Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Guns: A proposed compromise [View all]
Everyone seems to be throwing out what they want on this issue, so here goes:
By definition a compromise means each side has to engage in give and take. Here's my proposal:
The gun control side gets Universal Background Checks.
In return, the pro-gun rights crowd gets NFA (National Firearms Act) reform. SBRs (short barreled rifles) and silencers will no longer be restricted items requiring a $200 tax stamp and months of paperwork.
Each side gets something. Sound good?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
79 replies, 5067 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No weapons of war? So a single shot Springfield 1873 rifle is verboten?
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#8
I only count only two, arguably one. Silencers and SBRS, both of which arguably fall under the same
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#7
Sure I compromised. I propose giving your side Universal Backgound Checks in return for NFA reform.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#13
Currently CT...which is may issue. (Though they refuse recognition of any other state.)
Chan790
Jun 2016
#66
So the rules regarding rifles and shotguns remain the same, but semiauto handguns are outlawed?
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#23
But we could still have semiauto "assault weapons"? You did say rifles and shotguns were allowed.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#28
Sounds like you want us to go to (roughly) Australia's level of gun control.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#35
But in Canada you're allowed to own semiautomatic handguns, as well as some "evil black rifles".
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#46
I would be negotiable if the backgrounding process for those classes were even more rigorous.
roamer65
Jun 2016
#51
I think I'd be giving away more than I got. CCW is becoming the norm already.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#26
I don't expect the West Coast or Northeast to respect gun rights any time in the foreseeable future.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#36
This is what a real compromise would look like, as opposed to someone saying that their "compromise"
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#42
I thought I had all the ammosexuals on my Forever Ignored club. I missed you! nt
valerief
Jun 2016
#39
And you kicked the thread just to tell me that? That's so sweet.....
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#43