The time has come for compromise...


PDA






VA27
November 12, 2012, 02:42 PM
there's no way around it. That being the case, what do we ask for, say in an exchange for immigration amnesty? How about repeal of the '86 F/A ban and removal of suppressors and AOWs from the NFA? Or is there a risk of the NFA tax being raised while that's happening? Discuss.

If you enjoyed reading about "The time has come for compromise..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
627PCFan
November 12, 2012, 02:47 PM
Never going to happen. The majority of people have no concept of anything pertaining to NFA, GC 68'. Match that with the fact that so many people dont truly understand what semi-auto firearms are. Hell Ill say it. On the other side of the isle people dont want semis in the hands of private citizens less let the fun switch.

Silencers would be nice and are slowly working their way to limited access but IMO the major application is not one that they can be legally applied to well-Hunting.

Texan Scott
November 12, 2012, 03:13 PM
I have to unapologetically and emphatically argue the precise opposite. Now is the time for blunt and stubborn refusal. Now is the time to let our leaders know we expect them to dig in like cornered badgers and take the snout off any dog who sticks his head down that hole.

Brazenly threaten to kill pet legislation in committee, defund programs, obstruct budgets, every dirty trick in the book if they cross the 2A red line.

NO COMPROMISE.

Now may not be the time to GET anything. I think it's a bad time to go bartering, or be of the mindset that anything's negotiable. Now's the time to draw a line and bunch up behind it.

CoRoMo
November 12, 2012, 03:19 PM
...is there a risk...
Always

Sam Cade
November 12, 2012, 03:27 PM
there's no way around it. That being the case, what do we ask for, say in an exchange for immigration amnesty?

This is making a great assumption about the political beliefs of "We".


(remember Reagan campaigned on free and open borders with Canada and Mexico and signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act)

USAF_Vet
November 12, 2012, 03:39 PM
I have to unapologetically and emphatically argue the precise opposite. Now is the time for blunt and stubborn refusal. Now is the time to let our leaders know we expect them to dig in like cornered badgers and take the snout off any dog who sticks his head down that hole.

Brazenly threaten to kill pet legislation in committee, defund programs, obstruct budgets, every dirty trick in the book if they cross the 2A red line.

NO COMPROMISE.

Now may not be the time to GET anything. I think it's a bad time to go bartering, or be of the mindset that anything's negotiable. Now's the time to draw a line and bunch up behind it.
+ 1000.

The antis and the left would push compromise until all we had left were single shot .22 rifles. We as voters need to let our legislators know there will be a hell of a day of reckoning in 24 short months if they come anywhere near the 2A. We may now be a minority group, but we are stronger than any army if we stand together with one voice.

leadcounsel
November 12, 2012, 03:49 PM
I will say that the 2A is likely doomed and will be seriously declawed over the next 4 years. There is little to get in the way. WE have a 5-4 court, which may very well change. We have a anti-gun majority in the Senate and an anti-gun President who has called for a war on guns. The next major gun violence occurs and we'll almost certainly see a bill proposed and supported by the anti-gunners on Capitol Hill.

WE put an anti-gunner up against an anti-gunner incumbent. Are WE MORONS?! It is clear that protecting the 2A is soooo far down on the list of priorties for both parties... and while it should be near the top for domestic security, it just simply isn't.

I talk to COUNTLESS pro-gun people who either didn't vote or voted for Obama because they did not see a difference in the parties with regard to the 2A.

And in the debates, when Obama called for another AWB for "military style weapons" AND handguns, where was the outrage?!?!?!?!?! And Romney could have sealed a win if he would have just said, "20 years ago, the political climate was different and I made a mistake in siding against the 2A; I was wrong and that won't happen again. I will stand against any gun control and try to repeal stupid laws on the books." He would have had nearly every gun owner in his corner. But nope. Stupidly had was very wishy washy on the 2A.

As for compromising; I say we MUST change course in general or it won't matter. We are about to fall off of a cliff, guns or not. With the projected $20 Trillion in debt, we are screwed as a nation. That is an insurmountable debt to erase. Simply put there is no ability to pay that off in my lifetime. We'd have to completely stop spending any money and tax everyone at 100% for decades.

America was taken over by outsiders, whites, in the 1400s. America is going to be taken over by hispanics in my lifetime. Hispanics will keep voting in the party that gives them more power. Like it or not, Hispanics made the difference in the election and it's a sign of times to come. We can blame the politicians from both parties over the last 30 years for not closing that darn border. Now it will never happen under either party's watch because it's political suicide. Illegals have flooded in at unchecked rates, and now are going to get amnesty from ONE party, the Democrats. Whether by ingenious design or accident, those MILLIONS of votes will continue to go toward anti-gun politicians.

The Pro-gun party controls the house. Senate is a stalemate. And there's always executive order.... very scary days ahead for gun owners and the 2A. Elections have grave consequences and sadly I think we will see drastically reduced 2A rights in the next four years, to include the appointment of anti-gun SCOTUS members.

If the Republicans simply run interference on a popular President, and are viewed as obstructionists, then in 2014, Dems will win more seats and control everything... We are in a real pickle.

Sam Cade
November 12, 2012, 04:02 PM
Hispanics will keep voting in the party that gives them more power.

whut? What "power"?

Neverwinter
November 13, 2012, 11:25 PM
We as voters need to let our legislators know there will be a hell of a day of reckoning in 24 short months if they come anywhere near the 2A. We may now be a minority group, but we are stronger than any army if we stand together with one voice.
That already happened in 1996, and they learned their lessons the hard way.


Brazenly threaten to kill pet legislation in committee, defund programs, obstruct budgets, every dirty trick in the book if they cross the 2A red line.

This isn't about compromising on the 2nd Amendment. This thread is about what kind of 2nd Amendment improvements could accompany the impending immigration reform.

mljdeckard
November 13, 2012, 11:32 PM
I'm with Texan all the way.

Texan Scott
November 14, 2012, 01:57 AM
"It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people."

Ratify this as the next amendment to the US Constitution, and then we can discuss anything. Until then, it's still badger hole time AFAIC.

m1dbob1944
November 14, 2012, 04:33 AM
I have to unapologetically and emphatically argue the precise opposite. Now is the time for blunt and stubborn refusal. Now is the time to let our leaders know we expect them to dig in like cornered badgers and take the snout off any dog who sticks his head down that hole.

Brazenly threaten to kill pet legislation in committee, defund programs, obstruct budgets, every dirty trick in the book if they cross the 2A red line.

NO COMPROMISE.

Now may not be the time to GET anything. I think it's a bad time to go bartering, or be of the mindset that anything's negotiable. Now's the time to draw a line and bunch up behind it.
Amen

Pilot
November 14, 2012, 06:15 AM
I think leadcoucel is spot on. However, I don't think the restrictions will come initially from legislation, but Executive Order and regulations on ammo. He's right though, another mass shooting, and we will here the calls for restrictions on semi-auto rifles, and handguns.

mljdeckard
November 14, 2012, 08:19 AM
Right now, I'm not concerned about actual legislation. Reid sets the agenda in the senate, and besides whatever other issues I have with him, he is solidly pro-gun. The democratic makeup of the house is actually overwhelmingly pro-gun. It won't be a bill. The other problem this administration has, is that they are already pushing the limits of what can be done through executive order. I just can't see them even trying to enact an executive order of a law that has already been a law and that has since lapsed. What they CAN do is get creative about re-writing BATFE rules and DOJ guidelines for prosecution. I'm more worried about the U.N. arms treaty than I am about a new AWB.

Texan Scott
November 14, 2012, 08:27 AM
FWIW, lest anyone think I'm unclear on the OP's intent- I understand that he is not talking about compromising on 2A issues... he's talking about compromising on immigration reform to achieve some specious 2A benefit.

Let me be clear. I have no intent or desire to discuss immigration or race issues in this forum. I simply do not believe that a) we should HAVE to compromise ANYTHING to secure what is already our right, and b) I do not believe for an instant that the current administration would ever consider relaxing its hold on gun control even if we did offer to barter for it.

I submit my opinion that treating a 2A issue as something the government might give or withhold betrays a hint of the mindset that we ACCEPT to some extent that they have the legitimate authority to do so. To anti-2A sharks, that's just blood in the water.

The current administration will not give us anything on that front. I simply feel it best to make it abundantly clear that we will give nothing but grief to keep what is ours.

MAKE NO CONCESSIONS - ACCEPT NO 'GRACIOUS PERMISSION'.

NO COMPROMISE.

mljdeckard
November 14, 2012, 08:37 AM
^^ Concur.

beatledog7
November 14, 2012, 09:15 AM
Compromise was what they did when they drafted and debated the Constitution. Once it was ratified it became and is still the law of the land; we have compromised it far too much already.

oneounceload
November 14, 2012, 10:03 AM
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Hispanics will keep voting in the party that gives them more power.
whut? What "power"?

The power to vote, to get licenses and "free" entitlements like another minority, to not be prosecuted for being here illegally, and on and on. Most, especially those who came from Mexico and Central America have lived with extreme gun violence for most of their lives - therefore, to them, gun control is a must and they will side with that group

benEzra
November 14, 2012, 10:04 AM
This is making a great assumption about the political beliefs of "We".
This.

I have long believed that it is a huge mistake to associate the 2ndA with unrelated issues that cater to the subset of gun owners who are social conservatives, as that term is now understood with regard to religion, immigration, etc. Many of us, and likely a majority of us, do not fit that category.

Allowing unrelated "culture war" issues to be associated with RKBA activism would be the surest way to divide the RKBA community, IMO.

DammitBoy
November 14, 2012, 10:29 AM
"It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people."

Ratify this as the next amendment to the US Constitution, and then we can discuss anything.

Huzzah!

Pistola
November 14, 2012, 11:46 AM
America is going to be taken over by hispanics in my lifetime. Hispanics will keep voting in the party that gives them more power. Like it or not, Hispanics made the difference in the election and it's a sign of times to come. We can blame the politicians from both parties over the last 30 years for not closing that darn border. Now it will never happen under either party's watch because it's political suicide. Illegals have flooded in at unchecked rates, and now are going to get amnesty from ONE party, the Democrats. Whether by ingenious design or accident, those MILLIONS of votes will continue to go toward anti-gun politicians.

How true.

Nushif
November 14, 2012, 12:59 PM
"It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people."


Gotta say, that sounds good.

mljdeckard
November 14, 2012, 01:13 PM
And I will not agree that just because the Hispanic vote will grow, it will always remain liberal or anti-gun. Right now, the Hispanic vote swings left in hope of an immigration agreement. Once there is some closure on that issue, there will not necessarily be a reason for them to stay that way.

leadcounsel
November 14, 2012, 10:36 PM
The time has come for compromise...


Reminds me of the quote from "The Road Warrior." When Humungus gives his speech about wanting to compromise... "just leave your pump, your oil, that fat tanker of gas, and I'll spare your lives... just walk away, and I'll give you safe passage in the wasteland..."

No thanks.

Sam Cade
November 14, 2012, 10:39 PM
. Right now, the Hispanic vote swings left in hope of an immigration agreement. Once there is some closure on that issue, there will not necessarily be a reason for them to stay that way.


Cubans and Puerto Ricans used to vote Republican. Used to.

Immigration is a non-issue for both groups.


http://www.news-press.com/article/20121114/NEWS0107/121114050/1075/Romney-support-historically-low-among-Cubans?odyssey=nav|head

RinkRat
November 14, 2012, 11:43 PM
Compromise is giving into the other sides demands because you can not defend your own.

Compromise is an oversight that exposes your vulnerabilities.

There is no Compromise to the 2A.

Again….Cinemark had a “No Guns” sign on the door? Please tell me more about how that made everyone safer?

HO….and stricter gun-laws prevent shootings you say?? PLEASE tell me more about how criminals follow laws???

Darkhades
November 15, 2012, 01:01 AM
I know he has spoke about doing something in the past to change gun laws but his actions speak different.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...onal-parks/#.T3qKdb9Wpdf
Allows guns in national parks


http://content.usatoday.c...-december/1#.T3qKbL9Wpdf
can bring them on trains

He is a demi so if he is consistant with most of his parties history he has a good chance of making strick gun laws but his history shows different, it just shows him saying he will.

mljdeckard
November 15, 2012, 08:44 AM
So, you think he allowed guns in national parks because he WANTED to?

The restriction had already been lifted. Before it could go into effect, a judge ruled that more study (which would never happen) was needed before the restriction should be lifted, effectively blocking the action. To override that, a rider was attached to the Consumer Protection Act that Obama wanted so badly. If he wanted it, he HAD to allow guns into national parks. It wasn't what he wanted, it was EXTORTION.

zdc1775
November 15, 2012, 09:59 AM
So, you think he allowed guns in national parks because he WANTED to?

The restriction had already been lifted. Before it could go into effect, a judge ruled that more study (which would never happen) was needed before the restriction should be lifted, effectively blocking the action. To override that, a rider was attached to the Consumer Protection Act that Obama wanted so badly. If he wanted it, he HAD to allow guns into national parks. It wasn't what he wanted, it was EXTORTION.
I think this is more along the lines of what the OP is implying. Attach a rider that removes supressors from NFA on a bill that would reform imigration. Few people would notice the rider and would just blindly support the imigration reform.

Darkhades
November 15, 2012, 01:06 PM
Not so much that he wanted to more then It feels like he is just saying he will do something about gun laws to keep his party happy. Feel good laws like gun laws apply to those people with the sheep syndrome ( http://articles.directorygold.com/Article/The-Sheep-Syndrome/70 ) or Ostrich Syndrome to make them feel safe. It just so happens his party would seem to appease those type of individuals. Correct me if I am wrong and please point out which bills he has pass in dealing with gun laws besides taxing them different which that is a demi thing anyways. I am not defending him by any means I am all about the facts so if you were to educate me on something I might have missed I would appreciate that.

mljdeckard
November 15, 2012, 02:22 PM
The (ONLY) reason he hasn't introduce new gun legislation is that when he took office, 60 some-odd DEMOCRAT congressmen sent a letter to him and the Attorney General telling them that they will not vote for any new gun laws, period. He doesn't have the votes, and that won't likely change in the next four years either. He knew he had a lot of other big battles to fight in congress, and he wasn't going to waste political capital on a sure loser. Do not mistake lack of opportunity for lack of desire. There is not a single vote or action in his career as a professor, a state legislator, a senator, or a president that is good for gun owners.

There is a LOT more to gun restrictions than legislation. Start with BATFE rules, DOJ prosecution guidelines, and federal court picks.

Neverwinter
November 16, 2012, 01:50 AM
I think this is more along the lines of what the OP is implying. Attach a rider that removes supressors from NFA on a bill that would reform imigration. Few people would notice the rider and would just blindly support the imigration reform.
That is probably the sort of discussion intended, particularly the relatively likelihood of various riders being successfully attached. The removal of SBR/SBS and AOW from the NFA process would probably be easier than opening of the MG registry.

General Geoff
November 16, 2012, 02:31 AM
Never compromise, never surrender.

silvermane_1
November 16, 2012, 02:34 AM
what i don't understand is why during both Bush Admins. there wasn't anything done about the imigration problem then when the GOP had the chance?

silvermane_1
November 17, 2012, 03:05 AM
funny, still haven't got an answer on my last post.

Spats McGee
November 17, 2012, 04:51 PM
Your last post wasn't really firearms related. That might explain it.

plodder
November 17, 2012, 08:57 PM
The power to vote, to get licenses and "free" entitlements like another minority, to not be prosecuted for being here illegally, and on and on. Most, especially those who came from Mexico and Central America have lived with extreme gun violence for most of their lives - therefore, to them, gun control is a must and they will side with that group
So these illegal immigrants fleeing a land of corruption, lawlessness and virtually no rights to self defense, who can see what happens when the general citizenry is disarmed; would naturally gravitate toward a political party espousing the same in this country. I don't think they are that stupid, but maybe they will bite on the "candy" of entitlements.

danez71
November 17, 2012, 09:06 PM
I have long believed that it is a huge mistake to associate the 2ndA with unrelated issues that cater to the subset of gun owners who are social conservatives, as that term is now understood with regard to religion, immigration, etc. Many of us, and likely a majority of us, do not fit that category.

Allowing unrelated "culture war" issues to be associated with RKBA activism would be the surest way to divide the RKBA community, IMO.


I agree 100%

hso
November 17, 2012, 11:20 PM
This one's gotten muddied up with nonRKBA issues so it is closed.

We have one issue here at THR - RKBA.

No other issue is within scope of this forum.

If you enjoyed reading about "The time has come for compromise..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!