Burnsey said:
Sutherland Springs church shooter was a vet. Also not allowed to own a gun. So explain to us again how your plan works.
This has been addressed multiple times already.
A compromise for gun control.
13,048 Views |
247 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by eric76
This has been addressed multiple times already.
What about this for a compromise.
Say you get one omnibus gun control bill that will pass into law. You can put into it anything you want - your dream goals - any bans, confiscation, gun grabbing, restrictions, penalties, etc you would ever want.
After the point where that bill becomes law:
1) You, the bill authors, and the representatives that voted for the bill can be held civilly liable for any gun death that would have otherwise been preventable by a former CHL, a former gun-owning victim in a home murder setting, or any other instance where you have stripped the individual of their right to self defense.
2) The first mass shooting that happens (by whichever changing definition of mass shooting applies), you, the bill authors, the representatives that voted for the bill, and the constituents who voted for those representatives - you personally and collectively lose your 1st Amendment rights for the rest of your life.
3) The second mass shooting that happens, you & the ilk lose your 4th Amendment rights forever.
4) The third mass shooting, your 5th Amendment rights.
When you run out of Amendment rights to strip, the NFA and all prior gun legislation gets sunset forever.
Your rights are still gone forever, thanks to your eagerness to sacrifice the rights of others.
----------------------------------
Would ANYONE take that compromise? No. Because you know that none of the dream gun control goals and agendas will actually stop gun murders or mass shootings from happening.
EDIT: I thought this went without saying but might need to cement this in here - the 13th through 15th and 19th amendments are inalienable and not subject to loss resulting from legislative liability and irresponsible governance.
Also maybe bill authors are open to criminal prosecution as accessories to murder by deliberately eradicating otherwise reasonable avenues of self-defense.
Say you get one omnibus gun control bill that will pass into law. You can put into it anything you want - your dream goals - any bans, confiscation, gun grabbing, restrictions, penalties, etc you would ever want.
After the point where that bill becomes law:
1) You, the bill authors, and the representatives that voted for the bill can be held civilly liable for any gun death that would have otherwise been preventable by a former CHL, a former gun-owning victim in a home murder setting, or any other instance where you have stripped the individual of their right to self defense.
2) The first mass shooting that happens (by whichever changing definition of mass shooting applies), you, the bill authors, the representatives that voted for the bill, and the constituents who voted for those representatives - you personally and collectively lose your 1st Amendment rights for the rest of your life.
3) The second mass shooting that happens, you & the ilk lose your 4th Amendment rights forever.
4) The third mass shooting, your 5th Amendment rights.
When you run out of Amendment rights to strip, the NFA and all prior gun legislation gets sunset forever.
Your rights are still gone forever, thanks to your eagerness to sacrifice the rights of others.
----------------------------------
Would ANYONE take that compromise? No. Because you know that none of the dream gun control goals and agendas will actually stop gun murders or mass shootings from happening.
EDIT: I thought this went without saying but might need to cement this in here - the 13th through 15th and 19th amendments are inalienable and not subject to loss resulting from legislative liability and irresponsible governance.
Also maybe bill authors are open to criminal prosecution as accessories to murder by deliberately eradicating otherwise reasonable avenues of self-defense.
The Constitution assumed, incorrectly, they the entire document would be read and enforced - like the 10th amendment.
The 2nd amendment is clearly not discussing federal rights vs states rights, because the document already makes it crystal clear that everything is a state rights issue that isn't explicitly granted to the federal government. There would be no need to limit the federal governance over the state on an issue that should never have come up at all.
The bill of rights, start to finish, deals with individual rights that the federal government is supposed to stand up for. It is literally the list of individual rights that are supposed to be so sacred that they sit above any and all forms of government.these were designed to be the ones we should go to war over, because violating them means the very core of our government has been corrupted again.
The 2nd amendment is clearly not discussing federal rights vs states rights, because the document already makes it crystal clear that everything is a state rights issue that isn't explicitly granted to the federal government. There would be no need to limit the federal governance over the state on an issue that should never have come up at all.
The bill of rights, start to finish, deals with individual rights that the federal government is supposed to stand up for. It is literally the list of individual rights that are supposed to be so sacred that they sit above any and all forms of government.these were designed to be the ones we should go to war over, because violating them means the very core of our government has been corrupted again.
Definitely Not A Cop said:Burnsey said:
Sutherland Springs church shooter was a vet. Also not allowed to own a gun. So explain to us again how your plan works.
This has been addressed multiple times already.
Apparently OP is forgetful and I didn't feel like reading the whole thread.
Simpler compromise. Teach gun safety and handling in school, as well as why we have a second amendment.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.
One does not learn "discipline". Either he/she has it or not. Being told what to do is not in the new "vocabulary" of today's youth for there is also respect, which they do not have.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.
Many years ago, at one time, the military did take the undisciplined and at least taught them to do as I say or else and the "or else" is backed up by several Drill Sergeants behind the barracks.
Our "new" military does not even yell at recruits anymore.
Or he lied on his form and the government neglected to list the discharge on his record.
Definitely Not A Cop said:AggiePetro07 said:
Other than being unconstitutional, it's stupid.
Keep trying.
So are most other gun control solutions, that hasn't stopped the people from passing these solutions. And those solutions aren't actually addressing the problems.
This would.
Yes, lets make sure ONLY the unfortunate few we make go to foreign lands and see unimaginable evil (and, inevitably, get mind ****ed) be the ones we allow to have guns.
Sounds like a plan.
An idiotic plan.
But....a plan.
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.
This would go about as well as Stripes or Police Academy.
They'd probably be gaslighted into thinking they're trans by todays generals.
BigRobSA said:Definitely Not A Cop said:AggiePetro07 said:
Other than being unconstitutional, it's stupid.
Keep trying.
So are most other gun control solutions, that hasn't stopped the people from passing these solutions. And those solutions aren't actually addressing the problems.
This would.
Yes, lets make sure ONLY the unfortunate few we make go to foreign lands and see unimaginable evil (and, inevitably, get mind ****ed) be the ones we allow to have guns.
Sounds like a plan.
An idiotic plan.
But....a plan.
I don't think you understood my post. Everyone would join the military at age 18. Everyone would be trained in guns. Once you leave, you would be free to purchase any gun up to fully auto. More people would be trained to operate and carrying high powered firearms than there currently are today if we implemented this.
Well that's a plan. A ridiculous plan, but a plan.
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.
No. Those of us capable of rational thought understand that restrictions on gun rights would only serve to restrict law abiding citizens' access to guns. Those among us intent on criminal activity will always be able to get an illegal gun. Or will use another weapon - a car, for example.
Rockdoc said:
Well that's a plan. A ridiculous plan, but a plan.
So we have gone from an idiotic plan to a ridiculous plan. I'm making headway.
You certainly are!
Where is it unconstitutional to draft HS students? I don't agree with components of the email but it does not specify that those not drafted cannot own a gun.AggiePetro07 said:
Other than being unconstitutional, it's stupid.
Keep trying.
stallion6 said:Where is it unconstitutional to draft HS students? I don't agree with components of the email but it does not specify that those not drafted cannot own a gun.AggiePetro07 said:
Other than being unconstitutional, it's stupid.
Keep trying.
A right does not have to be earned.
Definitely Not A Cop said:JohnLA762 said:Definitely Not A Cop said:JohnLA762 said:
Why do you keep posting about automatic weapons? There are so few, they are heavily regulated, and are not responsible for many (if any) mass shootings today?
I never said they were. I'm just saying that you would have the entire law-abiding populace trained to operate automatic weapons.
Only about 7% of the US populace has served in the military in some capacity. I don't understand what your "compromise" is trying to achieve…
You train the entire populace in how to handle weapons. You also teach them discipline, leadership skills, and a trade skill from their MOS. You are able to screen the entire populace for mental health issues, and address them early on. Everyone can leave the military with valuable skills learned, and training allowing them to buy up to an automatic weapon if they choose. The criminals of society now know this as well.
You are talking about reversing all the formative years in basic training. I think your idea has merit but not as it relates to guns except as it pertains to national defense.
The problem is mass murder has its roots in societal issues. To address the problem of mass murder we need to strengthen the traditional family and completely remove government, at the federal level, from family issues . The federal government has been busy at work since the 1960's trying to reshape society and the results are in and they are terrible!
Violence in general will decrease as the traditional family is strengthened.
I don't want any changes in any laws that could be manipulated to grow these types of insidious/dishonest government interactions with Americans, seeking to lead to entrapment/imprisonment of political enemies of the left.
Not an automatic weaponHtownag11 said:Except for Las Vegas (unofficially)JohnLA762 said:
Why do you keep posting about automatic weapons? There are so few, they are heavily regulated, and are not responsible for many (if any) mass shootings today?
So, essentially a massive program where the government can determine whatever they want about your mental health (that follows you for life) based on the whims of whatever administration is in charge and whatever social winds are blowing at that time?Definitely Not A Cop said:JohnLA762 said:Definitely Not A Cop said:JohnLA762 said:
Why do you keep posting about automatic weapons? There are so few, they are heavily regulated, and are not responsible for many (if any) mass shootings today?
I never said they were. I'm just saying that you would have the entire law-abiding populace trained to operate automatic weapons.
Only about 7% of the US populace has served in the military in some capacity. I don't understand what your "compromise" is trying to achieve…
You train the entire populace in how to handle weapons. You also teach them discipline, leadership skills, and a trade skill from their MOS. You are able to screen the entire populace for mental health issues, and address them early on. Everyone can leave the military with valuable skills learned, and training allowing them to buy up to an automatic weapon if they choose. The criminals of society now know this as well.
Sure, I can't see anything ever going wrong with such a program, because the government is to be fully trusted all of the time without question!
No. Absolutely fuggin not on this idea.
This is such a stupid lazy take, it's sad you believe this and that we have 10 other stupid lazy morons in our midst that starred it in agreement with you.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.
We have decided that 40,000 dead people every year is worth it so we can have motor vehicles.schmellba99 said:This is such a stupid lazy take, it's sad you believe this and that we have 10 other stupid lazy morons in our midst that starred it in agreement with you.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.
Is that a stupid, lazy take?
The government 100% failed to follow their own laws, the same laws that if you or I failed to follow we would be put in jail for.SMM48 said:
Or he lied on his form and the government neglected to list the discharge on his record.
The feds are the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do". And they have the force of law and legal authority to arrest and prosecute you, whereas doing the same to themselves never actually happens.
Yes, it is. Doubt you'd actually understand beyond your limited ability to think though.GeorgiAg said:We have decided that 40,000 dead people every year is worth it so we can have motor vehicles.schmellba99 said:This is such a stupid lazy take, it's sad you believe this and that we have 10 other stupid lazy morons in our midst that starred it in agreement with you.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.
Is that a stupid, lazy take?
Wait until self driving vehicles get better. We may decide that giving humans the ability to drive is not worth the death rate. But, look on the bright side, a drive by shooting will get easier to do.
The implication that I am making is that it was an automatic weapon and not the narrative we are being fed.schmellba99 said:Not an automatic weaponHtownag11 said:Except for Las Vegas (unofficially)JohnLA762 said:
Why do you keep posting about automatic weapons? There are so few, they are heavily regulated, and are not responsible for many (if any) mass shootings today?
If you are interested, do some digging into the number of rounds and rate of fire and report back on if you still disagree.
It was not an automatic weapon.Htownag11 said:The implication that I am making is that it was an automatic weapon and not the narrative we are being fed.schmellba99 said:Not an automatic weaponHtownag11 said:Except for Las Vegas (unofficially)JohnLA762 said:
Why do you keep posting about automatic weapons? There are so few, they are heavily regulated, and are not responsible for many (if any) mass shootings today?
If you are interested, do some digging into the number of rounds and rate of fire and report back on if you still disagree.
If it were, the entire world would know about it and that would have been the sole focus of everything related to that entire mysterious fiasco. It was a dude with a bump stock and a lot of mags. Nothing more than that (at least on the actual shooting events.....the rest is a wholly different story).
Having fired a bump stock, used my belt loop as a bump stock and used my shoulder as a bump stock, I can tell you that the rate of uncontrolled fire is up there with a true automatic, outside of platforms like the mini UZI which has an insane rate of fire even in the automatic world.
I'm sure he "doubts you'd actually understand beyond your limited ability to think."
It was a bump stock tho.
It was a bump stock tho.
Don't have a dog in this fight.
However, I find it funny that when someone mentions gun control, mostly about AR's, tons of people start screaming "shall not be infringed."
The only arms people were bearing when that was written were muskets.
However, I find it funny that when someone mentions gun control, mostly about AR's, tons of people start screaming "shall not be infringed."
The only arms people were bearing when that was written were muskets.
Trying to post a picture, oh well. Whatever, the picture is funny for the 'let's just let the government ban some guns' crowd.schmellba99 said:Yes, it is. Doubt you'd actually understand beyond your limited ability to think though.GeorgiAg said:We have decided that 40,000 dead people every year is worth it so we can have motor vehicles.schmellba99 said:This is such a stupid lazy take, it's sad you believe this and that we have 10 other stupid lazy morons in our midst that starred it in agreement with you.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.
Is that a stupid, lazy take?
Nothing is perfect but you have done a great job of giving us a freedom platform. Censorship is only going to get worse on all the others. Thank you for that. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. pic.twitter.com/2HCdXkSECh
— Richard Harmier (@RHarmier) May 9, 2023
incoming!Choowey said:
Don't have a dog in this fight.
However, I find it funny that when someone mentions gun control, mostly about AR's, tons of people start screaming "shall not be infringed."
The only arms people were bearing when that was written were muskets.
https://guides.loc.gov/machine-gun-its-history-development-and-useQuote:
The invention of a military firearm that could produce rapid, repeating fire to overwhelm and repel an attacking force or act as an offensive or defensive force multiplier had been sought for nearly 900 years. Early attempts to invent what today is known as the machine gun did not produce a fully automatic weapon but resulted in often bulky and semi-reliable guns consisting of single shot barrels gathered together and mounted on a gun carriage or tripod. Some of these multi-barreled weapons were hand-held as a pistol or shoulder-arm, and took a considerable time to reload. Though they could be deadly to an attacker, they could be nearly as dangerous to the gunners themselves. Those hand-held arms evolved into repeating arms such as revolvers, semi-automatic pistols and rifles, and fully automatic sub-machine guns and assault rifles. Those arms are not included in this guide.
So-called organ guns or volley guns of various makes and numbers of barrels came into use as early as 1339 during the Medieval-era reign of English King Edward III (1312-1377) and on into the later 19th Century, when they began to be eclipsed by the modern machine gun. They included examples of the medieval Ribaldequin gun also called the "Infernal Machine," the Billinghurst Requa Battery Gun, the Nock Volley Gun, and the Vandenburg Volley Gun.
Good job cutting that right before the sentence stating that a practical fast reloading 'machine gun' didn't come around until the 1800's.
How many citizens had them or could have had the opportunity to have one?
How many citizens had them or could have had the opportunity to have one?
If the entire world "knew" it was an automatic weapon, they would have had no justification for banning bump stocks.schmellba99 said:It was not an automatic weapon.Htownag11 said:The implication that I am making is that it was an automatic weapon and not the narrative we are being fed.schmellba99 said:Not an automatic weaponHtownag11 said:Except for Las Vegas (unofficially)JohnLA762 said:
Why do you keep posting about automatic weapons? There are so few, they are heavily regulated, and are not responsible for many (if any) mass shootings today?
If you are interested, do some digging into the number of rounds and rate of fire and report back on if you still disagree.
If it were, the entire world would know about it and that would have been the sole focus of everything related to that entire mysterious fiasco. It was a dude with a bump stock and a lot of mags. Nothing more than that (at least on the actual shooting events.....the rest is a wholly different story).
Having fired a bump stock, used my belt loop as a bump stock and used my shoulder as a bump stock, I can tell you that the rate of uncontrolled fire is up there with a true automatic, outside of platforms like the mini UZI which has an insane rate of fire even in the automatic world.
Does the First Amendment apply to the internet? Did the Founding Fathers envision that you could speak to anyone around the world in a split second? Satellite TV?Choowey said:
Good job cutting that right before the sentence stating that a practical fast reloading 'machine gun' didn't come around until the 1800's.
How many citizens had them or could have had the opportunity to have one?
At the time, a musket was the most deadly weapon out there. If they wanted the government to have weapon superiority, they could have limited the 2A to swords.
GeorgiAg said:We have decided that 40,000 dead people every year is worth it so we can have motor vehicles.schmellba99 said:This is such a stupid lazy take, it's sad you believe this and that we have 10 other stupid lazy morons in our midst that starred it in agreement with you.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.
Is that a stupid, lazy take?
Concerned moderates: we've decided that giving up the entire bill of rights is ok to have zero or minimal risk in our daily life.
Begs the question: what is the correct number of human liberties that need to be sacrificed in order to lower risk; and further, what is the acceptable risk level?
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: Dawgs facing possible playoff elimination this week
by Olin Buchanan
33:59
6h ago
813
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
14:58
6h ago
900
Assessing Earley's first signing class at the helm of Texas A&M baseball
by Ryan Brauninger
Tom Kazansky 2012
Number of football tickets A&M provided to t.u.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
90