Gun Compromises.

Quote from TRNT : Based on what I perceive people discuss at dinner tables and based on actions they take, such as buying guns and at the same time opposing rampant gun availability, my assumption is that people are indeed concerned about guns at the wrong hands and not much concerned about a few ID-fraud votes.

I've heard both concerns. In my scenario I only hear complaining about the possibility of having guns taken away. I've actually heard it for years but always dismissed it as nonsense.. Regulation tends to lead to more regulation (which is why two parties have opposing views).

The only thing I've heard about voter fraud is people reading a story and why people raise such a fuss about needed ID. I've had a Photo ID card since I was 16. If you want to step back I even had a Photo ID in H.S. (school ID). I'd wager 99.9% of the people I know could state the same. So the notion of never having an idea is foreign and someone ridiculous (because most of us believe you need an ID just to function in daily life).

I could honestly care less about political sides in these matters. Obviously there are two political agendas going on. Commonsense rules and regulations should apply to all. People who don't have handguns should not, people who shouldn't vote obviously should not. Now all you have to do is implement regulations that makes this work to a certain degree without severely inconveniencing the larger percentage.

The Illinois legislature has been ordered to draft legislation legalizing concealed carry. Washington DC might be ordered to do the same soon.

Quote from Krazen1211 : The Illinois legislature has been ordered to draft legislation legalizing concealed carry. Washington DC might be ordered to do the same soon.

Who made the order to Illinois legislature? Courts?

Quote from TRNT : Who made the order to Illinois legislature?

3 Judges of the US court of appeals 7th circuit.

Quote from Krazen1211 : 3 Judges of the US court of appeals 7th circuit.

Oh. Well, that was in response to a bill re CCW that was introduced (passed). At nay rate.....

...maybe Illinois should pass a law saying they will ignore any federal law/order wrt to CC.

Quote from TRNT : Then I completely misunderstood your terminology. To me the problem of "what if a madman wins election by vote fraud" meant a person who otherwise would not get but a few percent of the vote due to people's stupidity or deception but would then win the election by cheating. Yes, you could say Gore lost by 500 or so votes in a sense but at that point the portability of Bush being a "madman" was more or less the same as Gore being a "madman." Based on what I perceive people discuss at dinner tables and based on actions they take, such as buying guns and at the same time opposing rampant gun availability, my assumption is that people are indeed concerned about guns at the wrong hands and not much concerned about a few ID-fraud votes. Also ok, say there is about 0.01% of voter fraud but is there an evidence that this is a conspiracy and that these people are in cahoot to elect a "madman"?

If someone is a power-hungry despot, they will not necessarily appear that way to the voters. Learn your history. Hitler was democratically elected in 1932. The people probably didn't think there was much chance of him being a madman either. If there happened to be voter fraud, it wasn't to elect a madman, but merely to support their own candidate.

Quote from darkfrog : If someone is a power-hungry despot, they will not necessarily appear that way to the voters. Learn your history. Hitler was democratically elected in 1932. The people probably didn't think there was much chance of him being a madman either. If there happened to be voter fraud, it wasn't to elect a madman, but merely to support their own candidate.

In fact that is exactly what I was alluding to. Madmen have in the past gotten elected, many of them democratically. But to pretend that the concerns over a very small number of fraudulent votes is election of a "madman" seems a case of very weak logic to me.

Quote from TRNT : In fact that is exactly what I was alluding to. Madmen have in the past gotten elected, many of them democratically. But to pretend that the concerns over a very small number of fraudulent votes is election of a "madman" seems a case of very weak logic to me.

It's not a concern, it was used to demonstrate a point. There can be unintended consequences to many things. You blame lax gun laws for the death of 20 children but it is much more complicated than that and at the same time ignore any good that guns in our society do. In the same way, voter fraud will probably not lead to a despot, but many people have made the claim that W was responsible for many more deaths than if he wouldn't have been in office. The point is that you cannot take a complicated, intricately woven series of events and (easily) claim that this or that law would have resulted in fewer deaths.

Quote from darkfrog : It's not a concern, it was used to demonstrate a point. There can be unintended consequences to many things. You blame lax gun laws for the death of 20 children but it is much more complicated than that and at the same time ignore any good that guns in our society do. In the same way, voter fraud will probably not lead to a despot, but many people have made the claim that W was responsible for many more deaths than if he wouldn't have been in office. The point is that you cannot take a complicated, intricately woven series of events and (easily) claim that this or that law would have resulted in fewer deaths.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else. On numerous occasions I have stated that private ownership of guns can save lives.

As others have said, I haven't seen any suggestions of compromises from many who have argued against guns.

I did a search for the word "compromise" in every gun thread I have participated in since I decided to joint the gun talk on this forum. I have to admit there was less than I thought.
Gun control mega thread:
http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
RHCCapri: I don't often agree but rational was offered with the suggestions
Another member suggesting 7 bullets is a compromise

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
skiman and another poster discuss compromise. Skiman acknolwedges the difficulties and limitations of some ideas. The other poster encourages talk of compromise.

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
Compromise in this case is less than 10 bullets without rational.

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
Talk of compromise gun for home defense.

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise
skiman makes a reasoned case.

A bit of compromise here
http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.p...compromise

I see very little in the way of compromise. However, in reviewing the old threads I did see a lot in the way of people not thinking out their suggestions for new laws and rules.

See you all later.

Quote from TRNT : Maybe you have me confused with someone else. On numerous occasions I have stated that private ownership of guns can save lives.

Maybe ignore was the wrong word yet you are ignoring the point of my post. You have this way of picking up on wording used by a poster and focusing on that tangent while completely not responding to the general point trying to be made.

Quote from darkfrog : Maybe ignore was the wrong word yet you are ignoring the point of my post. You have this way of picking up on wording used by a poster and focusing on that tangent while completely not responding to the general point trying to be made.

Your characterization of me going to a tangent is not entirely unfair. We all have our peculiarities and interests. But I can assure you my going to tangent, if any, is not as a result of animosity towards the poster and trying to make a gotcha point. You and any others are free to either respond to those interests of mine or ignore them.

In this case I was genuinely interested in the claim that a very small percent of fraudulent votes can cause the election of a madman*. I just think that is a very weak logic/reasoning if not a fallacious one.

* The irony of this is that just recently you mentioned that more than one factor goes into crime and its prevention and here we are dealing with a claim that a tiny percent of fraudulent votes may cause the election of a madman.

A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F" ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.

A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Obama's gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun shows, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.

The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2...z2KyYDbzV3

Quote from Slick_Traveller : Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun shows, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.

Actually, that's not true in several states. For example, in CA, all sales of firearms have required backgrounds, waiting periods, safety testing, fees, and other rules and regulations, for many years.