackle guns themselves?

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Pretty much, just with both sides calling each other immoral, underhanded murderers of various stripes. Personally I think we should throw in the towel and see about trying to do as much as we can with non-gun control methods.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Sure, but you aren't a Democratic lawmaker. They haven't offered a single compromise in 20 years at this point, they just want to take more and more.

Manchin-Toomey 2013.

A ban on a central gun registry, including up to 15 years in prison for anyone attempting to centralise gun records. Expansion on interstate sales to include hand guns via licensed sellers. Military members able to buy guns in their home state as well as the state they're stationed in Liability shield to private sellers who sell to a person who passed a background check. Increased funding for the NICS. A reduction in waiting times before a seller can complete a transfer in the event the check with NICS is taking time. A commission to study the causes of gun violence including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media.

All to require background checks on all sales at gun shows and over the internet.

Seems like quite a compromise to me....

Not nearly enough for UBC's if you ask me, I don't really gain anything from that. FOPA already bans non-NFA registries and pretty much the only other decent thing in there that interests me is the bit about military members but given how few people that impacts I'm not gonna take that in exchange for everyone else having to deal with a ton more hassle.

Valgora wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.