Conquer Club

Lets be honest America; when Obama asked the question: "Is the politics too hard?" unfortunately the answer is yes, yes it is.

So you guys need to compromise; the almost 50-50 lib-con split means you will always have basterdized solutions that are usually worse than the status quo, unless you can come to some kind of populus consensus. So what can you, the american people, do about it?

Lets start with gun laws. Conservatives hold on to the 2nd amendment, the liberals want zero guns; but what is best for the population, while still attempting to satisfy the majority?

Would this be satisfactory:
- Complete ban on all military-grade equipment (this is things like assault rifles, high grade/damage ammo, large clips etc etc; does not include home protection equipment like handguns etc). Call for a complete submission of all existing ammunation amongst the population (the guns can be kept for collective purposes). Anyone found with live ammunition past the start date will be guilty of a felony.
Coupled with:
- A complete repeal of all the conceal and carry bans in places like schools/cinemas/etc.

Would that be a good start that both sides could agree with?

I don't think many American liberals want zero guns. That seems more of a caricature that extreme pro-gun folk use to portray people who are in favour of restrictions.

Fair enough.

Oh and to clarify; I dont want people arguing for their own point of view in this thread, theres already plenty of threads for that. I am asking what people would be willing to sacrifice in terms of ideals in order to obtain something on their agenda.

first: can you please provide a definition for assault rifle

Phatscotty wrote:first: can you please provide a definition for assault rifle

Im far from an expert on weapons. What military style weaponary, if made illegal, would you be ok with ?

To start you off how about Semi-auto rifles with more than 7-10 .308 (or similar) magazine capacity? What situation would call for this over and above what something like a handgun can provide (since a handgun is specifically designed for personal protection, a semi-auto rifle with a high capacity mag is designed for military style operations).

Any rifle that can hold more than one bullet at a time is semi-automatic, so using that definition as an assault rifle is too broad. And handguns can be military-grade (issued) weapons, so that definition doesn't work either.

Yeah, by the way, I'm keeping my guns, regardless of whatever law gets passed.

Night Strike wrote:Any rifle that can hold more than one bullet at a time is semi-automatic, so using that definition as an assault rifle is too broad. And handguns can be military-grade (issued) weapons, so that definition doesn't work either.

What definition would work?

As someone that I suppose is on the "liberal" side of the issue, I would accept a compromise that involved banning semi-automatic and automatic weapons, but repealed concealed carry bans (as long as you still needed a permit and there were basic protections to ensure that not just anyone could carry a firearm on a school campus, e.g. criminal background checks). In fact, the conservative side agreeing to ban semi-automatic and automatic weapons would go a long way towards convincing me to sacrifice my own ideals on this issue, because to me it would indicate that their argument of only needing a weapon for self-defense is genuine.

So you mean you'd ban semi-automatics? My two hand guns would then be illegal.

That guy in CT just had two hand guns, right?

It seems the primary argument being made for guns here is that they are necessary for self-defense. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for self-defense, so I do not see why they should be permitted, given the great harm they can do if they become the standard tool for killing large numbers of people at once. If there were a coherent argument formulated on the conservative side why semi-automatics are necessary for self-defense, I would listen.

Metsfanmax wrote:It seems the primary argument being made for guns here is that they are necessary for self-defense. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for self-defense, so I do not see why they should be permitted, given the great harm they can do if they become the standard tool for killing large numbers of people at once. If there were a coherent argument formulated on the conservative side why semi-automatics are necessary for self-defense, I would listen.

Because "semi-automatic weapons" is an extremely broad term. Heck, non-revolver handguns are semi-automatics. Rifles primarily used for hunting that aren't bolt-action are semi-automatic. There are even shotguns that are semi-automatic. We can't just make a blanket statement that "semi-automatic weapons are banned" because it's way too broad. Besides, automatic weapons are already banned, and those are the only ones where one can clearly say there is a distinction that can be made.

Metsfanmax wrote:It seems the primary argument being made for guns here is that they are necessary for self-defense. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for self-defense, so I do not see why they should be permitted, given the great harm they can do if they become the standard tool for killing large numbers of people at once. If there were a coherent argument formulated on the conservative side why semi-automatics are necessary for self-defense, I would listen.

But I own my guns. How is the government going to take them away? I have a sneaky hiding place.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:It seems the primary argument being made for guns here is that they are necessary for self-defense. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for self-defense, so I do not see why they should be permitted, given the great harm they can do if they become the standard tool for killing large numbers of people at once. If there were a coherent argument formulated on the conservative side why semi-automatics are necessary for self-defense, I would listen.

Because "semi-automatic weapons" is an extremely broad term. Heck, non-revolver handguns are semi-automatics. Rifles primarily used for hunting that aren't bolt-action are semi-automatic. There are even shotguns that are semi-automatic. We can't just make a blanket statement that "semi-automatic weapons are banned" because it's way too broad. Besides, automatic weapons are already banned, and those are the only ones where one can clearly say there is a distinction that can be made.

I agree that any actual policy would need to be informed by firearms experts (I am not one) and take into account carefully the differences between the various types of guns. I am expressing a general tone rather than a specific argument -- I would be willing to compromise if we agreed to ban the firearms that are not strictly necessary for personal self-defense.

So what you're saying Metsfanxbox, is that you just want something banned, but have no idea what?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:It seems the primary argument being made for guns here is that they are necessary for self-defense. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for self-defense, so I do not see why they should be permitted, given the great harm they can do if they become the standard tool for killing large numbers of people at once. If there were a coherent argument formulated on the conservative side why semi-automatics are necessary for self-defense, I would listen.

Because "semi-automatic weapons" is an extremely broad term. Heck, non-revolver handguns are semi-automatics. Rifles primarily used for hunting that aren't bolt-action are semi-automatic. There are even shotguns that are semi-automatic. We can't just make a blanket statement that "semi-automatic weapons are banned" because it's way too broad. Besides, automatic weapons are already banned, and those are the only ones where one can clearly say there is a distinction that can be made.

I agree that any actual policy would need to be informed by firearms experts (I am not one) and take into account carefully the differences between the various types of guns. I am expressing a general tone rather than a specific argument -- I would be willing to compromise if we agreed to ban the firearms that are not strictly necessary for personal self-defense.

So you want to also ban all guns used for hunting or sport?

pimpdave wrote:So what you're saying Metsfanxbox, is that you just want something banned, but have no idea what?

No, I said clearly what I want banned -- I would be content with people not being able to carry anything other than single-shot (non-automatic) pistols. What I said in response to Night Strike is that on the policy level, I would be willing to compromise in such a way that other weapons would be allowed, but on the basis of their equivalency in self-defense utility.

Night Strike wrote:So you want to also ban all guns used for hunting or sport?

I think that hunting for sport is a despicable act, so yes. As to weapons that are used purely for sport, I see no reason to ban these.

But again, this is not the place for debating what I want. I am saying that the line for me is drawn at weapons unnecessary for self-defense. Anyone arguing for the permission of weapons in this category had better have a reason other than "the second amendment tells me I can own these" if they are going to get me to work with them. Hunting and sport weapons fall into the category of things that can reasonably be defended, so I would compromise on this issue.

Metsfanmax wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So what you're saying Metsfanxbox, is that you just want something banned, but have no idea what?

No, I said clearly what I want banned -- I would be content with people not being able to carry anything other than single-shot (non-automatic) pistols. What I said in response to Night Strike is that on the policy level, I would be willing to compromise in such a way that other weapons would be allowed, but on the basis of their equivalency in self-defense utility.

So what happens if your single-shot gun misses or doesn't stop an attacker?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So you want to also ban all guns used for hunting or sport?

I think that hunting for sport is a despicable act, so yes. As to weapons that are used purely for sport, I see no reason to ban these.

So now you want to impose your moral beliefs on other people? There is absolutely nothing despicable about hunting. A deer dying from running into a car is much more despicable than being killed by a through-and-through bullet to the chest. And you will get a LOT more deer and other animals killed by cars if there weren't hunters.

Metsfanmax wrote:But again, this is not the place for debating what I want. I am saying that the line for me is drawn at weapons unnecessary for self-defense. Anyone arguing for the permission of weapons in this category had better have a reason other than "the second amendment tells me I can own these" if they are going to get me to work with them. Hunting and sport weapons fall into the category of things that can reasonably be defended, so I would compromise on this issue.

Actually, citing a Constitutional right is all a person has to do. The Constitution itself is a proper justification for exercising a listed right. Why do people have to justify their ownership of guns when they don't have to justify their rights to speech, petitions, assembly, protection from self-incrimination, etc.? It's those people who want to restrict those rights that must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such restrictions are necessary.

Night Strike wrote:So now you want to impose your moral beliefs on other people?

Thought your church had a monopoly on that desire, did you?

Timminz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So now you want to impose your moral beliefs on other people?

Thought your church had a monopoly on that desire, did you?

Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy of desiring to ban any position that's related to religion while still wishing to impose his own personal beliefs on everybody else.

Night Strike wrote:So what happens if your single-shot gun misses or doesn't stop an attacker?

If you aren't good enough to stop an attacker with a single-shot pistol, I don't see what good it will to do arm you with a gun that will allow you to spray bullets wildly, possibly into the crowd. But like I said, this isn't something to be settled by emotional debate or by people who aren't experts in self-defense; it's something that should be informed by law enforcement and weapons experts, who can make the best determination on what weapons are necessary for self-defense in such situations. If they say that semi-automatic weapons like the Glock pistols that law enforcement officers carry are the best choice when considering the effectiveness of safely stopping a dangerous situation, I will accept that.

Actually, citing a Constitutional right is all a person has to do. The Constitution itself is a proper justification for exercising a listed right. Why do people have to justify their ownership of guns when they don't have to justify their rights to speech, petitions, assembly, protection from self-incrimination, etc.? It's those people who want to restrict those rights that must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such restrictions are necessary.

We're not talking about banning private gun ownership here. We're talking about making a responsible, compromise policy that allows people to exercise their Second Amendment rights to own firearms, but sets clear guidelines on exactly what types of firearms are necessary for the protections that were intended by the Second Amendment. Since I don't believe that fully automatic weapons are necessary for this protection to be fulfilled, I don't believe that simply appealing to the Second Amendment for their permittance is sensible.

Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy of desiring to ban any position that's related to religion while still wishing to impose his own personal beliefs on everybody else.

I don't desire to ban government policy that's based on religion because of my personal beliefs, I desire it because the First Amendment tells me that this is how our country is supposed to be. I absolutely believe that the law is a tool of moral coercion in its primary form.

How about what the OP suggested at a basic level... ban all guns that have a magazine above x-number of bullets? I know next to nothing about guns, but most semi automatic pistols have between what... 7 and 12 bullets? Anything more than that I would think should be excessive. I'm ok with a semi auto pistol because I DO agree that a single shot pistol does not afford a sufficient amount of protection if a robber (or several) are coming into your home.

So, how about this:
Hunting rifles, pistols, and shotguns are ok as long as they don't have a mag exceeding 12 bullets?

jj3044 wrote:How about what the OP suggested at a basic level... ban all guns that have a magazine above x-number of bullets? I know next to nothing about guns, but most semi automatic pistols have between what... 7 and 12 bullets? Anything more than that I would think should be excessive. I'm ok with a semi auto pistol because I DO agree that a single shot pistol does not afford a sufficient amount of protection if a robber (or several) are coming into your home.

So, how about this:
Hunting rifles, pistols, and shotguns are ok as long as they don't have a mag exceeding 12 bullets?

Is that what holds a tyrannical government in check?

Outside of the whole gun debate, who approves of or trusts our current government?