One of the defining attributes of a bogus conspiracy theory is when the perpetrators must be both the smartest, most capable people and the stupidest, most inept people simultaneously.
1 Like
By negotiating back greater substantial freedoms in return for a net gain. Salami approach in reverse. Strike current infringing laws for carefully-crafted laws that address concerns on both sides of the aisle. The all-or-nothing approach has yielded, well, nothing. If you aren’t making progress, you are falling behind. Problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them in the first place.
I just don’t understand how any of you can object or protest something that hasn’t even been proposed yet? You’re not even listening to the silence. Nothing open-minded or fair about that. Always figured I had to hear what soneone has to say before I know how to bitch about it. Alarmists.
What you’re saying isn’t correct. Everyone has seen what the Democrats in Virginia are proposing because they circulated it.
2 Likes
And politicians ALWAYS do what they say they are going to… 
It might just be a big giant troll. Or a test to see how much opposition there is and from where.
Hmmmmmm
Always an angle…
You’re asking we give up all of our rights in favor of a heavily restricted and regulated privilege.
That is a non starter.
There are things we can actually do to cut the violent crime rate overall without infringing on anyone’s rights and that’s where we have to begin.
The Gun Control nuts are not interested in compromise nor will they accept any.
They will pretend that whatever compromise we make will be the last one demanded, then turn around as soon as it’s signed and return immediately to marching towards as close to complete disarmament of the public as can be achieved but of course always leaving exceptions that allow the elites to have guns themselves and armed security.
Let me ask again, no insult intended how old are you?
At best they are trotting things out to see how much resistance they would face should they pass them.
At worst they are dumb enough to pass such laws simply gambling that there will be no significant resistance.
No. That’s the all or nothing thing again. As mentioned here the other side isn’t asking for all or nothing. You’ve said it yourself, it’s a piece here and a piece there. Those individual pieces are opportunities for negotiation and deal making. When you abandon the all or nothing approach you can transactionally offer something that doesn’t mean that much for something that means more in exchange, and have a seat at the table crafting the agreements to the benefit of all.
Older than you think, but probably not as old as a lot here. Old enough to be concerned about these things not for my sake but for the sake of my descendants.
Of course you are.
Rights do not come with preconditions or prior restraint.
You want us to give up our rights in exchanged for a heavily restricted and regulated privilege.
It is all or none.
Only one place in the entire constitution do we see this restriction on gov’t and that is because of how essential it is to remaining free, “… Shall not be Infringed”.
It’s not a test, just tell us how old you are so we can put your comments in context with the times you have lived.
But if it’s all or none you currently have none. You’ve said yourself there are enforced laws on the books that infringe on several amendments. If it’s all or none those rights don’t exist by your definition. If you have no rights you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by SMART negotiation.
Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.
I never said a right ceases to exist when it’s infringed upon, it is simply infringed upon.
Why do you keep avoiding the question as to how old you are? Like I said, I intend no insult I’m just trying to get a grasp on your life experience and understanding of the issue.
You claim to want to have an open and honest discussion on gun rights and that’s what I’m trying to do. I don’t really feel like going through a hundred questions in an attempt to divine it when we have a very direct route to where we need to be.
I just don’t really feel like it’s pertinent. Let’s just say I’m no longer in most advertisers coveted age demographic, but AARP and hearing aid companies deem me worthy to spend postage on. Haven’t started receiving Depends coupons yet tho. 
1 Like
Fair enough. How then is it you have such a poor understanding of gun rights? Are you just now for some reason becoming interested?
I only ask because you come off like an 18-20 something that’s never had any info to operate off of other than democrat talking points.
That’s sort of the environment I was raised in.
Fair enough. Have you since become a firearms owner and advocate?
See, that’s the thing. I’ve always been a firearms owner. Since before I was of legal age. It’s the law thing that didn’t concern me that much.
As far as understanding of gun rights, I just never really thought about it as I was never concerned about a grab. I never intended to comply with any such orders. Also, with a few knowledgeable comrades, a little forethought, and some rudimentary (Stone Age even) implements I’m pretty sure I can secure whatever weapons I need.
But as I age these things become more important to me.
Ok then do you understand the difference in rights protected by the BOR and privileges?
Driving for example is a privilege that comes with heavy pre qualifications and restrictions.
Of course. I just don’t take the all or nothing approach. Ideals are targets, but every conflict is an opportunity, every transaction a negotiation. Ask dear leader. He’ll back me up on this. The trick is positioning. By taking the all or nothing approach you are denying yourself the opportunity to better position yourself. Meanwhile our rights are being chipped away at AND the populace at large is less safe.
It would be silly to allow, say, red flag laws without getting something meaningful in return, and it would be even sillier to not be at the table to craft both sides of the transaction. At least then there can be demonstrable evidence that you are willing to try to improve things,even if absolutely nothing changes and you are stuck where you are now.
No, it is an all or nothing proposition. Either we surrender our rights in exchange for heavily regulated privileges or we do not.
There is much we can do that would actually have an effect on violent crime and mass shootings that do not infringe on anyone’s rights.
You would have us freely give up our rights and simply hope that the democrats would not come back ever demanding even more infringements on our rights
The history of gun control in this country shows us that it is irrefutably true that their eventual goal is as near total disarmament of the general populace no matter how “reasonable” we become in accepting their version of “reasonable gun safety laws and regulations”.
Now here’s the question. Do you want to actually do something that will reduce “gun related crime” or do you simply want to disarm an ever growing percentage of the law abiding public?