At Least Four People Killed in Shooting at Kansas Factory, Police Said

[beevul]

91. Then you, Sir, are blind.

Please show me where the anti gun supporters have ever gotten everything I've not seen it.

Then you, Sir, are blind. The NFA of 1934. The CGA of 1968. You could start with those. Gun owners/rights supporters got NOTHING from those. The only gains there were for anti-gunners. How many more examples would you like, because I have all day and sufficient google-fu.

This is what I mean when I say you and I have a different opinion on compromise. The gun control people basically got nothing from this bill. It was not a compromise, it was a give-away.

Before the compromise, there was CC reciprocity. Then there was a change that did away with reciprocity, with nothing given in return. Then there was the 'compromise' which was a result of a whole lot of folks angry about the CC changes, which returned reciprocity to its prior status quo, and gave your side things it did not previously have. If anything, your side was the only side that really got anything it didn't already have, at the end of it all.

Yet you feel you got nothing. That's because you have extreme views on what constitutes 'compromise' and 'gun control'.

Effective gun control laws would be making it harder for people to get a gun, like licensing and registration...

Deal breaker. Not just no, but HELL NO. Heres why:

Owning guns should not be considered a constitutional right any more than anything else that people own. If you want to own something as potentially dangerous as a gun, you need to have a good reason to own one and be able to pass all obstacles to owning one. People are free to own cars now, but are not legal to drive them in public withoiut license and registration. Good reasons for owning a gun would be livestock protection, hunting, etc. Guns are just too dangerous to be owned for "sport" alone, unless you are into competition target practice, in which case, you could get a special license to own a gun for that purpose.

We really don't have anything to talk about. You want it to be a privilege, and I insist that it remain a right. Theres no middle ground between the two, and yours is the extremist position between the two, well outside the mainstream of Americans.

There are no such obstacles for car ownership. People are free to own guns too, but are not legal to carry them in public without license.

No good reason is necessary to exercise a right.

They are not safe even when purchased as self-protection, as in the end they kill more in the households who buy them for self-protection, than they protect. So, owning a gun for self-protection should only be available to certain people who "qualify" for that necessity.

If you're going to cite Kellerman, you should at least give him credit, even though he is wrong.

Certain kinds of guns that make killing other humans easier (especially mass killings) have no place in our society today, other than in the military or on the police forces (and even then they should be limited to squads designed to tackle domestic violence and terrorism).

Negative ghost rider, you will not get another assault weapon ban, particularly when support for them is based on trumped up false and misleading talking points.

What I'm willing to give up in exchange for this, is the idea of taking all guns away. Many people want to do that, and while I don't think it has a chance of hell in the US, I can certainly see why gun owners are frightened by the possibility laws could be passed to do that.

Then you'll get nothing. Remember, you need the support of gun owners to get anything accomplished. We on the other hand, don't need anti-gunners to get anything done.

Maybe you should rethink your definition of 'compromise' with that in mind.