Why is there no middle grounder on gun control?

If there were to come a way to impose/promote appropriate gun measures without making gun owners 'register' their weapons or limit what they can and cannot purchase (other than whats already been limited) I would think most would be fine with that. Rules like you were mentioning would be a good start, though I would be very hesitant to accept any bill that prosecuted the owner for something someone that took his/her weapon without permission did. That would be like if someone stole my car then ran over another person and then the police coming after me for the murder (so wrong).

The problem I see-and I'll admit I'm on the side of pro-gun- is that those on the gun control side seem to only want to remove certain guns, or all guns, and/or make owners register them. Noone in the govt needs to know what or how many guns a person has. That may be a false assumption, but it is the prevailing narrative that is shown through the media.

Duke

1. There is over 100 million firearm owners in the US, it is not these 100 million you have to worry about, it is the criminals. We don't need gun control we need criminal control and the anti-gun side wants to coddle these criminals. It has been proven gun control does not work to reduce crime, or the over 20,000 gun control laws on the books would have completely stamped out crime. What kind of idiot would think that one or two more gun control laws will fix everything?

2.Look up the word infringe in the dictionary. I am a certified firearm instructor, and I believe that everyone that owns a firearm should take firearm classes, but I don't think it is the governments, or anyone else's place to make it minatory to take a class before exercising a constitutional protected right. Licensing does absolutely NOTHING to reduce crime, nor does exorbitant taxes.

3. What the liberal gun control bigots call reasonable solution. and reasonable gun control laws are anything but reasonable. Think about this for a minute: Does anyone that has an IQ larger than their shoe size really believe that a person out to commit murder (the most capital crime) is going to worry about breaking some silly gun control law? Around one third of all murders are committed with a knife, so why don't we have any knife control organizations out there, like we do gun control organizations? The gun control people are always bringing up accidental firearm deaths, if they were really worried about accidental deaths why would they think it so important to work on the 6 or 7 hundred accidental firearm deaths a year, instead of the 30,000 to 40,000 accidental automobile deaths?

When our founding father wrote the Constitution they knew what they were doing, and it has worked very well for over 200 years, and when the wrote that the peoples right to keep and bear arms should NOT be infringed on, that is exactly what they meant.

The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an 85 year old woman as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

I form my opinion by reading the law. I happen to have read supporting corespondence leading up to its passage as well. I support the law as is. If you look up the words in the law they are clear as to what they mean.

Without going through the same esay again the Second Amendment says control of any arms is illegal. Since that is a statute that establishes a right the only way to change it is with an amendment.

That is the only compromise available. When one law says that another law you want to pass would be illegal there is no room for compromise without amending existing law.

The constitution doesn't have anything in it that says you can change this if you don't like it or you can do it a different way since this law was passed a long time ago. If that were the case you could make it so cops could search without a warrant because thats old too.

The bad guys prefer unarmed victims!!.

When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.

Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!

**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**

So you are against the private ownerships of gun! Do you believe in fire extinguishers? Why, you can always call the fire department!!

No Weapons Allowed

Criminals this is a defense free zone

All law abiding people have been disarmed for you

In a country where 95% of the Republican party and 65% of the Democrat party are against gun control and a super majority is required to change the constitution and 75% of states have to ratify it in some ways it does not matter and in other ways it does not matter at all.

Edit: It is 75% of Democrats are against gun control. I just looked it up.

When we go to do some fund raising the Democrats ask people for money to get gun control passed and when Republicans go looking for money they ask for money to fight it. And you have to be pretty uninformed if your going to give money for that battle.

That is why we see statistics on the scare sites like 64% of the people who favor more gun control want an assault weapons ban. Bad readers will think they said 64% of people want an assault weapons ban. They do not want to mention that this group that wants to ban scary looking guns is like 12% of the population. While most Democrats want to use one at their next party.

There is no middle ground: the Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That means that there should be no laws that takes away a person's right to arm themselves with any weapon whatsoever. To create a law that does that is unconstitutional.

Short of a ban, which is not a compromise, what would that look like? Ridiculous red tape? And who gets to decide...the IRS? We know their track record on who they think is worthy. There will always be a bias if a group gets to analyze each "application." If it's the right doing it, the left will still be calling for bans...if it's the left, no one will get one.

It's a right, plain and simple. Punish severely those who abuse that right, but leave the rest of us alone.

Your argument is bad people with guns. Not the legitimate owner.

What we have to work on as a nation. Is finding a good way to keep

the bad guys from getting the good guys guns. We master that little

deal. And we have a winner.

There are already enough rules and regulations at the state level with regards to magazine capacity, CCW and open carry permits etc. The insanity is further present in state complient pistols, carbines, and rifles. The firearm industries make enough money and so does the States with taxes determining what is complient sales taxes state DOJ registration fees. We don't need any more regulations.

Your WRONG.

The one side has had it's gun rights taken. ~ Harvard -> 48% have had a mental illness~ these have no gun rights.

The other side, they did it. They don't want a sane neighbor he's harder to compete with. They want a disarmed America EXCEPT for them.

Proof ---> Ron Reagan legallized posession of date rape drugs for horse owners.