Kinda like the frog sitting in water that is slowly being heated up.  Frog doesn't notice and still doesn't even when it dies.

That is called "incrementalism".
Most things in life you have to compromise on.
Even with smart, but irrational Libs.
Keep in mind there are somethings you do not comprise on.
Our rights as enumerated in the bill of rights are some of them.
Period.
Y'all got social problems, you caused them,  YOU fix them.
I don't care about you Progressives.
But your rights to take a swing, stop at my nose.
And I'm willing to put out that fire heating up the pot of water I'm sitting in.
Rivet, Rivet.
 

I have talked with many on the far left. All but a very few were able to have a calm productive conversation.

I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter. It doesn't surprise me that you think it never works because they way you talk to people you disagree with hampers open dialogue. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Says the diplomat!

 

Says the diplomat!

 

Indeed.

Or maybe you are right, maybe they are so stubborn and can't listen to reason... But then they probably say the same thing about you. Have you checked your own eye for a log first?

While there are vids of a bunch of liberals stating a wanting to  take all guns away (not all libs), its common sense really. Right now, ban the assault rifle. The object that has less than 400 deaths a year. Less than because the FBI and CDC stats combine all (bolt action) rifles used in murders.

While handguns are 6000. So logic dictates handguns should be next due to the way higher number. And by then, it will be too late. Theyre already freaking out over 400 annual deaths and rarely if not at all report on annual pistol deaths. In fact ask anyone protesting against the 2a if they know a ballpark figure about the above. I have yet to meet 1 person who knows the stats.

This is a clear long term plan the DNC has.if they did cold turkey, then a huge up roar would take place. But chip away a little by little. Start with the scary assault rilfe that has less justification to be taken away.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You are still making assumptions about the intent of huge swaths of this country. You can say you suspect they really just want to take away all guns but saying it as if it were a fact is simply unsupported as of this point in the discussion. If you can find polling data to suggest otherwise then by all means.

As for freaking out over a rifles more than pistols, consider that these active School shootings that often involve rifles are killings of innocent children. Compare that to the majority of handgun murders which are gang related, criminals killing criminals. We can say a life lost is all the same but realistically few people shed tears when a gang banger gets murdered compared to a young child.
On a side note, the stats list over a thousand gun deaths as unknown which means that the death by rifles number could be much higher than the 400 or so. However if you added that 1000 to the known rifle murders it would still be much smaller than handguns. Just want to give that context.

Also, I wanted to correct an claim I have seen repeated a number of times here, that being that over the years they have never been compromises, just one side giving up things. I was having a discussion with a gun control advocate and that was explaining to him why we fear incremental gun control. I went looking for a link to list the numerous federal firearms laws that have slowly chipped away rights and I found that in fact there were compromises in some of these bills, some protections given to the gun rights community
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/

You are still making assumptions about the intent of huge swaths of this country. You can say you suspect they really just want to take away all guns but saying it as if it were a fact is simply unsupported as of this point in the discussion. If you can find polling data to suggest otherwise then by all means.

As for freaking out over a rifles more than pistols, consider that these active School shootings that often involve rifles are killings of innocent children. Compare that to the majority of handgun murders which are gang related, criminals killing criminals. We can say a life lost is all the same but realistically few people shed tears when a gang banger gets murdered compared to a young child.
On a side note, the stats list over a thousand gun deaths as unknown which means that the death by rifles number could be much higher than the 400 or so. However if you added that 1000 to the known rifle murders it would still be much smaller than handguns. Just want to give that context.

Also, I wanted to correct an claim I have seen repeated a number of times here, that being that over the years they have never been compromises, just one side giving up things. I was having a discussion with a gun control advocate and that was explaining to him why we fear incremental gun control. I went looking for a link to list the numerous federal firearms laws that have slowly chipped away rights and I found that in fact there were compromises in some of these bills, some protections given to the gun rights community
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/

Is it an assumption?  1 can logically assume that HI will not issue any CCW permits because none have been issued in over 15 years. But the law doesn't state we are a non-issue state.  But instead a "may issue".  Which means if someone applies today, they may get 1 right?  Or at least have a chance to be issued 1.  So if we use your POV, then HI might issue a CCW permit today.

If we look at the history of what guns laws were passed in the last 50 years, can you honestly say that they're not chipping away (frog in hot water reference).  Logic dictates my stance that I posted about.  Same logic applies when these anti 2a are asked in interviews what an "assault rifle" is that they want to ban. And so on.  If 1 wants to ban something, 1 should know a little about them.  This way they can make an educated decision on the item they want to ban.

You too are assuming that it's majority gang/criminals killed.  How do you know that the person didn't make the choice to turn their life around and they were on the way to a job interview or to their leader of the gang to tell them they want out.  Or is your statement based on once a criminal/banger, always a criminal/banger?  If it is, then your POV is correct.  But your POV also should be adjsuted because there are many criminals/ex-bangers who turned their life around and help others. Larry Lawton as an example.

How do the people keeping track know the person was at that moment of death was in a gang?  Is there a membership card or an online data base that is up to date within seconds that the person was an active gang member (see example above about going to the leader to exit the gang).

Then there is the annual "Assault Weapons Ban" bill in DC that almost all DNC reps sign on to support.  This names every make and model of semi auto rifles.  So say in their perfect world, all these were banned with no grandfather clause.  And pistols are now used to do active shootings (like MIT that killed over 30 people and the highest school shooting deaths and 2nd death rates after the Vegas shooting), can you honestly say they will not come for handguns next?

For your federal list, were these laws passed because the pro2a side came to the board, or they were in reaction to anti 2a bills?  You also left out HI.  What has HI done to "compromise"?

*Edit

Also is there documentation of every person who created the bill of rights all stating on record (name and official statement) that it relates to weapons?  I mean, 1 guy didn't actually mean to have arms of a bear (animal). If the answer is no, then you too and so is everyone else assuming things.  See I can make stuff up too.

I have talked with many on the far left. All but a very few were able to have a calm productive conversation.

I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter.

Wow. You folks gotta lot of conversations going on your conversation.

But just cause it was mentioned more than once.
I think the MIT shooting was actually the Virginia Tech shooting. (VT)
9mm and .22.

Wow. You folks gotta lot of conversations going on your conversation.

But just cause it was mentioned more than once.
I think the MIT shooting was actually the Virginia Tech shooting. (VT)
9mm and .22.

No Focus if it's the Korean guy. Walther and Glock IIRC.

You are still making assumptions about the intent of huge swaths of this country.

I'm confidently making the assumption that a lot of surrender monkeys aren't going to be around much longer after repeated boosting experimental drugs, and the ones who manage to survive will be a lot less prone to whining.

We just have to hold out until then

I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe the method I preach isn't as effective as I claim. But wouldn't that then prove a bunch of people here fall into that group of people too closed minded to talk to?

Is it an assumption?  1 can logically assume that HI will not issue any CCW permits because none have been issued in over 15 years. But the law doesn't state we are a non-issue state.  But instead a "may issue".  Which means if someone applies today, they may get 1 right?  Or at least have a chance to be issued 1.  So if we use your POV, then HI might issue a CCW permit today.

If we look at the history of what guns laws were passed in the last 50 years, can you honestly say that they're not chipping away (frog in hot water reference).  Logic dictates my stance that I posted about.  Same logic applies when these anti 2a are asked in interviews what an "assault rifle" is that they want to ban. And so on.  If 1 wants to ban something, 1 should know a little about them.  This way they can make an educated decision on the item they want to ban.

You too are assuming that it's majority gang/criminals killed.  How do you know that the person didn't make the choice to turn their life around and they were on the way to a job interview or to their leader of the gang to tell them they want out.  Or is your statement based on once a criminal/banger, always a criminal/banger?  If it is, then your POV is correct.  But your POV also should be adjsuted because there are many criminals/ex-bangers who turned their life around and help others. Larry Lawton as an example.

How do the people keeping track know the person was at that moment of death was in a gang?  Is there a membership card or an online data base that is up to date within seconds that the person was an active gang member (see example above about going to the leader to exit the gang).

Then there is the annual "Assault Weapons Ban" bill in DC that almost all DNC reps sign on to support.  This names every make and model of semi auto rifles.  So say in their perfect world, all these were banned with no grandfather clause.  And pistols are now used to do active shootings (like MIT that killed over 30 people and the highest school shooting deaths and 2nd death rates after the Vegas shooting), can you honestly say they will not come for handguns next?

For your federal list, were these laws passed because the pro2a side came to the board, or they were in reaction to anti 2a bills?  You also left out HI.  What has HI done to "compromise"?

*Edit

Also is there documentation of every person who created the bill of rights all stating on record (name and official statement) that it relates to weapons?  I mean, 1 guy didn't actually mean to have arms of a bear (animal). If the answer is no, then you too and so is everyone else assuming things.  See I can make stuff up too.

When you say that they just are working towards eventual complete bans you are making a statement about intentions and doing so without strong evidence. The best argument you could make are small steps over the course of many years which somewhat restricted firearm rights but the problem with that is that you can't determine the intent of somebody now based on what has been done for decades before. I understand the fear of incremental steps towards a complete revocation of our rights, it is a reasonable fear and something to want to resist. However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country.

Do you watch nuance bro? One of his recent episodes he interviewed anti-gun protesters outside of the NRA convention. There were a few people present who voiced support for some forms of gun control but who also explicitly stated they believed in some forms of private firearm ownership. I have found quite a number of people like this, not for complete bans just for certain regulations. Are they all just lying? Sure I suppose that's possible data to support that belief is lacking.

I think you are diving too deep into my comments about gang violence. That comment was about why gang violence doesn't get the national attention that active shooters get. The image doesn't evoke as much emotion, and it is also more foreign to the rest of the country since most people don't live on those terrible streets. But everyone has or knows innocent kids who go to school so these mass shootings understandably get much more attention. It's not meant as an indictment of people in gangs or judging their life choices.

I was talking about Federal laws because those are the ones that affect everyone. Maybe in Hawaii we can talk about how much of our rights got taken away but people in Texas wouldn't be able to make that same complaint so I was referencing laws that affect everyone overall, federal laws. I don't know the specifics of each bill without digging deep into them. I only discovered that it was inaccurate to claim that our rights only get smaller and smaller when sometimes they did get beefed up, such as the law that bans a federal database.

As for pistols I recall people wanting to restrict those for quite some time. That's nothing new and it's not contingent on first banning semi-automatic rifles. I think we're getting too far off topic here though. The point I was making was merely that there are gun control groups who want to pass legislation aimed at reducing gang violence too, not merely active shooter violence.

When you say that they just are working towards eventual complete bans you are making a statement about intentions and doing so without strong evidence. The best argument you could make are small steps over the course of many years which somewhat restricted firearm rights but the problem with that is that you can't determine the intent of somebody now based on what has been done for decades before. I understand the fear of incremental steps towards a complete revocation of our rights, it is a reasonable fear and something to want to resist. However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country.

Do you watch nuance bro? One of his recent episodes he interviewed anti-gun protesters outside of the NRA convention. There were a few people present who voiced support for some forms of gun control but who also explicitly stated they believed in some forms of private firearm ownership. I have found quite a number of people like this, not for complete bans just for certain regulations. Are they all just lying? Sure I suppose that's possible data to support that belief is lacking.

I think you are diving too deep into my comments about gang violence. That comment was about why gang violence doesn't get the national attention that active shooters get. The image doesn't evoke as much emotion, and it is also more foreign to the rest of the country since most people don't live on those terrible streets. But everyone has or knows innocent kids who go to school so these mass shootings understandably get much more attention. It's not meant as an indictment of people in gangs or judging their life choices.

I was talking about Federal laws because those are the ones that affect everyone. Maybe in Hawaii we can talk about how much of our rights got taken away but people in Texas wouldn't be able to make that same complaint so I was referencing laws that affect everyone overall, federal laws. I don't know the specifics of each bill without digging deep into them. I only discovered that it was inaccurate to claim that our rights only get smaller and smaller when sometimes they did get beefed up, such as the law that bans a federal database.

As for pistols I recall people wanting to restrict those for quite some time. That's nothing new and it's not contingent on first banning semi-automatic rifles. I think we're getting too far off topic here though. The point I was making was merely that there are gun control groups who want to pass legislation aimed at reducing gang violence too, not merely active shooter violence.

First the Jews were forced to register themselves and wear armbands.  Then guns taken away.  Then slave labor began. Then they were forced to move from their homes into certain parts of town. Then slowly, they were put into trains to be hauled away. Guess at no point was there enough "evidence" to think that things would get worst. Watch the first 30 mins of Schindlers list, Spielberg provides dates as this happened.

I guess I'm just able to see where this is going and thinking 5 steps ahead and for my children and childrens children's 2a right.  At this point, I cannot teach you this concept. So it's relatively OK.  Everyone has different ways of applying critical thinking/logic.

Since HI never stated they want to take ALL guns away, I guess every law that they tried to pass and have passed is OK then because ALL guns were not taken away.  Which would mean you should support all the bills/laws.  Like if they banned all rifles, changed mag limits to 1 round, needed to keep firearms at a range in a locker, etc... None of this is violating the 2a because you can still have you guns.

I'm not diving too deep, I was just using the type of thought that you do.  Every discussion, one can find a way to argue any side and make it sound good, even though it doesn't make sense when really thought about.

At this point, I think it's OK to say we disagree on the issues brought up and neither will be able to change the others mind.  But we both knew this from the start, I just want others to read and make their own judgments of the discussion.

Indeed.

Or maybe you are right, maybe they are so stubborn and can't listen to reason... But then they probably say the same thing about you. Have you checked your own eye for a log first?

Most of the stuff you post is based on lies which also happen to be talking points for gun control groups.

I suppose that's just a coincidence though

Science can be bought just as easily as politicians and the media, and the problem with going along with and promoting convenient lies is that you set yourself up to make terrible self destructive decisions.

Most of the stuff you post is based on lies which also happen to be talking points for gun control groups.

I suppose that's just a coincidence though

Science can be bought just as easily as politicians and the media, and the problem with going along with and promoting convenient lies is that you set yourself up to make terrible self destructive decisions.

Not only that, but the more lies you leave unchallenged, the more new lies will be based on the old -- through association and "logical reasoning."

In math class, they taught us how to prove or disprove solutions to problems applying theorems, properties as well as inductive and deductive reasoning.  The fundamental component of proving a hypothesis was trusting that the theorems, properties and reasoning skills used were TRUE.  Imagine how many things we think we know now would be disproven today if the theorems used to support them were discovered to be lies.

When it comes to gun control, certain people (and we know at least a couple here) hang their hats on statistics, even though it's been shown time and again that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.  Yet, here we are reading what someone tries to say is our problem for not listening to people who carry gun stats around on their phone as proof of what they believe.

If someone tells you 2+2 = 14, are you really going to waste your time listening to what they say as they try to convince you you're wrong and they are right?

Most of the laws being pushed have been tried in many states with strict gun laws, yet nothing seems to be stopping gun-involved crimes.  Yet, each law was passed as a "solution."

I'd like to see a list of crimes stopped by these strict laws.  To me, if they value statistics, those would be essential to convincing the gun rights groups to support the anti-gun groups' quest to pass more restrictions.  Instead, we get emotional cries from them for new laws and limitations that would not have stopped any of the most recent shootings -- period.

When you say that they just are working towards eventual complete bans you are making a statement about intentions and doing so without strong evidence. The best argument you could make are small steps over the course of many years which somewhat restricted firearm rights but the problem with that is that you can't determine the intent of somebody now based on what has been done for decades before. I understand the fear of incremental steps towards a complete revocation of our rights, it is a reasonable fear and something to want to resist. However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country.

Do you watch nuance bro? One of his recent episodes he interviewed anti-gun protesters outside of the NRA convention. There were a few people present who voiced support for some forms of gun control but who also explicitly stated they believed in some forms of private firearm ownership. I have found quite a number of people like this, not for complete bans just for certain regulations. Are they all just lying? Sure I suppose that's possible data to support that belief is lacking.

I think you are diving too deep into my comments about gang violence. That comment was about why gang violence doesn't get the national attention that active shooters get. The image doesn't evoke as much emotion, and it is also more foreign to the rest of the country since most people don't live on those terrible streets. But everyone has or knows innocent kids who go to school so these mass shootings understandably get much more attention. It's not meant as an indictment of people in gangs or judging their life choices.

I was talking about Federal laws because those are the ones that affect everyone. Maybe in Hawaii we can talk about how much of our rights got taken away but people in Texas wouldn't be able to make that same complaint so I was referencing laws that affect everyone overall, federal laws. I don't know the specifics of each bill without digging deep into them. I only discovered that it was inaccurate to claim that our rights only get smaller and smaller when sometimes they did get beefed up, such as the law that bans a federal database.

As for pistols I recall people wanting to restrict those for quite some time. That's nothing new and it's not contingent on first banning semi-automatic rifles. I think we're getting too far off topic here though. The point I was making was merely that there are gun control groups who want to pass legislation aimed at reducing gang violence too, not merely active shooter violence.

Register your guns or you will be fined and go to jail.
"However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country."
Is that not sufficient intent?
Does someone  with a bat actually have to beat you with it before you think they have intent to hurt you?
Cops blast away at the first inkling of a threat.  Why should we be any different?  We are dealing with dangerous people.
People whose history is one of death and enslavement.
Who are these people?  Governments, Kings, War Lords, and people that enable governments, Kings, and War Lords.
No compromise.
 

Register your guns or you will be fined and go to jail.
"However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country."
Is that not sufficient intent?
Does someone  with a bat actually have to beat you with it before you think they have intent to hurt you?
Cops blast away at the first inkling of a threat.  Why should we be any different?  We are dealing with dangerous people.
People whose history is one of death and enslavement.
Who are these people?  Governments, Kings, War Lords, and people that enable governments, Kings, and War Lords.
No compromise.
 

You are still making assumptions about intent. You may think registration is proof of some intent towards ultimate nationwide confiscation but that it not the only possible reason someone might want firearm registration.

Most of the stuff you post is based on lies which also happen to be talking points for gun control groups.

I suppose that's just a coincidence though

Science can be bought just as easily as politicians and the media, and the problem with going along with and promoting convenient lies is that you set yourself up to make terrible self destructive decisions.

I repeat certain things the gun control groups say to help understand the other side of the issue. You assume the worst of the other side, that it is all lies but in doing so you fail to understand your opponent.

It is easier to feel justified in fighting the other side if you demonize them but you will have a less accurate understanding of them and their beliefs

First the Jews were forced to register themselves and wear armbands.  Then guns taken away.  Then slave labor began. Then they were forced to move from their homes into certain parts of town. Then slowly, they were put into trains to be hauled away. Guess at no point was there enough "evidence" to think that things would get worst. Watch the first 30 mins of Schindlers list, Spielberg provides dates as this happened.

I guess I'm just able to see where this is going and thinking 5 steps ahead and for my children and childrens children's 2a right.  At this point, I cannot teach you this concept. So it's relatively OK.  Everyone has different ways of applying critical thinking/logic.

Since HI never stated they want to take ALL guns away, I guess every law that they tried to pass and have passed is OK then because ALL guns were not taken away.  Which would mean you should support all the bills/laws.  Like if they banned all rifles, changed mag limits to 1 round, needed to keep firearms at a range in a locker, etc... None of this is violating the 2a because you can still have you guns.

I'm not diving too deep, I was just using the type of thought that you do.  Every discussion, one can find a way to argue any side and make it sound good, even though it doesn't make sense when really thought about.

At this point, I think it's OK to say we disagree on the issues brought up and neither will be able to change the others mind.  But we both knew this from the start, I just want others to read and make their own judgments of the discussion.

Yes, yes, I am very well aware of many instances in which gun bans were later followed by extreme injustices by a government against it's people. I do not at all dispute that having guns outlawed leaves citizens little to resist oppression with.

My point is that you cannot just assume that the minds of most democrat voters want total bans on guns, not without data. You can't reason that guns were banned and the Holocaust later happened therefore you know that more than half of american democrats want total gun bans. That line of reasoning is flawed. On top of that I am not even saying you are wrong, only saying I can't find evidence to support you statement. Maybe it is true, I don't know but I'm not going to hop onto that argument point without actual evidence to support it. I don't like to just assign motives to people, especially negative motives, when I don't have evidence.

Personally, when it comes to registration, since you bring it up, here are my thoughts. The potential for abuse is clear and undeniable but I don't think I would it violates the 2nd amendment so it's not a law I am thrilled about but I also wouldn't consider my rights as being violated by having to register. Then again, if the government becomes tyrannical a rent they just going to go house to house taking guns without a warrant anyway. Would not having a list make a big difference?

My point is that you cannot just assume that the minds of most democrat voters want total bans on guns, not without data. You can't reason that guns were banned and the Holocaust later happened therefore you know that more than half of american democrats want total gun bans. That line of reasoning is flawed. On top of that I am not even saying you are wrong, only saying I can't find evidence to support you statement. Maybe it is true, I don't know but I'm not going to hop onto that argument point without actual evidence to support it. I don't like to just assign motives to people, especially negative motives, when I don't have evidence.

Personally, when it comes to registration, since you bring it up, here are my thoughts. The potential for abuse is clear and undeniable but I don't think I would it violates the 2nd amendment so it's not a law I am thrilled about but I also wouldn't consider my rights as being violated by having to register. Then again, if the government becomes tyrannical a rent they just going to go house to house taking guns without a warrant anyway. Would not having a list make a big difference?

History teaches us can happen when guns are taken away. The extreme is Holocaust is 1. Then there's that DC rep from TX who was born in China. Her village was exterminated when she was a little girl. First they took the guns away. Which is why she vows to never give up her guns (AR15).  Sierra Leone, etc...

Here's a hypothetical. If the laws were passed that only allowed a single shot revolver ( rest of the cylinders blocked), would you be OK with this?  You can still own a gun since this would not be a total ban.  And 1 can only have 1 bullet in the household. If this were to happen, that means more of the 2a was chipped away at.  And there is still no evidence of a total ban, which would violate the 2a.  Would you not agree that the anti gun politiicans/people are not wanting a "total ban".

Yes, yes, I am very well aware of many instances in which gun bans were later followed by extreme injustices by a government against it's people. I do not at all dispute that having guns outlawed leaves citizens little to resist oppression with.

My point is that you cannot just assume that the minds of most democrat voters want total bans on guns, not without data. You can't reason that guns were banned and the Holocaust later happened therefore you know that more than half of american democrats want total gun bans. That line of reasoning is flawed. On top of that I am not even saying you are wrong, only saying I can't find evidence to support you statement. Maybe it is true, I don't know but I'm not going to hop onto that argument point without actual evidence to support it. I don't like to just assign motives to people, especially negative motives, when I don't have evidence.

Personally, when it comes to registration, since you bring it up, here are my thoughts. The potential for abuse is clear and undeniable but I don't think I would it violates the 2nd amendment so it's not a law I am thrilled about but I also wouldn't consider my rights as being violated by having to register. Then again, if the government becomes tyrannical a rent they just going to go house to house taking guns without a warrant anyway. Would not having a list make a big difference?

"Most Democrat voters" is not what anyone other than you is talking about.

We are talking about the officials Democrat voters elect.  Those are the ones wanting to take away guns that matter.  Look how many times Feinstein has been reelected, even though she wants to take guns if she can ever get enough votes.

Stop trying to steer the conversation based on something nobody but you said.