Guns In America

My 2 cents, dissolve the ATF. Remove all gun control laws.

Shall not be infringed means to leave it TF alone.

There have already been too many compromises. Restricting high-capacity magazines will only ensure people are killed with firearms with smaller magazines.

My answer is to not publicize any mass shooters' names or motives. Do not give them their spotlight. Take away any type of "glory" for them.

Our media is feeding this, just like high-speed chases. Does anyone here remember when the media would have a helicopter over every high-speed chase, and it got worse? Kids started doing it to get their 2 minutes. Early 90`s if I remember.

originally posted by: Kocag
There has been more than enough compromise as they put it. The real issue we have is a problem with violent criminals that isn't being adressed.

The real issue here as someone already addressed, is not guns, but the lunatics weilding them. Why were people in authority like the Obama admin allowed to release criminals into the streets?
Criminals dont care about gun laws. Neither do mental patients on pharmaceuticals and other illegal drugs.

People should only be allowed the same guns as people had when the 2nd came into force.

Think I'd better add I'm only joking before people get angry.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

I do know you are joking, but I do want to add that that is why they didn't specify any particular type or kind of firearm when they wrote the 2nd amendment. They knew times would change and things would evolve beyond what they had in the 1700s.

In the spirit of cooperation, I offer the following compromise:

1. The US government must end its relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank and return to a commodities based currency.

2. The US government must abolish the DHS, TSA, CIA, IRS, and the ATF.

3. The US must close down GITMO and any other torture camp both at home and abroad.

4. The people of the US must approve, by popular vote, any foreign military operation and / or any weapons sale or transfer to another country. Further, the American people must approve any foreign aid to any country on a case by case basis.

In return, I would accept a total ban on any and all two-shot derringers, but nothing else.

a reply to: AntiTrump

1. American citizens owned semi-automatic rifles for 40+ years before the US military adopted them for use.

2. I don't accept any limitations on my right to keep and bear arms.

There will be no compromise, if you think you can take them, come try.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
People should only be allowed the same guns as people had when the 2nd came into force.

Think I'd better add I'm only joking before people get angry.

Giant canons. Count me in.

Every time I hear anything about gun control, I think of this:

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

Well, if the cabal weren't constantly running these Capstone exercises known as school shootings in the U.S., which are CLEARLY psyops to anyone who has done even a modicum of earnest research and breaking down of the events, this wouldn't even be a conversation.

originally posted by: Sapphire

originally posted by: Kocag
There has been more than enough compromise as they put it. The real issue we have is a problem with violent criminals that isn't being adressed.

The real issue here as someone already addressed, is not guns, but the lunatics weilding them. Why were people in authority like the Obama admin allowed to release criminals into the streets?
Criminals dont care about gun laws. Neither do mental patients on pharmaceuticals and other illegal drugs.

That's the point. They want to disarm honest people, but that's going to be a line they don't want to cross.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

All great points except for #4. California and New York would be deciding everything unless we use the electoral college.

a reply to: AntiTrump

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

No compromise for authoritarians who wish to deny civil rights.


Don't like them, don't own them.

a reply to: AntiTrump

one of the first gun laws was each and every able bodied man equip himself with a musket of sufficient bore.
another one was that for five years musket manufacturers make muskets of sufficient bore.

that alone should tell people that the founders had intentions for people to be able to defend themselves against harm, mainly from foreign invaders and from a government that has gotten to big for their britches.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Why is no liability insurance required on all weapons for damage to life and property like is required for our home, our vehicles and our professions?

Which of those is a Constitutional Right ?


....one of these things is not like the other

a reply to: DAVID64

oh oh i know,
one is a right and one is a privilege

a reply to: FyreByrd

Could you explain exactly why you want to take away the ability for people, that can't afford this mandatory insurance, to defend themselves? Or should only the ones that can afford it get paid protection?


I am willing to give up anything over six inch diameter bore. Way too heavy to carry. This applies only to firearms and no other form of projectile weapons.

When did the left ever compromise on this? Can anyone please tell me exactly what that compromise was and when it happened?

This is not a problem of legislation or lack thereof. We are one of the most heavily legislated nations on Earth. The last thing we need is more laws we can't or won't enforce. And that is the true nature of this problem, in two parts.

One, legislation does not change behavior. Making something illegal does not prevent it from happening. It does nothing but provide a means of punishing someone after the fact. After the fact is not when you want to intervene if saving lives is your goal.

Second, everything we are talking about is already legislated. You cant make it more illegal than it already is. Either something is illegal or it isn't. Passing more and more laws that do exactly the same thing accomplishes nothing. If you could enforce the first one all the others would not be necessary. If you cant enforce the first one, what makes you think you can enforce any of the others?

When someone commits a crime with a firearm its not just one law that is broken. Look at an event such a murder committed with a firearm. There are multiple laws broken in that one event. Murder. Assault with a deadly weapon. Unlawful use of a weapon. Illegally owned/carried firearms. Discharging a firearm within city limits. Brandishing a firearm. Etc, etc, etc. That one act is probably illegal at least ten different ways - and apparently we are powerless to prevent it. Please tell me why that will change if we make it illegal eleven different ways instead of ten.

And most important of all - none of this legislation has ever stated how it is meant to take guns away from criminals. The only thing that has ever been outlined in detail is how to usurp the rights of law abiding citizens. Not one single time has anyone ever said how they plan to take guns away from the people committing these crimes. Please tell me how further disarming of law abiding citizens will make criminals stop killing people. I would really like to know the thought process behind this concept. From where I stand - it makes no sense whatsoever.

It honestly seems like the political process is saying, "I cant take the criminals guns away, so I will take yours instead. At least I did something..." Yeah, you did something. You made criminals more bold and made law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves. Great job. Well done. Congratulations.

I thought about it.

I think you should move to Great Britain.

You would be much more at home, THERE!!!!!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
What is the left "compromising" on, exactly?

What are they giving up?

Their sex organ’s apparently

OP:

Rights are solely enumerated in the constitution, they come from God. They cannot be legislated away, reduced, IE infringed period. The right is “arms” this is further illuminated in the Federalist papers.

It’s not a “gun” or type of gun question

How many times and to how many people does this need to be repeated?