• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My compromise.

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
2,054
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with. However, I'm also willing to compromise on certain aspects. Here are my proposals if the alternative is the current gun control position is implemented into law:

My offer.

1. Universal background checks that are attached to state issued IDs like driver's licenses. Prohibited persons will have marked IDs like sex offenders do in my state. This way if someone wants to buy a firearm, all he has to do is to provide his DL and the seller can see if he's prohibited or not. This will bypass the concern about background checks to exercise a constitutional right being unconstitutional. Everyone gets a background check whether you own guns or not. It's indiscriminate.

2. Public access to the NCIS database. This way anyone can run their own background checks on potential buyers with a simple app on a phone.

3. Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit. This way the second amendment isn't inadvertently only for the people who can afford training. The other scenario will incentivise otherwise unwilling gun owners to seek training for a tax write off.

4. Mandatory mental evaluations that are attached to driver's licenses or have mental evaluations be a tax benefit. Basically, every proposed prerequisite to own a firearm is applied to everyone or otherwise indiscriminate to gun owners. Everyone get treated equally. Besides, there are some people on the roads that should be mentally evaluated.

Now, no good compromise favors one side. If we're to implement the proposals listed above, here's where the gun rights advocates get in return:

In exchange.

1. National reciprocity for carrying a firearm. If I can get a license in Florida and drive all the way to Washington State and still be good, even though driving is a privilege, not a right, I should be able to do the same with my constitutional right that is written down on paper as a right

2. No "assualt weapons" bans or magazine limits nationwide. Even studies supporting gun control measures state that it's not the type of firearms available to the public that we need to worry about. It's who has access is the major concern.

3. Deregulate suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA. There's really no science in regulating suppressors in the first place. In fact, in Germany I believe, suppressors are not only unregulated, but required for certain types of hunting. As for short barreled firearms, there are so many work arounds to have a completely legal AR pistol for the general public that the short barreled rifle/shotgun catagory in the NFA is largely obsolete.

That's pretty much it.
 
I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with. However, I'm also willing to compromise on certain aspects. Here are my proposals if the alternative is the current gun control position is implemented into law:

My offer.

1. Universal background checks that are attached to state issued IDs like driver's licenses. Prohibited persons will have marked IDs like sex offenders do in my state. This way if someone wants to buy a firearm, all he has to do is to provide his DL and the seller can see if he's prohibited or not. This will bypass the concern about background checks to exercise a constitutional right being unconstitutional. Everyone gets a background check whether you own guns or not. It's indiscriminate.

2. Public access to the NCIS database. This way anyone can run their own background checks on potential buyers with a simple app on a phone.

3. Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit. This way the second amendment isn't inadvertently only for the people who can afford training. The other scenario will incentivise otherwise unwilling gun owners to seek training for a tax write off.

4. Mandatory mental evaluations that are attached to driver's licenses or have mental evaluations be a tax benefit. Basically, every proposed prerequisite to own a firearm is applied to everyone or otherwise indiscriminate to gun owners. Everyone get treated equally. Besides, there are some people on the roads that should be mentally evaluated.

Now, no good compromise favors one side. If we're to implement the proposals listed above, here's where the gun rights advocates get in return:

In exchange.

1. National reciprocity for carrying a firearm. If I can get a license in Florida and drive all the way to Washington State and still be good, even though driving is a privilege, not a right, I should be able to do the same with my constitutional right that is written down on paper as a right

2. No "assualt weapons" bans or magazine limits nationwide. Even studies supporting gun control measures state that it's not the type of firearms available to the public that we need to worry about. It's who has access is the major concern.

3. Deregulate suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA. There's really no science in regulating suppressors in the first place. In fact, in Germany I believe, suppressors are not only unregulated, but required for certain types of hunting. As for short barreled firearms, there are so many work arounds to have a completely legal AR pistol for the general public that the short barreled rifle/shotgun catagory in the NFA is largely obsolete.

That's pretty much it.

If someone is considered such a threat that they can't be trusted to legally have a gun- what is that person doing running around loose amongst us anyway? It's something like those "pedophiles can't live next door to a school" laws. But they can live next door to my children and grandchildren???
 
I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with. However, I'm also willing to compromise on certain aspects. Here are my proposals if the alternative is the current gun control position is implemented into law:

My offer.

1. Universal background checks that are attached to state issued IDs like driver's licenses. Prohibited persons will have marked IDs like sex offenders do in my state. This way if someone wants to buy a firearm, all he has to do is to provide his DL and the seller can see if he's prohibited or not. This will bypass the concern about background checks to exercise a constitutional right being unconstitutional. Everyone gets a background check whether you own guns or not. It's indiscriminate.

2. Public access to the NCIS database. This way anyone can run their own background checks on potential buyers with a simple app on a phone.

3. Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit. This way the second amendment isn't inadvertently only for the people who can afford training. The other scenario will incentivise otherwise unwilling gun owners to seek training for a tax write off.

4. Mandatory mental evaluations that are attached to driver's licenses or have mental evaluations be a tax benefit. Basically, every proposed prerequisite to own a firearm is applied to everyone or otherwise indiscriminate to gun owners. Everyone get treated equally. Besides, there are some people on the roads that should be mentally evaluated.

Now, no good compromise favors one side. If we're to implement the proposals listed above, here's where the gun rights advocates get in return:

In exchange.

1. National reciprocity for carrying a firearm. If I can get a license in Florida and drive all the way to Washington State and still be good, even though driving is a privilege, not a right, I should be able to do the same with my constitutional right that is written down on paper as a right

2. No "assualt weapons" bans or magazine limits nationwide. Even studies supporting gun control measures state that it's not the type of firearms available to the public that we need to worry about. It's who has access is the major concern.

3. Deregulate suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA. There's really no science in regulating suppressors in the first place. In fact, in Germany I believe, suppressors are not only unregulated, but required for certain types of hunting. As for short barreled firearms, there are so many work arounds to have a completely legal AR pistol for the general public that the short barreled rifle/shotgun catagory in the NFA is largely obsolete.

That's pretty much it.

What you propose is far better than anything Democrats have proposed, but then again, they don't really appear to care about saving lives. If they did, their gun control proposals would be radically different.
 
What you propose is far better than anything Democrats have proposed, but then again, they don't really appear to care about saving lives. If they did, their gun control proposals would be radically different.

I propose we disarm the Police and provide guns and training to the poor.
 
A few weeks ago I saw someone in a FaceBook gun group offer a compromise, it went something like "you don't pass any gun control, and in exchange, we don't kill you". He got banned for that, but I think he spoke the hearts of most 2A supporters.
 
I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with.

Why? There is nothing in the Second Amendment which remotely can be construed to imply this. Military weapons are tools of the trade. If you want them - join the military.
 
Why? There is nothing in the Second Amendment which remotely can be construed to imply this. Military weapons are tools of the trade. If you want them - join the military.

Education for ya


Handguns and shot Guns are not going to cut it against a tyrannical gov

This is what the second amendment is all about
 
I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with. However, I'm also willing to compromise on certain aspects. Here are my proposals if the alternative is the current gun control position is implemented into law:

My offer.

1. Universal background checks that are attached to state issued IDs like driver's licenses. Prohibited persons will have marked IDs like sex offenders do in my state. This way if someone wants to buy a firearm, all he has to do is to provide his DL and the seller can see if he's prohibited or not. This will bypass the concern about background checks to exercise a constitutional right being unconstitutional. Everyone gets a background check whether you own guns or not. It's indiscriminate.

2. Public access to the NCIS database. This way anyone can run their own background checks on potential buyers with a simple app on a phone.

3. Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit. This way the second amendment isn't inadvertently only for the people who can afford training. The other scenario will incentivise otherwise unwilling gun owners to seek training for a tax write off.

4. Mandatory mental evaluations that are attached to driver's licenses or have mental evaluations be a tax benefit. Basically, every proposed prerequisite to own a firearm is applied to everyone or otherwise indiscriminate to gun owners. Everyone get treated equally. Besides, there are some people on the roads that should be mentally evaluated.

Now, no good compromise favors one side. If we're to implement the proposals listed above, here's where the gun rights advocates get in return:

In exchange.

1. National reciprocity for carrying a firearm. If I can get a license in Florida and drive all the way to Washington State and still be good, even though driving is a privilege, not a right, I should be able to do the same with my constitutional right that is written down on paper as a right

2. No "assualt weapons" bans or magazine limits nationwide. Even studies supporting gun control measures state that it's not the type of firearms available to the public that we need to worry about. It's who has access is the major concern.

3. Deregulate suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA. There's really no science in regulating suppressors in the first place. In fact, in Germany I believe, suppressors are not only unregulated, but required for certain types of hunting. As for short barreled firearms, there are so many work arounds to have a completely legal AR pistol for the general public that the short barreled rifle/shotgun catagory in the NFA is largely obsolete.

That's pretty much it.

My license is good for five years. So 5 years between background checks. That sucks. Also it is an unfunded mandate on the states
 
Education for ya


Handguns and shot Guns are not going to cut it against a tyrannical gov

This is what the second amendment is all about

No, it is not. Go up against the LEO, NG, or military, and you lose: your freedom, your family, probably your life.

Come back to reality.
 
No, it is not. Go up against the LEO, NG, or military, and you lose: your freedom, your family, probably your life.

Come back to reality.

Really?

Pray tell how those Afghan guerrilla fighters have done in Afghanistan (Longest war in history)?
 
My license is good for five years. So 5 years between background checks. That sucks. Also it is an unfunded mandate on the states

I would personally love to see mandatory retesting for drivers licenses and gun ownership.
 
Our useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worse.

Yeah.... is that not a separate issue therefore a distraction to what I stated?
 
Why? There is nothing in the Second Amendment which remotely can be construed to imply this. Military weapons are tools of the trade. If you want them - join the military.

Except, of course, for that pesky militia clause. The 2A is not about having guns for the purpose of target shooting or hunting.
 
My license is good for five years. So 5 years between background checks. That sucks. Also it is an unfunded mandate on the states

That license can be suspended or revoked at any time.
 
That license can be suspended or revoked at any time.

So you would revoke a drivers license if someone gets a domestic violence charge even though that is unrelated to driving???
 
So you would revoke a drivers license if someone gets a domestic violence charge even though that is unrelated to driving???

Nope, where did you come up with that idea? BTW, sentences are not imposed based on "getting charged".
 
If someone is considered such a threat that they can't be trusted to legally have a gun- what is that person doing running around loose amongst us anyway? It's something like those "pedophiles can't live next door to a school" laws. But they can live next door to my children and grandchildren???

Interesting point on the pedophile law concerning residence.

Most laws state a pedophile cannot live within 1/4 mile of a school. Which I assume is the farthest school children would walk to school and that is good.

But beyond that 1/4 mile he can reside and potentially find victims walking down his street.

We used to have safe houses kids could run to in case of danger and those houses had McGruff signs in front. Perhaps we need a law that registered sex offenders have a sign in front of their houses alerting the public a pervert lives here.
 
Nope, where did you come up with that idea? BTW, sentences are not imposed based on "getting charged".

So a conviction for domestic violence would result in a license suspension?
 
So a conviction for domestic violence would result in a license suspension?

I doubt it, what makes you think that it should? I do find it odd that a (felony) DUI conviction should carry a life sentence unrelated to driving.
 
I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with. However, I'm also willing to compromise on certain aspects. Here are my proposals if the alternative is the current gun control position is implemented into law:

My offer.

1. Universal background checks that are attached to state issued IDs like driver's licenses. Prohibited persons will have marked IDs like sex offenders do in my state. This way if someone wants to buy a firearm, all he has to do is to provide his DL and the seller can see if he's prohibited or not. This will bypass the concern about background checks to exercise a constitutional right being unconstitutional. Everyone gets a background check whether you own guns or not. It's indiscriminate.

2. Public access to the NCIS database. This way anyone can run their own background checks on potential buyers with a simple app on a phone.

3. Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit. This way the second amendment isn't inadvertently only for the people who can afford training. The other scenario will incentivise otherwise unwilling gun owners to seek training for a tax write off.

4. Mandatory mental evaluations that are attached to driver's licenses or have mental evaluations be a tax benefit. Basically, every proposed prerequisite to own a firearm is applied to everyone or otherwise indiscriminate to gun owners. Everyone get treated equally. Besides, there are some people on the roads that should be mentally evaluated.

Now, no good compromise favors one side. If we're to implement the proposals listed above, here's where the gun rights advocates get in return:

In exchange.

1. National reciprocity for carrying a firearm. If I can get a license in Florida and drive all the way to Washington State and still be good, even though driving is a privilege, not a right, I should be able to do the same with my constitutional right that is written down on paper as a right

2. No "assualt weapons" bans or magazine limits nationwide. Even studies supporting gun control measures state that it's not the type of firearms available to the public that we need to worry about. It's who has access is the major concern.

3. Deregulate suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA. There's really no science in regulating suppressors in the first place. In fact, in Germany I believe, suppressors are not only unregulated, but required for certain types of hunting. As for short barreled firearms, there are so many work arounds to have a completely legal AR pistol for the general public that the short barreled rifle/shotgun catagory in the NFA is largely obsolete.

That's pretty much it.
Pass on the first four.
Good with the last three.
 
I doubt it, what makes you think that it should? I do find it odd that a (felony) DUI conviction should carry a life sentence unrelated to driving.

Uh.....a dui is a driving charge. A domestic violence conviction is grounds in some states to revoke gun ownership
 
Back
Top Bottom