Gun ownership poll

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

+3! I've found this thread mostly respectful and have learned a few things.

I understand where the poster was coming from that big issue discussions don’t typically change minds but guns might be different. Abortion, death penalty, those probably don’t go anywhere. With guns, there might be a chance of reaching a better position than the one we’re in. I think the basic starting point is the right needs to understand the left doesn’t want to take away all of their guns. The left needs to understand the right isn’t in favor of mass shootings or even singular, unjustified shootings. We have a long history of gun ownership and there are an abundance of guns in this country. So both sides need to see if there are changes that can be made that result in a net benefit without all of the demonizing of the other side.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think the basic starting point is the right needs to understand the left doesn’t want to take away all of their guns.

When high ranking lawmakers talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment, this is EXACTLY where they are going.

[jbhofmann]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When high ranking lawmakers talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment, this is EXACTLY where they are going.

Repealing an amendment is possibly the hardest political action in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jbhofmann

Repealing an amendment is possibly the hardest political action in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. It’s just not happening. But the fear mongering of what the left is up to is preventing positive change. Although I have to admit some on the left so not do well when they use big rhetoric. This is an across the aisles opportunity for a step forward.

[G1911]

As a Californian, I see every legislative season that they absolutely are in fact trying to ban guns and/or take my property/turn me into an overnight felon. There is no subtlety in it at all and they are very direct about this. It is even a criminal act for me to stop for lunch on my way to the range now because I have a scary looking rifle. A surprising conservative stay order by the 2nd circuit is the only reason hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians are not yet overnight felons for their legally possessed magazines.

There's not really much of an across the aisles compromise here in this framework - one side is demanding the other cede constitutionally protected liberties in exchange for nothing. A compromise involves both sides getting something. I haven't heard of a proposal, for example, to raise the age of ownership to 21, abolish PPT's, force training before a purchase and a mandatory waiting period but to abolish the NFA restrictions after one has gone through all this. The 'give up X this time but get nothing' that has been the way this has gone since 1934 is not a compromise. An actual across-the-aisle compromise would be interesting to hear and consider, but I doubt will ever happen.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

As a Californian, I see every legislative season that they absolutely are in fact trying to ban guns and/or take my property/turn me into an overnight felon. There is no subtlety in it at all and they are very direct about this. It is even a criminal act for me to stop for lunch on my way to the range now because I have a scary looking rifle. A surprising conservative stay order by the 2nd circuit is the only reason hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians are not yet overnight felons for their legally possessed magazines.

There's not really much of an across the aisles compromise here in this framework - one side is demanding the other cede constitutionally protected liberties in exchange for nothing. A compromise involves both sides getting something. I haven't heard of a proposal, for example, to raise the age of ownership to 21, abolish PPT's, force training before a purchase and a mandatory waiting period but to abolish the NFA restrictions after one has gone through all this. The 'give up X this time but get nothing' that has been the way this has gone since 1934 is not a compromise. An actual across-the-aisle compromise would be interesting to hear and consider, but I doubt will ever happen.

To the bold part. That is crazy. Here in rural South Dakota we went the other way recently. Now you can carry a concealed gun without a permit. Not sure I am a fan of that. It is nice that if you don't have a permit you now don't have to drive to/from the range/hunting without displaying your guns at all times. On the flip side it is damn scary anyone can carry a gun concealed.

[clydepepper]

Educational:

241417721_10222206430364086_5903631918555291233_n.jpg277002551_3203082036606242_1993332298779968434_n.jpg

Smoke Deterctor.jpghome schooled.jpg

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To the bold part. That is crazy. Here in rural South Dakota we went the other way recently. Now you can carry a concealed gun without a permit. Not sure I am a fan of that. It is nice that if you don't have a permit you now don't have to drive to/from the range/hunting without displaying your guns at all times. On the flip side it is damn scary anyone can carry a gun concealed.

I agree that’s a touch scary. Between a state with a load of well meaning and some bad meaning individuals walking around with guns and a state with only some bad meaning individuals walking around with guns, I’d feel safer in the latter. That might just be me.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

As a Californian, I see every legislative season that they absolutely are in fact trying to ban guns and/or take my property/turn me into an overnight felon. There is no subtlety in it at all and they are very direct about this. It is even a criminal act for me to stop for lunch on my way to the range now because I have a scary looking rifle. A surprising conservative stay order by the 2nd circuit is the only reason hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians are not yet overnight felons for their legally possessed magazines.

There's not really much of an across the aisles compromise here in this framework - one side is demanding the other cede constitutionally protected liberties in exchange for nothing. A compromise involves both sides getting something. I haven't heard of a proposal, for example, to raise the age of ownership to 21, abolish PPT's, force training before a purchase and a mandatory waiting period but to abolish the NFA restrictions after one has gone through all this. The 'give up X this time but get nothing' that has been the way this has gone since 1934 is not a compromise. An actual across-the-aisle compromise would be interesting to hear and consider, but I doubt will ever happen.

You keep bringing up the constitution, how essentially any law against guns is against the constitution. Can you please show me where in the constitution it says you can buy any type of gun, any type of ammo, at any age, with no restrictions?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

You keep bringing up the constitution, how essentially any law against guns is against the constitution. Can you please show me where in the constitution it says you can buy any type of gun, any type of ammo, at any age, with no restrictions?

Have you quoted the wrong post? The Constitution is not really the subject directly or indirectly in this post at all. The first paragraph is about state bills and laws.

The second paragraph is about what a compromise is and why it's not an 'across the aisle' situation - because it is a demand by one side to cede rights and/or criminalize the other side without giving anything to the other side in return for this session. An interest in an actual compromise takes for granted that the federal state does regulate firearms, which is moving past a true constitutional framework.

Nonetheless, this is a very easy question to answer.