Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is gun control is polarizing and party-specific. One side feels one way, the other feels the opposite. Supporters of unrestricted ownership are one of the most fervent single-issue voting groups in the country, and there is no better single identifier for which party a person will vote for than whether or not they own a gun (*).
believe it or not there are republicans that are for gun control. Just not the extreme that many democrats want. Both have to be willing to make concession on the issue. Both also need to take a look at many issues and grow up and do what's best for Americans. I believe in stricter gun laws, but I do not believe in a strict zero gun policy. One of the issues not being talked about is the FBI handling, after being pointed to this individual. I'm not saying they could have stopped the guy, but man, it's hard to not look at the FBI as a complete joke of a government service after everything they've been tied to over the last 3 years and all the cases...what a joke they've become
Any examples? Republican voters, sure. Republican representatives, no. All the evidence shows us that Republicans have no interest in changing how guns are monitored/restricted/sold except to make them easier to obtain. What other compromises should the Democrats be making? What extreme proposals are they refusing to be reasonable on? Re-drafting the Assault Weapons Ban that died in 2004 is a no-go for Republicans Restricting gun sales for the "No fly list" was a no-go for Republicans Obama's rule restricting access to guns for some people with mental disorders was blocked by Republicans and signed by Trump Republicans in the House refused Democrats call for a Select Committee to study gun violence (in response to LV shooting) Republicans refuse to hold a vote on legislation to ban bump stocks (in response to LV shooting) Republicans refuse reconsider the Dickey Amendment which is used to prevent the CDC from studying gun deaths as a national heath issue There is zero movement on the many study requests and policy proposals Democrats have put forward aimed at various degrees of gun restrictions. Republicans support zero of these efforts, and zero of them are extreme. When I read "both sides need to compromise" or "both sides refuse to do anything" I have not idea what you guys are talking about. One side is stopping progress/defending the 2nd Amendment (depending on your perspective). The fact that the narrative that "Democrats are trying to take away our guns" can exists alongside "both parties don't want to do anything about gun violence" is absurd. One party has zero interest in reforming gun restrictions, the other does.
Maybe your right, all i know is i saw a Republican on tv yesterday talking about reform. Didn't recognize him, odds are he's a new guy who is already ruffling feathers. But let's also keep in mind, that while extremely childish, Republican may have blocked in response to other issues. Sadly that's the way the government works. Making concessions may not mean on issue at hand. While that sounds ignort,i it is sadly the way it is That by no means means it's alright
There needs to be restrictions. There's no reason for any person to own a semi-auto assault rifle, whether it's considered military grade or not. If it's not a carry permit pistol or a shotgun/rifle for hunting... then what the fuck is the point? Just to have one? Fuck that. Times are changing, adapt.
An AR 15 is not an assault rifle. It is literally like any 223 rifles, but is designed to look like an m4/m16. The same thing can be done with ANY semi-auto rifle that can be used for hunting. That's part of problem, I'm for more regulation, but please don't classify a weapon with something it's not. That common misconception breeds more extreme pro gun people
I appreciate your rationality, thought, and reason. Something this debate needs desperately needs from both sides.
I'll listen to any side and discuss issues with anyone that 1) brings logic 2) never refrains to "because" 3) willing to hear other side 4) comes open minded Like I said in earlier post, it's sad that the 9 main users on here could sit in a room and come up with solution to gun control, energy, immigration and many other problems with simple discussion, that would satisfy both sides, but those that are elected can not. Well, I take that back 2 people I never want to listen to are the Warren lady, because she seems to be flat out lying about her native American status to obtain a minority job at Harvard and Jimmy Kimmel, he's just so whiney
I see this point made a lot. "The AR-15 is not a military weapon" "is not an assault rifle"... But the original AR-15 was certainly an assault rifle . The Vietnam era M16 was just a customized AR-15 (*). The modern AR-15 isn't classified as an assault rifle because it doesn't have a burst or full-automatic firing mode (bump stocks can change this, of course). Because of this, the AR-15 may not fit the technical definition of an "assault rifle" however, it was a part of the Federal Assault Weapons ban (1994-2004). This seems like a semantic argument to me, but I concede that words are important. People need to refer to weapons like the AR-15 as "military-style" and "assault-style" or be more specific.
I'm not a gun guy, but I feel like the "it's not an assault rifle" in rebuttal to an AR is kind of redundant/semantics. Of course anyone could do what's been done with any other semi-auto rifle... But they aren't. A serious question because I don't know any better and I'm at work so no time to look any of this up.. But what other semi auto rifle is as light weight & has easy to reload magazine clips? There's clearly a reason this seems to be the gun of choice for these things. It's perfect for urban warfare, as far as a legally obtainable rifle goes. Can you hunt with it? (Actually dont know) If not, then there's no reason to own it besides "because I can"...."I think they're cool"... "They're legal". I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant when it comes to guns. I'm looking to be educated, not necessarily debated, although I'm cool with that too. Something needs to be done, that's all I know. The right to bare arms was from a time we were at war with Britain. Times change, adapt with them.
Yes you can hunt with ARs, they are often used by boar hunters, most commonly. I would be fire a restriction on bump stocks, there are no need for those. Any rifle that is semi automatic can be made light weight and have high compacity magazines as well. Essentially the style to make them look like the military M4/M16 Are cosmetic. It's essentially the same as putting a spoiler and rims on your care, it looks cooler.
Lots will argue magazine size. Some saying if a shooter had less rounds he could not inflict as much damage. I don't completely buy that. Some who is trained could do just as much damage with a weapon with less rounds. As a trained infantry man I know that I could out shoot a lot of people with a weapon I would have to reload more than those with high compactiy magazines. Hell, my old man out should people with a bolt action shot gun when others were using pump and semi. It's all training Yes, something needs to be done, but I do feel like we could have both gun regulations and access to the AR rifle that is under such scrutiny
BTW, just wanted to say, I think the conversation were having is a good one because neither side has resulted in just attacking the other and appears open to hearing all points
This is the best point in this thread. Republicans are the party of obstruction, and they don’t actually know what they’re doing when the time comes. We’ve put backseat drivers in charge of this country, and it’s frustrating to see people defend their complete lack of leadership time and time again when the evidence is right there that they are completely inept at performing even their most basic civic duties like protecting our children in school. This is exactly why I said before that Malcolm Jenkins shouldn’t meet with Trump. I’m tired of asking reasonable people to constantly come to the table with a group of people with zero intention of a deal. And yet, republicans (after YEARS of obstruction and complete blockage of even the most bi-partisan legislations) have the audacity to say that this is why nothing will get done. What an absolute embarrassment that entire wing of government is to our country.
Also, can someone please explain to me why we need guns in this country? What exactly is so wrong about a ban? It works perfectly fine for other places in the world.
I have yet to approach someone who can actually give a good philosophical reason behind our need for guns. It's always a mix between hunting (most ppl who give this reason don't actually hunt), protection from government (see: waco), and protection from home invasion (despite studies showing that guns in the house are far more likely to be used on people in the house than intruders). The next argument is that if you take the guns away from all the good people, only the criminals will have them ... But who exactly are these criminals? Criminals get guns from walmart, gun stores, etc just like everyone else. The likelihood of a criminal going rogue and cruising the black market for guns is minimal, and decreases exponentially once restrictions are put in place. Unfortunately, this can't be a conversation because our population has been brainwashed into believing that owning a gun is their "right," even though most Americans don't even want to own guns.
I'll just say history has shown that leaders in power who have disarmed citizens usually have had cruel intention once they are in charge of the power. I'm not some crazy but job who things the government is out to get us. But to allow only 1 group to control something like the power of guns is a bad presidence