Others are not as polarized and opposite as you imagine. We can come together.

a reply to: deadlyhope

You're walking a fine line between mandating safety and personal responsibility.

While I do agree that safety is paramount, it concerns me that we are making government accountable for what should be our own personal responsibility.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Metallicus
I won't compromise on any of my rights in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

After that I am willing to negotiate.

"It is the weak man who urges compromise, never the strong man."
-Elbert Hubbard

"The opposite of compromise is character."
-Frederick Douglass

That's not true. I'm very strong...mentally and physically and I have a lot of character. I compete in martial arts I own a business and have a family I stand up for my rights, but...I realize that compromise and negotiation and discussion and openemindedness are what makes a strong person. The closeminded person is the weakest, most unsuccessful, unhappy person amongst us.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You do realize the second amendment was written by our founding government, right? Regardless of intent, meaning, or otherwise, it was still people that wrote it, and people that must ensure that it is upheld and honored as one of our rights. Some call it a God given right, but it's still paper and pen that made that right actually defensible - and it is paper and pen that will continue to do so.

Those that desire their right to bear arms especially have to be willing to consider how we bear them, and ensure that guidelines are put in place to maximize our right to arms. You can try to stand on some vague principle all you want, but you're not allowed to threaten anyone with terrorism/violence with your free speech - I'd hardly call this a restriction, though. The intent is obvious and agreed upon by both the left and right.

Such obvious reasoning can and should be applied to arms, as well, I would assert. Kids are not responsible enough to own and operate arms without an adult - access to military grade weapons should be limited to organized militias ( which I think there could be more of ) and the official military/army etc.

Are you only willing to offer vague statements of personal responsibility, without any backup as to what "responsible" is actually defined as? What is your overall point where you are willing to compromise or even dictate policy, anyways? When every person is dead because citizens have access to nuclear weaponry?

If you think I'm being facetious, you might understand my point in saying that restrictions are necessary, but need to be used in the lowest amounts necessary.

a reply to: deadlyhope

The founding fathers recognized freedoms they did not create them.

If a person is mature enough to vote, why are they not mature enough to own a firearm?

Consistency would be nice.

a reply to: amazing

A person believes their right to bear arms is being threatened, and they come back with empty rhetoric and grand standing, rather than going over intelligent policy and interpretation of our rights - ensuring the second is upheld to the standards they expect it to be held to. It's an ongoing debate and process, and I feel many citizens would like to give up the intellectual and responsible side altogether, and resort to drastic and violent tactics, acting more as caveman than the responsible citizens they claim to be.

Fortunately, their are those that are well educated, collected, intelligent that represent this issue in the way that truly protects it in the modern world we live in. Mentions of God and responsibility are not how law and policy are created, defended, nor changed, regardless of one's convictions about the matter.

a reply to: DBCowboy

18 should be voting, drinking, signing up for the army, and bearing arms, in my opinion. If you're old enough to die for your country, you're certainly old enough to partake in other aspects that assumes maturity and responsibility, in my opinion.