"Compromise" from pro 2A perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LSMS

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
75
Location
Missouri
Came across this on another site. Thought I'd share. If this has been posted before I apologize as its from 2010
 
Compromise is when we get something, too. What the anti's want is concession.
 
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.

OK. I just read your link. It's all tongue in cheek and I think I agree with the author. I'll compromise. Stick the bad guys in prison with no hope of release and I'll keep my guns. That's my compromise.
 
SunnySlopes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally do get it and agree full heartily. Sorry for the confusion link is posted above v
 
Agree with the general consensus here. The gun banners will use every event to further their agenda. No compromise.
 
From the OP's link, this is outstanding. For any youngster/newcomer to the field of private firearms ownership, memorize this!!

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Protect our Right to Self-Defense!

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!
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Glen's Story
Replies
5
Views
463
Shadow 7D
S
FlSwampRat
  • Locked
A trip down memory lane for vintage gun lovers
Replies
14
Views
886
bannockburn
bannockburn
B
  • Locked
This mom gets it - Pro
Replies
16
Views
2K
XD40scinNC
X
JeffDilla
  • Locked
Smith and Wesson "gun cam"
Replies
6
Views
516
Shireman
S
W
  • Locked
Finally, a pro-2A CNN video
Replies
3
Views
498
Skribs
Skribs
Back
Top