"Compromise" from pro 2A perspective


PDA






LSMS
December 30, 2012, 12:52 PM
Came across this on another site. Thought I'd share. If this has been posted before I apologize as its from 2010

If you enjoyed reading about ""Compromise" from pro 2A perspective" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Queen_of_Thunder
December 30, 2012, 12:53 PM
No Compromises. Plain and simple.

Skribs
December 30, 2012, 12:55 PM
Compromise is when we get something, too. What the anti's want is concession.

LSMS
December 30, 2012, 12:56 PM
Sorry. Totally forgot the link

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?m=1

Edit: I agree with the no compromise sentiment

LSMS
December 30, 2012, 12:59 PM
What other site? Did you post a link?

Re compromises. We've done that before. The more compromises we make, the more concessions the gun grabbers demand.

You don't get it. They don't want high cap mags. They don't want assault rifles. They want all guns, and realize that to accomplish their goal, they have to do it one piece at a time.

Totally do get it and agree full heartily. Sorry for the confusion link is posted above v

ToraBoraBlues
December 30, 2012, 01:01 PM
Agree with the general consensus here. The gun banners will use every event to further their agenda. No compromise.

freyasman
December 30, 2012, 01:16 PM
LawDog rocks...

One78Shovel
December 30, 2012, 01:18 PM
Only compromise I have is letting you get to the door to knock. From there, it becomes business like.

-178S

yokel
December 30, 2012, 01:41 PM
Some people look to a compromise as the way to settle everything. Especially politicians, as in the sickening words: 'Bi-partisan compromise'. Perhaps that's fine in some cases, but a slavish devotion to the almighty idea of meeting in the middle is a poor way to run a government. It's an especially poor way to run a life.

An example to illustrate the point is in order. Find a compromise in this case: Your goal is to live your life in peace without injury. The goal of the deranged drug addict who just broke into your home is to kill you. Ok? Got the terms? Ready..... Set...... Compromise!

What.... you think living your life in peace is a perfectly valid goal and you aren't willing to be maimed, let alone murdered, in the name of compromise? How about just beaten senseless and left for dead? Kicked in head a few times? No?

My, how counter social an attitude!

Not every situation can be solved by splitting the pot.

AlexanderA
December 30, 2012, 02:19 PM
Just about every "compromise" in American history (the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, etc.) has been an attempt to kick the problem down the road, and not resolve it. These things always come back to bite. It took the Civil War to resolve the issues of these earlier compromises. I'm afraid something almost as traumatic may be needed to resolve the gun issue. Neither side is just going to go away quietly.

ApacheCoTodd
December 30, 2012, 08:10 PM
Since every compromise seems to be from the perspective of...

".... rather than an out right ban and confiscation."

And also as in a mathematical sense what they want is zero - if you look at every "compromise" in the past it has represented a slide towards zero of varying percentages.

For me a true compromise (though many would not accept it and I understand) would be something along the lines of no further production of higher than standard magazine size (30 round AR, full cap Glock etc...) and what the shooting community gets is a re-opening of legal ownership of newly manufactured and registered machine guns.

For that matter the FOPA or The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986 was a perfect example of what they would call a compromise: "we won't take what you have away but you can't have anymore of them."

Yeah - they understand the word compromise just as Uncle Joe did.

Resist Evil
December 30, 2012, 08:20 PM
"Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line — and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time." --Jesse Helms

WCraven
December 30, 2012, 08:27 PM
I never remember seeing the word Compromise in the Bill of Rights

ndh87
December 30, 2012, 09:16 PM
I'll keep my guns, you can go play in traffic

barnbwt
December 31, 2012, 01:10 AM
I'd almost be willing to "test" new legislation regulating firearms (that hasn't been tried before and shown to be pointless), if it were accompanied by permanent repeals of existing regulations that have been shown to accomplish nothing. Yes, I'd tolerate a trial-run (for no more than a year) of something like a short waiting period for long-gun purchases--if SBRs and suppressors were removed from NFA, or the MG registry were reopened (again, on a "trial" basis). After a year passes, we could see for real if the new regulation accomplished squat, and if opening the MG registry caused all hell to break loose.

I understand the need to try new things to address percieved problems, and all legislation is "unproven" until it's been on the books. What I don't understand is why there is no choice but to keep adding laws without addressing the previous failed measures--hence the need for sunset clauses in all this stuff. If the anti's were actually interested in a debate or compromise, they would offer something up like NFA items or eliminating GFZs on their end. The have no interest in yielding anything, hence, there is no debate, just us talking to a stump.

I would never accept new national registration in exchange for anything, as this is the redline we cannot allow to be crossed (we were too late for MGs, unfortunately, and now civilians are resigned to 30yo relics priced far beyond their intrinsic worth).

TCB

Skribs
December 31, 2012, 01:18 AM
I've used the example of a mugger several times on this forum, but the cake story is basically the same.

The idea is that if a mugger comes up and sees you with five $20s, and he says "gimme $100", and you say "no" so he compromises by only taking one $20. The next day he wants $80 and again compromises down to $20, but it's a total of $40. So by the end of the week you've compromised away $80 and all he has to do is take the $20 from you again and it's all gone.

r1derbike
December 31, 2012, 01:50 AM
No compromise. We MUST control our lives, not out-of-control politicians. This is America.

HorseSoldier
December 31, 2012, 01:56 AM
I'd be willing to compromise -- national concealed carry, no state/local infringement of a federally legislated right, and in return that permit requires completing something on par with the Texas or Utah CCW training course. Give something, get something.

But like was already stated -- the other side of this debate is not a rational actor, isn't basing its desired end state on demonstrable facts/etc., and is not acting in good faith when they say "compromise." Their idea of compromise is we capitulate and smile about it.

BigRugerLover
December 31, 2012, 02:04 AM
"Compromise" is like feeding a crocodile whilst hoping that he eats you last."
Winston Churchill

OptimusPrime
December 31, 2012, 02:31 AM
The error in using all these various analogies to hypothetical compromises is that the taker gets the benefit of what they're taking. The mugger gets $20 at a time, the cake-taker gets to eat 9/10 of our cake, etc. Those are things of value and easily give benefit to the taker.
The compromises (taking) of gun rights has no real value to the taker. They aren't going to enjoy all the high capacity magazines, or flash suppressors, or bayonet lugs, or selective fire autos, etc. Their view of compromise isn't actually taking and retaining anything of physical value, therefore using analogies like that makes no sense to the antis because they do not see their argument as gaining anything at our expense.
So, following that to its logical conclusion, what benefit do they get? As has been stated on this forum a million times; their goal has to be the neutering and disarming and control of the population. What else could there be? Simply what? Compromise = control.

Greggo
December 31, 2012, 02:55 AM
Diane Feinstein and the anti-gun machine will introduce the gun ban legislation this week, and it will be rammed through Congress and signed by the President if we do not Stand As One and act today!

I contacted my Senators and Representatives yesterday.

Please contact you Representative today:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Contact your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Please, all of you, they are going to ban most of our guns if we don't stand together and act now!

HOWARD J
December 31, 2012, 03:05 AM
I contacted my DC people----they want our guns.
I will not load my car with my guns & run them down to the cop station
THERE WILL BE TROUBLE

jimmyraythomason
December 31, 2012, 10:46 AM
Compromise is when we get something, too. What the anti's want is concession.
Exactly! NO compromise! That has to be our only position!

barnbwt
January 1, 2013, 12:38 PM
The compromises (taking) of gun rights has no real value to the taker. They aren't going to enjoy all the high capacity magazines, or flash suppressors, or bayonet lugs, or selective fire autos, etc.
They get the benefit of feeling safer. However, you can never feel too safe*, so they always feel the need for more. Just like a drug-addicited mugger or gluttonous cake-fiend :D. A guy extorting you for a room in your house; that would be a poor comparison since he's done once he gets it.

Give something, get something.

He gets it!:) Too many pols (and constituents, honestly) no longer understand real debate and compromise. If anti's feel safety from their laws, it's unfair of us to unilateraly demand they give them up. As unfair as it is for them to demand our rights. We are not having (and have not had) a real debate with them thus far; but that does not mean it is not possible. Like I said, there are items both sides can bargain with, but the anti's have been allowed to get away with not offering anything in the past. Whereas, gun owners have offered sacrificial lambs each time.
Who are the real "bitter clingers" here? We can have a discussion, alright, but any deal must include real concessions from them.

TCB

HankB
January 1, 2013, 12:55 PM
Had a debate at work a couple of years ago from an "anti" who recommended we treat guns like cars - license, registration, mandatory insurance, etc.

I agreed - and said that way we'd have not only driver's ed in school, but shooting classes as well . . . a gun license, readily available at age 16 just like a driver's license, would allow persons to carry guns in public the way they drive cars, and Johnny could not only drive one of the family cars to school, but could carry one of the family pistols as well.

There would no longer be restrictions on machine guns or mail order purchases, and you could buy any gun you wanted in any state, the same way you can buy cars today.

We'd be using general tax revenues to fund free shooting ranges all over the same way roads and bridges are funded today, so there would be ample opportunity to practice. And you could buy ammo at the local 7-11 the same way you buy gas.

"NO NO NO, that's CRAZY, that's not what I meant at all!" was her response.

"Hey, don't look at ME like I'm the crazy one - YOU'RE the one who wants guns treated like cars! Are you saying you really DON'T want the laws restricting guns today eliminated?"

She walked away in a huff. ;)

black_powder_Rob
January 1, 2013, 12:57 PM
Sorry, I have to also add one for the no compromise. (As others have said compromise means both sides give up something to come to an agreement. Their side is offering nothing.)

black_powder_Rob
January 1, 2013, 12:59 PM
Hank that is priceless. :evil: lol

AlexanderA
January 1, 2013, 01:40 PM
For me a true compromise (though many would not accept it and I understand) would be something along the lines of no further production of higher than standard magazine size (30 round AR, full cap Glock etc...) and what the shooting community gets is a re-opening of legal ownership of newly manufactured and registered machine guns.

I'd be OK with that if it was understood that a "standard capacity feeding device" for a Browning machine gun was a 250-round belt.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Compromise" from pro 2A perspective" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!