Here we have a typical conversation with an anti-gun leftist on "compromise" In this instance he defines compromise as "give us what we want or we'll take it all" Correct - Democrats offer nothing in return for their demands to ban, license, register and insure guns. They seek acquiescence, not compromise. You don't want, or have an intention to offer, compromise. There is zero compromise because your side gives nothing in return..... Absolutely nothing. They aren't even willing to negotiate in good faith -- and they wonder why we will not give an inch. Why is it they talk about compromise, but never offer anything in return for the restrictions they seek?
What would you want? In exchange for licensing and registration what would you seek as “compromise”? We are already at the far end of the spectrum, there is very little to offer the “everyone should have unregulated guns” side because that’s pretty much what we already have. Any proposal is moving more to the center.
The Right continues to insist that the left's position is a ban. So to request licensing and registration IS a compromise.
50+ state CCW reciprocity Repeal of state AW bans Repeal of the NFA 1934, as amended. A statement of ignorance or dishonesty. Straw, man
I won’t give an inch at all in my pro gun stance. No compromise at all!!! None of their proposals will stop shootings, not one! So the push will continue and if it continues it will eventually lead to confiscation and every election since 2016 has had democrats openly call for confiscation so don’t tell me that’s not the goal
Of course. Just making the point the ant-gun side screams "Compromise!!' but in fact demands acquiescence.
So we want a ban. You say no. We compromise and say, okay, licensing and registration. That is the very definition of a compromise. What could we say to compromise in your mind?
Under that definition... "I want to kill you" "No." "OK then - I''ll only beat and rape you" ... is a compromise Thank you again for proving my point.
If you do a quick scan on just this forum alone, you will find that it's not the 'Right' insisting, it has been made quite clear. No, demanding that law abiding citizens jump through hoops and lay out more money, is not a compromise. It effectually does absolutely nothing about the criminals who won't give a rat's behind what new hoops someone puts in place.
I thought the Right was all about 'state's' rights. How is the fed agreeing to pass a law allowing CCW across the country respecting state's rights? And really, if you think that compromise makes sense, we have nothing else to discuss.
Universal background checks, mandatory training (funded by the government), mandatory gun safes (supplied by the government) in exchange for repealing the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and a Federal law prohibiting state gun control laws.
You're missing mandatory issuance of a service rifle with select fire, and a brace of grenades to be taken home after each training assembly.
A very misleading post. In states with "Constitutional Carry" you can carry open or concealed unencumbered by permits, registration, etc. In other states that have "shall carry" laws you have to justify your reason to carry... owner of a jewelry store... security, etc. But its difficult to get permission. Then there are states like New Jersey and Massachusetts where carrying is legal, but its easier to get a permit to carry a nuke than a handgun.