If only there was something we could do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

Yeah but there is no poverty, mental health issues, video games, movies, big pharma, or Freedom in those other first world countries. Plus they still have crime including gun crimes so the whole “it’s not possible to improve things” is proven right there.

But if you want to try to change things well it’s up to mags to lay out the foolproof plan right here - let’s be very clear it’s through the expertise of padded room mags that these other first world countries got to where they are with regards to gun crimes and mass shootings - they did not need to employ anyone with any experience, education, knowledge of the law etc to do it. They crowd sourced it to Internet forum skiers and bikers.

It’s up to us. And if we can’t do it? Checkmate.

---

They don't have the drug and gang problem like we do. It exists in other places, but not like it does here, flourishing in the ghettos created by our poor handling of reconstruction after the slaves were freed.

That and we are one of the most isolating shallow alienating societies on planet earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

We already live in a society that recognizes that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. It’s not collectivism, it’s a civil society.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

NO, this is supposed to be a thing of balance and it all goes out the window once individual rights arecompromised. . All the societies that prioritized collective rights over the individual are hellscapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

Which part is the opinion? The fact that your malpractice stats are bad data? The fact that the NRA pushed it as a distraction? The fact that you parroted it like you were supposed to as a means of distracting away from the gun issue several times in this thread?

Man, once you have to go off script things really start to fall apart for you.

---

The irresponsible word is entirely opinion. The data is most likely high, but its also most likely far in excess of the mere 20k murders a year from guns. Especially if we subtract the murders related to the drug trade.

But that word irresponsible is absolutely just an example of bias. Why are they irresponsible? Because they're gun owners and they disagree about gun ownership. Its a circular definition that only makes sense if you have a bias to think anyone who supports gun ownership has to be irresponsible.

But, sure, the numbers are high, but you guys act as if guns never serve any purpose or protect anyone. I mean, the number is surely higher than zero right?

80 percent of murders are related to the drug trade, and there's 20k murders a year. So, 4k murders a year with guns that aren't related to the drug trade.

DO you really think there are less than 4k lives saved each year by guns?



Funny thing is, I think the gun debate is being pushed as a distraction from a bunchof other things because thepowers that be know it'll just keep us fighting about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

NO, this is supposed to be a thing of balance and it all goes out the window once individual rights arecompromised. . All the societies that prioritized collective rights over the individual are hellscapes.

---

You mean places like Canada, most of the EU, Australia, Japan etc?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

That and we are one of the most isolating shallow alienating societies on planet earth.

---

And it’s because of people like you


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I would like to make my three round bolt action hunting rifle harder to obtain than the suppressor that goes on it. Round count and speed of chambering another round goes up, so does the amount of effort and time to obtain it. Fair market value buy back or register it. Not registered, minimum sentence of whatever the brain pool comes up with. Felony to owner of gun if used in a crime. Manufacturers escrow money to pay victims harmed with their guns. I carry liability insurance for owning them and the private insurers decide what to charge me based on type, storage, transport and use. No insurance, no guns. Funding for enforcement that can be sourced from the insurance companies risk pools. As a gun owner, I’d vote for this.

The funny thing about amendments is we make more of them as we/society evolves. Seems like it’s time.

Move to north Korea already.

Nah, I've heard their produce isn't very fresh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

I would like to make my three round bolt action hunting rifle harder to obtain than the suppressor that goes on it. Round count and speed of chambering another round goes up, so does the amount of effort and time to obtain it. Fair market value buy back or register it. Not registered, minimum sentence of whatever the brain pool comes up with. Felony to owner of gun if used in a crime. Manufacturers escrow money to pay victims harmed with their guns. I carry liability insurance for owning them and the private insurers decide what to charge me based on type, storage, transport and use. No insurance, no guns. Funding for enforcement that can be sourced from the insurance companies risk pools. As a gun owner, I’d vote for this.

The funny thing about amendments is we make more of them as we/society evolves. Seems like it’s time.

---

As a gun owner I would be all in on this. Hell I have a couple that I would gladly sell back.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

I would like to make my three round bolt action hunting rifle harder to obtain than the suppressor that goes on it. Round count and speed of chambering another round goes up, so does the amount of effort and time to obtain it. Fair market value buy back or register it. Not registered, minimum sentence of whatever the brain pool comes up with. Felony to owner of gun if used in a crime. Manufacturers escrow money to pay victims harmed with their guns. I carry liability insurance for owning them and the private insurers decide what to charge me based on type, storage, transport and use. No insurance, no guns. Funding for enforcement that can be sourced from the insurance companies risk pools. As a gun owner, I’d vote for this.

The funny thing about amendments is we make more of them as we/society evolves. Seems like it’s time.

---

This is actually the seed to a great idea.

Find an end of the road enclave as a test site. Someplace really small, get everybody on board. Pass whatever you think you want, make it a biodome kind of thing. A ten year experiment. A city on a hill. Put a big gate on it so bad actors can't just walk in and see how it goes. Ideally your sheriff wouldn't even need a gun. The guy at the gate would but the town would be great. It wouldn't work in big towns but at least on a small scale it might work and you could start with that.

If it went right it would spread like wild fire. This is the best idea in 300 pages.

You stop the kids, crazies, drunks, stupid, everybody.

Attachment 488502

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exsparky

You stop the kids, crazies, drunks, stupid, everybody.

---

Otis would like a word
interesting factoid: he was the only married character on the show

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

Otis would like a word
interesting factoid: he was the only married character on the show

---

There are a lot of great ideas to work with here.

Exsparky, what's your solution? Do nothing? Just be a smartass? Maybe some more mental health services? Why even talk about something different than what we've been doing because it's clearly working? I mean if we don't talk about something, we don't have to talk about compromise to solving a problem that doesn't exist.

I've always felt the 1st amendment was just a warm up for the best amendment, number 2. I don't know why we didn't just stop there. If we all could just handle problems with guns, seems like the next 25 amendments are a bit superfluous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

I would like to make my three round bolt action hunting rifle harder to obtain than the suppressor that goes on it. Round count and speed of chambering another round goes up, so does the amount of effort and time to obtain it. Fair market value buy back or register it. Not registered, minimum sentence of whatever the brain pool comes up with. Felony to owner of gun if used in a crime. Manufacturers escrow money to pay victims harmed with their guns. I carry liability insurance for owning them and the private insurers decide what to charge me based on type, storage, transport and use. No insurance, no guns. Funding for enforcement that can be sourced from the insurance companies risk pools. As a gun owner, I’d vote for this.

The funny thing about amendments is we make more of them as we/society evolves. Seems like it’s time.

---

I’m also a gun owner and would fully support all of this.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altacoup

I’m also a gun owner and would fully support all of this.

---

+2

nono, any questioning of what the obstinate minority wants means you have to go to north korea. nothing we can do about it, those are the rules. don’t make me tap the sign!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

+2

---

Only a mouth breather wouldn't agree to at least start there.

^^^
And there’s the problem. Over 50% of gun owners probably equate that list to complete tyranny.

Leroy must be fuming that there are reasonable gun owners here with reasonable proposals. So far his position has been based on debunked stats and a complete inability to fathom measures short of his perceived fear of government confiscation.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Leroy thinks he can post “anti gun people don't want to address anything but attacking gun owners” and still be taken as a serious and honest participant in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

+2

---

+3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altacoup

^^^
And there’s the problem. Over 50% of gun owners probably equate that list to complete tyranny.

---

Do you see any reasonable cause for any concern at all with any of those things, even on a long timeline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art Shirk

Leroy must be fuming that there are reasonable gun owners here with reasonable proposals. So far his position has been based on debunked stats and a complete inability to fathom measures short of his perceived fear of government confiscation.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

fuming? Nah.

But I do see you guys expecting pro 2a people to compromise with you continually. What are you compromising on? Oh its just gun owners being expected to? And its totally not a perpetually just another few laws slippery slope? You pinky swear?

It seems pretty delusional to expect one way compromise. while espousing your complete inability to see validity to anything you don't already agree with. Like you guys can't even admit that ANYONE defends themselves with a gun and factor that into the debate at ALL. guns are just evil ,and no one with any sense woudl ever want to own one or support the right to and only mouth breathers and bla bla bla. LIke you act like this and expect it to motivate people who disagree with you to perpetually compromise more and more of their rights while you compromise nothing?

Crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Do you see any reasonable cause for any concern at all with any of those things, even on a long timeline?

---

Do you see a reasonable cause for concern right now for not trying something different? My mind can be changed on the things I posted. Can your mind be changed that something needs to change? If you don't agree that we're in a bad spot with guns currently and you can't change your opinion, probably not much to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

fuming? Nah.

But I do see you guys expecting pro 2a people to compromise with you continually. What are you compromising on? Oh its just gun owners being expected to? And its totally not a perpetually just another few laws slippery slope? You pinky swear?

It seems pretty delusional to expect one way compromise. while espousing your complete inability to see validity to anything you don't already agree with. Like you guys can't even admit that ANYONE defends themselves with a gun and factor that into the debate at ALL. guns are just evil ,and no one with any sense woudl ever want to own one or support the right to and only mouth breathers and bla bla bla. LIke you act like this and expect it to motivate people who disagree with you to perpetually compromise more and more of their rights while you compromise nothing?

Crazy.

---

I guess the rich white guys had to compromise a bunch and the black guys got all the benefit on #13.

Innocent people are getting shot and killed. Didn't the First Article of the Declaration come before #2 which said "they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"? At which point does attending football game rally and getting shot in the face by someone you don't know fit into that sentence?