Bkrayzay

It seems both side have legitimate points, yet stubbornly stick to their point of view with no willingness to either hear each other out, nor work towards sensible ideas that work for both sides.

Facts are pretty clear that each side has a reasonable rationale for the way the think.

1. One side wants to feel safer, and have peace of mind that those who do have firearms are not going to be the next active shooter.

2. The other side does not want their rights to be infringed, and do not want exorbitant costs just to qualify to exercise said right (which any class requirements, licensing, or exorbitant tax would qualify as an infringement)

Is there no way to work together to come with a reasonable solution? After all I've always felt increasing penalties for those who shoot someone outside of a life or death situation (or a legitimate accident without signs of negligence). As well as holding the owner of a weapon responsible when a family member uses the owners weapon in an illegal activity (After all this would just ensure responsible storage and ownership around those who have no business with the gun, and would prevent events such as columbine where a weapon was gotten from a family member). While perhaps this isn't the perfect outline, why can't we determine methods based around compromise?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand"- A. Lincoln

When we begin talking about politics, I hear a few terms thrown around for people to describe them selves "oh I'm a democrat" "WELL THEN I'm a republican"....isn't it OBVIOUS that by allowing politicians to separate the people through political affiliation, we are allowing ourselves to be divided and therefore as a whole, as a PEOPLE, we become weakened when it comes down to the things in our country that TRULY matter? I want to hear it from these supposed "Republicans" and "Democrats"....why are you allowing our house (this nation) to be divided in such trivial and asinine ways?