Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

We compromised on gun control too much already.

---

What compromise are you talking about?

---

Gun free zones, licensing, etc..

---

According to Joe Biden, not being able to buy a cannon.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

AggiePetro07 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Pinche Guero said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Pinche Guero said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Pinche Guero said:

---

Shall not be infringed, you can't give the left an inch

---

Even for the mentally ill?

---

Its already illegal for the mentally ill to purchase a gun. Laws on gun control only affect people that follow the law.

---

Wait, you said "shall not be infringed". That seems to be an all-or-nothing statement on the part of the Constitution.

---

Thats the point, the laws put into place that have already eroded this right do nothing to slow down gun violence. They only make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

---

It isn't difficult for anyone to "defend themselves" in this day and age. Sorry, that is just bull*****

---

School children or teachers?

Subway riders in NYC?

Soldiers driving for Uber in Austin?

---

So you want schoolchildren to be armed?

If anything, we've seen an expansion in gun rights across the nation recently.

---

You are not a serious poster. You have no desire to engage in helpful dialogue.

What a waste it is to try with you.

Now do alcohol and automobiles

I'm not sure why they were brought up in the conversation about not being able to protect themselves. While I guess it's technically correct, it's not germane to the conversation.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why they were brought up in the conversation about not being able to protect themselves. While I guess it's technically correct, it's not germane to the conversation.

---

The suggestion is to arm teachers, not students. I also believe the teachers involvement is voluntary. How is that not a reasonable solution?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why they were brought up in the conversation about not being able to protect themselves. While I guess it's technically correct, it's not germane to the conversation.

---

The suggestion is to arm teachers, not students. I also believe the teachers involvement is voluntary. How is that not a reasonable solution?

---

I never argued against teachers being armed.

GeorgiAg said:

---

We have decided that a few dead people everyday is worth it so we can have guns. And even if you banned guns tomorrow, it would take years to implement.

---

I honestly thought you were almost sane and able to see logic. Really close to being able to understand cause and effect. We all enjoyed ribbing you about your Biden vote because you seemed to be salvageable.

I lost all respect for you with this post. No one wants to trade lives for gun rights and every logical person knows that having guns keeps criminal element in check, not vice versa. Why TF do you want to solely rely on government to protect you, especially in todays society?

Scratch that question, I will no longer back and forth with you because I have zero respect left for you. Good luck sir, wish you only the best, but you are now 100% a liberal shill IMO and incapable of independent thought and reasoning.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why they were brought up in the conversation about not being able to protect themselves. While I guess it's technically correct, it's not germane to the conversation.

---

The suggestion is to arm teachers, not students. I also believe the teachers involvement is voluntary. How is that not a reasonable solution?

---

I never argued against teachers being armed.

---

Stop.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why they were brought up in the conversation about not being able to protect themselves. While I guess it's technically correct, it's not germane to the conversation.

---

The suggestion is to arm teachers, not students. I also believe the teachers involvement is voluntary. How is that not a reasonable solution?

---

I never argued against teachers being armed.

---

Stop.

---

You asked a question that was never brought up because you made a poor assumption.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS. Everyone goes through the military evaluation, everyone gets trained in firearms. You still have the only people who are actually going to the frontlines as grunts are the people who were already signing up to do that. Every other kid is put into non-combat roles. They learn discipline, leadership qualities and trade skills like logistics, accounting, etc.

Then everyone who passes the mental eval gets out with a license to operate firearms all the way up to automatic weapons.

---

Ok I'll play: raise the age limit for access to social media to 35 and require a full time job.

Let's just move the voting age to 21.

Eso si, Que es said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

We have decided that a few dead people everyday is worth it so we can have guns. And even if you banned guns tomorrow, it would take years to implement.

---

I honestly thought you were almost sane and able to see logic. Really close to being able to understand cause and effect. We all enjoyed ribbing you about your Biden vote because you seemed to be salvageable.

I lost all respect for you with this post. No one wants to trade lives for gun rights and every logical person knows that having guns keeps criminal element in check, not vice versa. Why TF do you want to solely rely on government to protect you, especially in todays society?

Scratch that question, I will no longer back and forth with you because I have zero respect left for you. Good luck sir, wish you only the best, but you are now 100% a liberal shill IMO and incapable of independent thought and reasoning.

---

My point was that we feel guns are important for the security of the country and the protection our Constitution, so nuts and criminals killing people each year isn't reason enough to ban them. I'm pro 2A. IN another thread, I posted a DOJ study that Australia banning guns didn't lead to fewer homicides and suicides.

Cars kill people every day, but they are necessary so we put up with the deaths. Same argument for guns. I own > dozen guns.

I don't believe in compromise with respect to 2nd amendment rights.

However, I believe firearm education in junior high should be MANDATORY and should be a requirement for any HS diploma.

Great book.

How about in your required Government class in High school you give them at least a gun safety course like JROTC training.

It isn't required to have a gun, but at least it is training.

So you're not happy with a volunteer force plied with COL he money, bonus and some made up notion of patriotism? Now you want conscription?

Admiral_ZAX said:

---

Now do alcohol and automobiles

---

That was my point. I'm pro 2A, even if people get killed because of it.


Knives...
Acid...
pointy sticks...


Can't ban everything. I'd get rid of the NFA.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS.

---

Required military service? What is this Korea?

In 2017 the Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in Texas history.

This was executed by a former military vet.

Just because they are military doesn't mean they are always going to be sane. Last thing you want a deranged person to have is advanced weapons training.

Might want to read the constitution. I am an American citizen and that is enough!

SIAP, now do voting or free speech.

I have always thought the Israel model would be a great one to follow (2 years). It would require everyone to have skin in the game and you'd have your entire populace learning valuable skills and training.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS. Everyone goes through the military evaluation, everyone gets trained in firearms. You still have the only people who are actually going to the frontlines as grunts are the people who were already signing up to do that. Every other kid is put into non-combat roles. They learn discipline, leadership qualities and trade skills like logistics, accounting, etc.

Then everyone who passes the mental eval gets out with a license to operate firearms all the way up to automatic weapons.

---

How is it a compromise when you're asking gun owners to give up a right they already have? This would be a major power shift for the left who are already upset b/c of the second amendment.

It's the equivalent of you asking me to pay for something I already get for free while the left pays nothing. That's not a compromise.

Try again.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

I have always thought the Israel model would be a great one to follow (2 years). It would require everyone to have skin in the game and you'd have your entire populace learning valuable skills and training.

---

As long as we can adopt Israel's immigration policies

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS. Everyone goes through the military evaluation, everyone gets trained in firearms. You still have the only people who are actually going to the frontlines as grunts are the people who were already signing up to do that. Every other kid is put into non-combat roles. They learn discipline, leadership qualities and trade skills like logistics, accounting, etc.

Then everyone who passes the mental eval gets out with a license to operate firearms all the way up to automatic weapons.

---

That won't stop 'em. Someone that has an evil heart. Scripture nails it putting murder and a host of other wrongs as coming from man's heart which is evil. They speak of evil when reporting these shootings but I have yet to be shown an evil gun. It's the shooter's heart.

aggierogue said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS. Everyone goes through the military evaluation, everyone gets trained in firearms. You still have the only people who are actually going to the frontlines as grunts are the people who were already signing up to do that. Every other kid is put into non-combat roles. They learn discipline, leadership qualities and trade skills like logistics, accounting, etc.

Then everyone who passes the mental eval gets out with a license to operate firearms all the way up to automatic weapons.

---

How is it a compromise when you're asking gun owners to give up a right they already have? This would be a major power shift for the left who are already upset b/c of the second amendment.

It's the equivalent of you asking me to pay for something I already get for free while the left pays nothing. That's not a compromise.

---

The left gives up the ability for young people to do nothing with their lives or go get degrees with zero real world application at 18.

This would be playing the long game. Something liberals are clearly good at but conservatives are not.

Required military service of some kind would instill patriotism into young Americans and likely reduce crime dramatically. It would also give everyone training with firearms. Ask anyone you know that is afraid of guns if they have ever trained or shot one. They will nearly always say no. Lack of familiarity breeds fear around firearms. 20 years from now, we could have an entire generation that doesn't fear or distrust firearms.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

I have always thought the Israel model would be a great one to follow (2 years). It would require everyone to have skin in the game and you'd have your entire populace learning valuable skills and training.

---

Israel population, 9 million
U.S. population 333 million

GeorgiAg said:

---

This is the gun control argument in a nutshell. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS:

---

This justice didn't understand what a prefatory clause is, nor did he ever read the Federalist Papers which make it very clear what the 2nd Amendment was intended for. He also clearly didn't understand what "militia" meant in the late 1700's. You'd think that the Bill of Rights ALL applying to INDIVIDUALS would make it obvious that they weren't enshrining the right of their own GOVERNMENT to possess firearms.

Eso si, Que es said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

We have decided that a few dead people everyday is worth it so we can have guns. And even if you banned guns tomorrow, it would take years to implement.

---

I honestly thought you were almost sane and able to see logic. Really close to being able to understand cause and effect. We all enjoyed ribbing you about your Biden vote because you seemed to be salvageable.

I lost all respect for you with this post. No one wants to trade lives for gun rights and every logical person knows that having guns keeps criminal element in check, not vice versa. Why TF do you want to solely rely on government to protect you, especially in todays society?

Scratch that question, I will no longer back and forth with you because I have zero respect left for you. Good luck sir, wish you only the best, but you are now 100% a liberal shill IMO and incapable of independent thought and reasoning.

---

You missed his point.

Nattie said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS.

---

Required military service? What is this Korea?

In 2017 the Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in Texas history.

This was executed by a former military vet.

Just because they are military doesn't mean they are always going to be sane. Last thing you want a deranged person to have is advanced weapons training.

---

Weren't the mental health flags put into place to make sure that Sutherland situation couldn't happen again? I guess I should ask if you oppose that check (not be snarky, genuinely curious)?

Because I'm saying keep the mental health safeguard.

fixer said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS. Everyone goes through the military evaluation, everyone gets trained in firearms. You still have the only people who are actually going to the frontlines as grunts are the people who were already signing up to do that. Every other kid is put into non-combat roles. They learn discipline, leadership qualities and trade skills like logistics, accounting, etc.

Then everyone who passes the mental eval gets out with a license to operate firearms all the way up to automatic weapons.

---

Ok I'll play: raise the age limit for access to social media to 35 and require a full time job.

---

Now we are cooking with fire. I'm not quite there, but I absolutely do think social media should be illegal to use if you have a serious mental health issue.

Sutherland Springs church shooter was a vet. Also not allowed to own a gun. So explain to us again how your plan works.

&ct=g