Anti-fun logic

>>130142610
You don't, stated facts to a liberal and got banned with no response. You can't win if they don't listen, just convince people middle of the line and out vote the fuckers.

>>130142610
THEY make a good point. They say that domestic abuse victims are at the greatest risk of retaliation at a point where their abuser may still legally buy or own a firearm. Thus, we should expand the law to cover this period of time with the same restrictions that are imposed after the situation has developed.

What's your response to that? It's your turn to construct a well-reasoned argument based in fact, and have sources available for any claims you make that fall outside the purview of "common knowledge", i.e. the sky is blue, donald trump is president of the united states, kansas is a state, etc.

>>130142612
>>130142610
Personally, I would argue that this is a good reason to expand the law in the way they propose, but if we're going to restrict a civil liberty we need to write protections into the law to ensure that it is not abused. Call it a compromise. We can agree on the ideals, but since neither one of us has the legislative or other legal background to write such a law, the conversation kind of ends there.

>>130142613
>Call it a compromise.
no, get fucked

>>130142611
/thread

>>130142614
This
The firearm owning community has compromised for decades. No more.

>>130142613
Please stick your head in boiling water. And get your hands off my goddamn cake.

>>130142616
Technically we haven't compromised ever. In a compromise both parties get something.

>>130142613
>Call it a compromise

Fuck that noise. "Compromise" to the antis is a one way street: their way.

As for the DV bs, apparently you've never seen a malicious person use the "domestic abuse" angle to get back at their spouse for no other reason than to be a full on cunt.

>not me, but have seen this happen to a close friend who had to deal with the BS.

>>130142612
Most domestic violence is committed by poor minority males involved in the drug trade staying with their live in girl friends who are statistically likely to already have some form of criminal record of their own (ussually drugs, but shoplifting, neglect, other shit)

>>130142614
>>130142616
>>130142617
>>130142618
>>130142619
What have we compromised in my scenario? What have we lost? We haven't even set any terms yet, we haven't even come close to trying.

>>130142619
That's where the "any legislation must include written provision to protect against its use to deprive someone of their civil rights" part comes from. This exact situation is a perfect example of why you can't ignore the potential for abuse. So now the conversation is about how to do that. Stricter documentation? What kind of evidence is required? How would it be enforced? Is it even possible? Or maybe we haven't expanded the law in this direction because it's not possible? Maybe, now that we've talked it through, it's not a good idea after all? There we go, exchange of ideas, maybe someone learned something today.

More likely they come back with the argument that your right to own guns is less important than someone else's right to not be shot. From there you'd break down why it's not an either/or situation, and explain why you believe that gun ownership is so important. The conversation continues.

>>130142621
>woman moves in with you
>she decides she doesn't like you and tells the cops that you hit her one night a few weeks ago
>your guns are instantly all seized
>she decides after "further deliberation" to not press charges
>have fun getting your guns back

no. more. compromises.

>>130142622
Yeah you responded to the wrong post dingnut. The one you linked to is the post where I acknowledge that as a possibility and stand by the importance of protecting against it.

I had to fill out another captcha to respond to this.

>>130142623
go fuck yourself. the end goal of the leftists is to take away our guns and enslave us, while our end goal is to be left alone. no more compromises, no more dialogue.

fuck off. try and take my guns.

>>130142624
No one cares about your completely unexceptional AR collection, dweeb. And if you're not capable of conversation, why did you come to say that in a thread about how the left isn't capable of conversation?

>>130142610
>How do you counter it?


If someone is going to kill you; pretty sure they don't give a fuck about the legal status of their guns.

>>130142624
>Leftists are anti gun meme

Actual Leftists aren't Liberal "everyone just be happy and play nice" faggots, anon.

File: Compromise.png (213KB, 750x3200px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 750x3200px

>>130142621
>What have we compromised in my scenario?

Pic related. Gun control has very little to do with preventing crime or suicide. But rather game of inches towards complete disarmament. Cali is the perfect example of this.

>>130142627
you can't fucking read apparently.

>>130142610
tell Liberals if they really care about minorities they'll let everyone buy any gun they want because we all deserve to defend ourselves against scary oppressors, home invaders, and authoritarianism

They'll almost have a stroke trying to justify disarming the people if you just tell them it would make it harder for blacks to defend themselves against the KKK who doesn't care about the legality of their weapons, and if said Liberal doesn't have a brain explosion on the spot they might crack and turn pro-gun

>>130142613
>but since neither one of us has the legislative or other legal background to write such a law, the conversation kind of ends there.
I don't see why, just look to similar situations. Do it like with holding laws, you can hold someone for such and such a time, and if no charges are laid they go free.

For guns, it could be like a temporary injunction on purchase, and you put any guns you do have into a kind of escrow with a local FFL. If the charges stick, I guess the FFL can sell them on your behalf, if the charges are baseless, your accuser pays for the storage fees.

>>130142628
But there's literally no compromise taking place. I'm characterizing an acknowledgement of the values behind both sides of the argument as a compromise, that's all. But the second you say compromise, half the brains on this board shut off and you get responses like this >>130142614
>>130142616
>>130142617
>>130142618
>>130142619
>>130142622

>>130142612
But Kansas isn't a state...?

>>130142631
NO. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR FIREARMS BASED ON AN ACCUSATION.

File: DCaURYDXkAAld-c.jpg (232KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 720x720px

>>130142610
Most anti gunners will become pro gun after a robbery believe me.

>>130142629
>the end goal of the leftists is to take away our guns and enslave us

you're an idiot if you unironically believe this, anon. You're confusing Liberals who are just radicool auth-centrist faggots who think people will play nice if you just take away sharp objects and guns and make rules that say you have to play nice with actual Leftists who believe in arming the proles and their pot growing communes with soviet meme rifles

>>130142634
First off, calm your tits. I'm just musing.

The government isn't though. You're putting them in escrow with an FFL.

>>130142631
YES. THANK YOU. Instead of just shutting down all dialogue, talk through some options. Entertain new ideas. Search out solutions. Even better than winning the debate is finding a way to represent your interests and theirs, and that takes both parties. Play your part. Talk about it.

>>130142632

Gun owners are relatively disenfranchised. Both parties like to shit on them at will. As such the communities willingness to participate in such dialogue is extremely low. If ownership wasn't a constitutional right it would have been likely banned on a Christmas Eve when no one was watching years ago.

>But gun owners have a massive lobby.

No they don't. Defense contractors have a massive lobbies. Energy sector has a massive lobby. Banking and medical make everything else look like child's play. Gun owners are simply a relatively large "minority" voting block.

As such gun owners are extremely defensive.

>>130142630
Yes, I do use a version of this argument sometimes. If minorities are really at such heightened risk of violence, and they can't trust the police, then shouldn't they have the right to the means to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property?

>>130142640
I've turned someone from "EW WHAT THE FUCK GUNS" to "end the NFA" with this argument

It really depends on where their anti-gun sentiment comes from though. Nothing will work on some people.

>>130142639
Well, that's not a good place to be, is it? Seems like the time we should be focusing the most on outreach and conversion. The trick is doing that without compromising core values to seem more appealing, which is kind of what I was hoping to make this thread about when I replied.

>>130142628
If I see that fucking cake one more time...

>>130142612
>at a point where their abuser may still legally buy or own a firearm
>we should expand the law to cover this period of time
You mean all time prior to a demonstration in court that someone's civil right should be taken away? Yeah, we should take all guns away before the situation develops

>>130142642
Most progress has been made at the State level. With shall issue licenses and constitutional carry spreading across the nation.

But on a federal level the only thing that seemingly works is the nuclear option. It is what it is.

>>130142643
That's the problem, the cake is hardly there anymore.

>>130142627
the vast majority of leftists voted for Clinton over Trump. A vote for Clinton is a completely anti gun vote.

>>130142647
With a two party system you don't really get choices, and with limited regulation of campaign finance, you don't really get representation either. You're sweeping a lot of people into one category.

Which board dit this come from?