There's No Reason to Compromise on the Gun Issue

Abortionists kill more kids each year than mass shooters, but let's talk about the latter and not the former.

There's a pretty healthy consensus in the country that we could expand background check requirements for gun ownership. There is a bipartisan congressional consensus to ban the bump stock, but the congressmen involved in drafting the legislation got too clever by half and tried to ban handguns in the language.

There are actually lots of bipartisan deals that could be had, but there is no reason and conservatives know it. There is, for example, a bipartisan consensus to ban abortions after twenty weeks in this country. But that won't happen either for the same reason.

The media and left always demand the compromises come from the right without ever giving up anything of their own.

"Now is not the time to talk about abortion," a news anchor might say. But then there is never a time the media wants to talk about that issue. The media demands conservatives come on TV and defend their supposedly indefensible position on gun control, then treats abortionists as heroes when they kill more kids each year than mass shooters.

So there's no point in compromise on the issue. The left/media only what the right to move in their direction on these issues. They do not treat conservative positions with good faith, honesty, or candor. The media will focus on guns for a week following a mass shooting, but can barely give the March for Life the time of day. The media wants to spend inordinate amounts of time focusing on the boy who wants to pee in the girl's bathroom as if he is a civil rights pioneer, but never wants to focus on the Christian who might lose her business for not wanting to provide goods and services to a gay wedding. Well, in fairness, they will focus on that lady, but only to portray her as a bigot.

There is just no point in conservatives compromising on guns or any other issue because the left/media idea of a compromise is where the right concedes the left's points. There is no real effort to find middle ground or common ground.

So media outlets can claim Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others are hiding from CNN and don't want to answer "tough" questions. The reality is there is no point. CNN anchors will use liberal definitions of mass shootings and demand Republicans cave on second amendment issues. But you'll never then hear them ask the same of the left on abortion or respect for Christian small businesses or anything else.

The media is not reporting the news. The media is trying to steer the national conversation left. So there is no trust on the right to even have a conversation. And I don't blame the right for refusing to engage.

Fine, life begins at conception. Actually, life begins before conception since the sperm and egg both have to be "alive" to turn into the zygote that turns into a baby. The real question isn't "when does life begin" so much as "when does sentience begin?" With sentience out of the picture, the fetus doesn't matter. I'm fine killing non-sentient fetuses. Hell, I often eat aborted non-sentient fetuses. I prefer my non-sentient aborted fetuses to be scrambled and like to eat them with a side of bacon and some hash browns.

If the school were a uterus the GOP would care about protecting the contents

Go do the math about guns, and if you apply the least amount of reason to your statement, you might change it. With the amount of guns that end up in crimes, of any kind, that number is so small, on the order of hundredths of a percentage of guns, in general, among the US population. You can't legislate crime out of existence. All you will do with another gun law is make more people criminals, and mostly criminals who would have never committed crimes with a gun. Compare that to the number of "Acceptable murders", namely abortions. How can a species walk so supposedly unknowing into destroying it's own? Guns are not the problem. At best, your only excuse about those twenty dead first graders, is that the killer was crazy. Now, the GOP congressman is no reason to go and ban firearms, either. You could have argued, and probably been correct, that it was an ideology that caused that shooting. It is also the same ideology that wants to go and ban firearms. Reconcile that.

The only protection for students is guns on campus. Uniformed officers, plain cloths, and or conceal carry by some faculty. Guns are only one type of many weapons that can be used. The causes for the violence are: mental illness, suspension, bullying, domestic issue moving to the school, being offended, terrorism, and other reasons. Mental illness can be drug caused or drug controlled. It can be long term or short term. There should be a warning like driving or operating equipment with certain medication. Background checks are only a start. Guns can be owned for a number of years. I have lost track of how many times the FBI had the shooter under surveillance at one time. They might have spent too much time chasing Russian ghost and stopping Trump. Guns were not involved in Oklahoma City or Boston.

You are absolutely right in that it is worthless to compromise with the left. A bipartisan deal means the conservatives capitulated.

I'll get serious about so-called Gun Control when FedGov gets serious about the incredible number of un-prosecuted & convicted felons beaking Federal Laws when they try to purchase a legal firearm, using Fed. Form 4473, no less.

So would the armed teachers have ARs also? And they carry them while they teach? And do they get some kind of extra hazard pay for being required to return fire?

All for protecting the contents. You up for having armed guards and/or teachers in school? That's what protection looks like to the clear-minded. Israel, surrounded by the literal epicenter of crazy hatred, realized back in a tragic Elementary school hostage situation in 1974 that "action" meant "protection" not anti-protection. Their guards are civilians and veterans trained not only in firearms but also in detecting/ preventing suspicious activity. Leaving schools as soft "no gun zone" targets is just stupid. Gun-grabbing Congress-critters have gun-toting body guards, so if that life is so precious, why not protect the progeny of their constituents.

As for comparing the purposeful "legal murder" of hundreds of thousands of babies a year to a crazy person breaking the law murdering children in a school, well, that's just comparing grapes and elephant poop. Big difference.

Abortion is the murder of one baby by choice of the mother. Mass shootings are the murder of many by choice of the killer to use a gun. So we let one side cancel the other and do nothing about the murder of the innocent!! How much longer will God hold off on judging America for it's mounting, grievous sins??

Actually, by life we mean a life unique from the mother or father. No prolifer thinks spleen cells have a right to life. Rather while sperm or ova are part of a male or female person, sharing the same genetic code (halved of course) as all the other cells in a persons body, a fetus, meaning little one, is alive, but unlike a spleen cell is a unique self-sustaining human life.

And the issue is not sentience which means awareness of subjectivity, I hope, because when you are asleep in certaint stages of sleep you are not self-aware. Likewise those who are sedated, in a coma, or newborns are not sentient but only potentially sentient. Of course is the little one, aka fetus. Assuming you do believe you have a right to life when sleeping or anesthetized, do you really mean that only those who have experience sentience have human rights, 2yrs old plus? Can we kill the handicapped who never attain selfawareness? How about the old, injured, or infirmed who MAY never regain it?