A reason why we are losing

barnbwt said:

"Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?"

Okay, in politics, there are three basic states of being for each side; winning, losing, and stalemate. "Compromise" really only occurs during the latter, a shuffling of deckchairs when no real territory is to be won, so the legislators can look like they are doing something. While winning, the winners justify their route of the opposite team as a "compromise," often throwing them a few token bones so they might not be compelled to turn to desperate measures to defend themselves or inflict damage on the opposite team (i.e. keeping it "cat and mouse, not cat and missile" ). Likewise, the losing team attempts to shore up its less enthusiastic elements by couching the loss as a compromise, since that is seen as less negative. Keeping the group unified in the face of defeat this way is the only way future victories can be ever won, so it serves a very real purpose.

But it's not a compromise unless both sides get what they don't want and neither side loses future standing. If the deal is "better" for one side, it's not a compromise, it's a victory, and before the deal is inked (and only then played off as a compromise rather than a defeat or rout) the negotiating parties will be under no illusions as to the beneficiary.

"Well, one man's argument is another man's debate"
I'll have to disagree with you on that one

Click to expand...

Compromise is getting enough to be satisfied without trying to be sated at the expense of your opponent starving. It can be done and is being done. While our opponents have been crowing about their trivial tactical victories, we are winning the strategic victory of more people with CCW than ever before, more women (biggest voting block) buying guns than ever before, more people watching more gun sport oriented television shows than every before. Many of those people are young and will vote to support guns. The generations of the late 20th and 21st centuries are increasingly demanding protection of their rights from obviously intrusive government organizations. Gun ownership is one of those rights they will protect. WE ARE WINNING!

"From my cold dead hands" is not going to work."
It works great for rallying our side though; Chuck wasn't speaking at a Brady convention, nor a town hall. It was the 2000 NRA convention. Gun-waivers, anti screamers, and other such slogan-hurlers are not talking to the other side so much as showing solidarity with their own kind. You usually can't understand what a large crowd of protestors are chanting, but each protestor sure does. Some birds gotta crow, some monkeys gotta fling poo; it's the way of things. That said, I wholeheartedly endorse efforts to remove the worst offenders from our midst when the goal isn't to make fools of ourselves, but it's folly to deny the impulse, or to pretend we can prevent it (it's like trying to end gun violence )

"The attitude of compromise all and gain nothing is a bit too dangerous as well. And it seems the definition of "trivial" might be important here. I think jerkface's offered compromise of agreeing to a 100rnd mag limit might be trivial enough to be acceptale. Apparently Pizzapinochle does not."
Exactly. "Reasonable restrictions" on universally-loathed weapons like full autos, large bore cannon, explosives, sawn-off long arms, machine pistols, and the like have yielded a Byzantine regulatory system chock full of booby traps, landmines, and the ever present "Do Not Pass Go..." rulings of the ATF changing the game mid stream. Engage in the business of selling or making firearms, and you must walk on eggshells, check those i's and T's, as well as those pesky p's and q's, lest you open yourself to all sorts of liability (some of it potentially at the point of a gun, no less ). All passed under the auspices of a tax-collecting authority, none of it enforced to that end.

I want to build a belt-fed semi-auto machinegun (even sans NFA since ammo is too pricey ) from a ZB37 parts kit*. Someone tell me why I either do not have the right to do so, or should cede my right to do so without compensation, so that an unknown, unthanking stranger can ostensibly enjoy that which is not yet banned as part of a 'grand bargain.'

I'll be waiting for a response, because my belt fed, tripod mounted 'machine gun' would certainly be the first sacrifice on the 'bargaining' table...

TCB

*So, would 100 round belts be okay, but not 250? By what logic do you draw the line at that particular number, the quantity of fingers on our hands?

"Compromise is getting enough to be satisfied without trying to be sated at the expense of your opponent starving."

By your own description of current events, the anti's are looking really hungry about now. Probably having hallucinations of us as talking spiral-cut hams . Last election they had something like 5000$ to chip in for O. I have no compunctions about keeping hungry wolves at bay now and into the future (and bay they most certainly will...)


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72dcg_daffy-duck-along-came-daffy_fun?start=1

TCB

barnbwt said:

"Compromise is getting enough to be satisfied without trying to be sated at the expense of your opponent starving."

By your own description of current events, the anti's are looking really hungry about now. Probably having hallucinations of us as talking spiral-cut hams . Last election they had something like 5000$ to chip in for O. I have no compunctions about keeping hungry wolves at bay now and into the future (and bay they most certainly will...)


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72dcg_daffy-duck-along-came-daffy_fun?start=1

TCB

Click to expand...

Here is the thing about dieting. Done gradually the diet does not seem like a diet after a while. In fact at certain point even the starving lose the sensation of hunger, they only feel weak and ineffective at doing any thing, and eventually lose the will to take corrective action. The food they need is people voting there way. They don't get that if we keep swaying the young and women to our side or not to any side.

Nom de Forum said:

With many hobbies and pastimes the participants can appear aggressive and fanatical to outsiders without appearing to be threatening. Aggessive and fanatical behavior by gun hobbiests scares the hellouta allota people.

Click to expand...

In fact, it scares many of them so much they start seriously questioning whether anyone should have the right to scare (threaten) them to that extent. And they start looking for and supporting "reasonable" limitations, regardless of what the Constitution might say about it.

Let's stop doing that. It is counterproductive.

Click to expand...

You're right, it is counterproductive. confused: I think we just agreed on something. How did that happen? )

@Sam

Well, not to put ourselves on any sort of pedestal but, we try really hard here at THR. That might not be saying a whole lot -- we take an awful lot of anger for stifling folks' more vitriolic comments -- but we do try to shepherd our debates here to be as adult and respectful as possible. And to be as closely based on fact and reason as our members can maintain. But few folks come to a gun-rights forum to argue the "anti" side, and those that have had the stomach for that and have come here to debate the issues have tended to reach the point of frustration, anger, and insult very quickly.

Click to expand...

That`s the reason I, as an atheist, liberal, social Democrat, historian, martial artist,
nature boy, gun lover...
... am still here

First, I think magazine limits are stupid and pointless. Jerkface suggested it, I ran with his suggestion. I would take that bill in a heartbeat because…

1. I want a full auto, but won’t be able to afford one without opening the registry
2. I want a suppressor, but don’t want to pay more for a tax stamp than most of my guns are worth

.... NOT because I want magazine limits (I don't), but because I think what is gained is much greater than what is lost.

Second, this thread is about effective advocacy and tactics. There are a LOT of things I would like to see happen (List off the top of my head: Repeal NFA, repeal import restrictions on foreign guns, repeal all PERMITTING for ownership, repeal any magazine limits, repeal bans based on stupid standards like bayonet lugs and “overall scariness”) that, at the moment, I don’t see an effective pro-gun strategy for reaching those goals. I see an effective strategy for resisting further attacks (which was demonstrated in 2013), but defense is much easier than offense. Just “STAND STRONG, NO COMPROMISE” works as a defense, but there needs to be a strategy for winning back rights. And that may take a different strategy.

Third, I like putting things in real world/scenarios, because it makes it harder to rely on ideology/abstract philosophy. Of course, it is also easy for people to say “Well, that isn’t real so it isn’t relevant,” but I have a good imagination so I have no problem theorizing and abstracting about possibilities.

So, here is a little play for you. I am curious about your response.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Characters:
Pro Gun Senator Sam
Anti Gun Senator Bob
Random Senator Sally the Committee Chair
LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!
ANTI-GUN COMMIES!!!!

Act 1:
Pro-gun Sam proposes a bill.

"REPEAL THE 1934 NFA"

Bill goes to committee. In committee, it is clear that an outright repeal isn't going to happen.

Sally suggests: "What are the most important parts of the NFA you would like to see repealed?"

Sam: "Re-open the machine gun registry and completely remove suppressors from the NFA. They are safety devices that we should be ENCOURAGING, not restricting."

Sally: Ok, well lets try running with those two things and send it to the floor.
Act 2:
New bill hits the floor: AMEND THE 1934 NFA
Liberal Media goes crazy, Anti-gun Commies go crazy, because congress is about to let all the crazies get AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WITH SILENCERS!! BLOOD AND SILENT DEATH WILL RAIN DOWN UPON THE WORLD!! NO ONE NEEDS AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!!! WE HAVE HAD THIS LAW FOR 80 YEARS, WHY CHANGE IT NOW!!!! THEY WANT TO KILL BABIES!!!!!
In the Senate, there is quite a bit of support, but it is not a sure thing to pass.
Act 3:
Anti-Gun Bob talks to Sam.

"Sam, you MIGHT have the votes to get this through, but me and my block are going to fight it every step of the way with every procedural trick in the book and our colleges in the House will do the same. It'll be a mess and the whole thing will probably fall apart. Our constituents want us to fight this.

BUT, if you throw us a bone, say, a ban on the manufacture and importation of magazines larger than 50 rounds, I'll still vote against it but we won't use every procedural trick possible to keep the bill from ever reaching a vote. We can tell our constituents we got something out of the bill also, that it is a win for us. If you really have enough votes, it will pass.”

Sam weighs his options. He knows he is winning, Bob would not be crawling to him asking for a compromise like this if he didn’t know he was in a tight spot, but Sam also knows that the bill is not a sure thing even WITHOUT Bob causing problems. Without Bob backing off, the bill might never even reach the floor for a vote.
Sam says: “You know, we can live with restricting the manufacture/importation of magazines over 50 rounds if it gets the bill passed.”
Act 4:
Bill gets amended and sent to the floor:

-All newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp

Bill goes to a vote and doesn’t get enough votes, fails 47 YEAH – 53 NAY. Dies in the senate.
Act 5:
Liberal Media rejoices!! Anti – Gun Commies rejoice!! THANK GOODNESS THE SENATE WAS SMART AND DIDN’T LET THOSE GUN NUTS JAM THROUGH THAT TERRIBLE AMENDMENT!! THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLING BABIES!!! BUT COMMON SENSE WON OUT AND THE BILL DIED IN THE SEANTE!!! REJOICE!!!
End Scene
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And you are telling me you guys would be sitting here on THR agreeing with the liberal media and anti-gun groups, saying “Boy, good thing THAT bill didn’t pass!! Would HATE to have compromised on anything!!” ?????

I don’t buy it.
You can say ideologically, when it isn’t a real world example, that you would oppose it because it is a compromise, but if that bill actually reached the floor and it didn’t pass, you would not be happy. Just like it was a win for the pro-gun movement to block the 2013 legislation, it would be a win for the anti-gun movement to block this hypothetical legislation.

And I realize it is all hypothetical and theoretical and such. And maybe some of you really are that ideologically bound to the “No Compromise” mantra.

But, in the real world it is incredibly difficult to get anything “cleanly” through the US legislative process. Even if you have a lot of support, someone is going to try and latch something onto it. If pro-gun legislators think the pro-gun voters will turn on them even if they were to secure a big win because of a minor anti-gun rider, I see a lot of difficult in winning back rights on the federal level b/c even the representatives you support will be scared to act.
Maybe I am wrong. What was the last major (or even minor) PRO-GUN piece of federal legislation to pass with no anti-gun riders/features?
If these are getting through with zero compromise, then I guess it is possible, but if that has happened in the past 30 years I don’t know about it.
In contrast, what was the last major ANTI-GUN legislation to pass without any pro-gun riders/features?

Final thought:

It seems that some of you only see the slippery slope working against you. Take my proposal.

You see that and say “Yeah, today they want 50 rounds, next they will want 30 then 20 then next thing you know we can only have single shot .22lr rifles!”

An anti-gunner sees that same legislation and says “They got rid of half the NFA, how long until the whole thing is repealed? If they can repeal NFA, what about GCA 1968 or Brady 1993?”

Do you have to watch out for the slippery slope?? Of course, but if you have the chance to push your opponent down HIS/HER slippery slope in a big way, TAKE IT!!

All for now.

Just “STAND STRONG, NO COMPROMISE” works as a defense, but there needs to be a strategy for winning back rights. And that may take a different strategy.

Click to expand...

I posted a list a while back of things I saw as recent wins in our column. I do not automatically disagree that there may be utility in giving a little to get a little, as a general principle, but as I look at that list I posted, I don't see really anything that we had to give up to get real positive changes. What did we compromise to make the 1994 AWB sunset? What did we compromise to get the national parks carry ban killed off? What did we compromise to get the 2nd Amendment declared a personal (not collective) right? What did we compromise to get concealed carry rights established in (almost) all 50 states?

Did we get those significant wins (and all those others) by being stubborn and hard-nosed about our rights and holding a firm line? Or by compromising?

The last SERIOUS federal compromise bill I can remember involved safe transport of firearms across state lines, decreased harassment of FFLs, the removal of the "contiguous states" provision for long gun purchase ... AND the Hughes Amendment that closed the machine gun registry. We could have killed the bill and refused to compromise -- and the registry would be open today! An M-4 registered receiver could probably cost you $500 these days. But we compromised to get a small pile of things we wanted. Was that a good idea? Are we just "haggling over price?"

JRH6856 said:

.......You're right, it is counterproductive. confused: I think we just agreed on something. How did that happen? )

Click to expand...

As I mentioned in a previous post: Try to remember that me and some of the rest of us may be sobs, but we are sobs on your side that probably agree with most of your views.

I agree, we could have better arguments when debating the anti's.

Some get too down in the weeds, trying to explain the Constitutional merits, or even the value of freedom. Unfortunately, that makes the listeners eyes glaze over (very sad that people have become this unable to comprehend).

So, advice: Keep it simple. And if you do not have a pithy reply, simply ask the other side to explain their point.

1. Cuomo said, "because you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer."

OK, then, how many rounds do you want your wife to have when she is confronted by more than one bad guy in your home at night?


2. "Too many people die of gun violence."

Was no one ever killed before the advent of the gun?


3. "We need to place limits on the Second Amendment."

Would you allow others to place limits on the First, Fourth, Fifth and the rest?

A reason why we are losing

Click to expand...

Losing? Why do you think this?

Losing? Why do you think this?

Click to expand...

He explained that in post 42, and has clarified that his impression was erroneous.

2. "Too many people die of gun violence."

Was no one ever killed before the advent of the gun?

Click to expand...

Ahem.
This is one of the arguments that are the weakest.


Focus on the fact that there is a gun culture.
And that it cannot be just done away with.

The above "Argument" is childish.
A 10 min survey of global data tells you that.
( don`t start, "but in Switzerland!..." cos its, tiny and rich
and in better social shape than the US)



My 02$.

Captain33036 said:

2. "Too many people die of gun violence."

Was no one ever killed before the advent of the gun?

Click to expand...

Also weak because the answer is:

"Not as easily, not as quickly, not at range, not with minimal training and without physical strength."

This is actually a theme of one of the weakest pro-gun arguments: treating guns like any other object.

They aren't like any other object and everyone knows it. If other objects were like guns, you wouldn't care about gun rights and antis wouldn't care about gun control.

Doesn't mean guns are evil/inherently bad/etc. etc., but be realistic about what they are. Really cool mechanical devices that hurl chunks of metal at potentially deadly velocities.

Pizzapinochle said:

First, I think magazine limits are stupid and pointless. Jerkface suggested it, I ran with his suggestion. I would take that bill in a heartbeat because…

1. I want a full auto, but won’t be able to afford one without opening the registry
2. I want a suppressor, but don’t want to pay more for a tax stamp than most of my guns are worth

.... NOT because I want magazine limits (I don't), but because I think what is gained is much greater than what is lost.

Click to expand...

I'm not ready to act in your play, but about the above, it might be a good deal if thatis as far as it goes, andif both sides negotiated in good faith, it could be. But you have just agreed that mag capacity is negotiable base on a purely arbitrary number. So they will be back, offering something else--say no restrictions on SBRs and allowing handgun purchses across state lines like long guns, in exchange for another 20rnd reduction. Someone wanting to convert a rifle into pistol who doesn't see a need for mags larger than 30 rounds might vote for that in a heartbeat.

And they'll be back, offering another 20 round reduction in exchange for something else--say treating shotguns like rifles as far as length restrictions. The shotgunners don't need more than 10 rounds so that's fine with them And in the end, you will have your full auto with a 10 round magazine and you are measuring rate of fire in mag changes per minute. Happy now?

That is what barnbwt means about the other guy's ox being gored.

If you are going to compromise on something, make it a part of something you wouldn't miss if you lost it all.

Captain33036 said:

3. "We need to place limits on the Second Amendment."

Would you allow others to place limits on the First, Fourth, Fifth and the rest?

Click to expand...

We are already pretty far down that road (off the top of my head):

Freedom of Speech? Not if it offends a specially privileged group That is hate speech and must be punished.

Freedom of Religion? You are free to believe and worship as you choose, but don't try to act in everyday life as you faith dictates. See specially privileged groups above.

Protection against illegal search and seizure? Well see, that is why you can't have guns. Someone will get hurt if you try to resist a no knock warrant in the middle of the night.

Protection against self incrimination? Fine. We don't need you to talk, we can get all the evidence we need from your phone records and emails. And if you refuse to talk, that refusal can be used as evidence against you. Apparently no one has the right to remain silent if they remain silent. You have to actually say you wish to remain silent.

Right to trial by jury of your peers? When we get through with the pre-trial pub, you won't have any peers. And if you do, we'll get a change of venue because of the pub.

No ex post facto laws? But this isn't a law, it is just a regulation of intertate commerce that happens to affect you.

Mp7 said:

Focus on the fact that there is a gun culture.
And that it cannot be just done away with.

The above "Argument" is childish.
A 10 min survey of global data tells you that.

Click to expand...

Prevalence of firearms has little to do with per capita murder rates.

A 10 min survey of US state data tells you that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state



also,
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram...gun-murders-down-39-percent-from-1993-to-2011

According to a report released Tuesday by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent from 1993 to 2011. Non-fatal firearm crimes dropped 69 percent during the same period.

Click to expand...

History is full of many large scale murders and killings long before the gun was ever invented.

Even after guns were common, there have been numerous mass stabbings and bombings.

History is a useful guide. In 1139, Pope Innocent III and the second Lateran council outlawed the crossbow as a weapon causing unacceptable devastation.

Today, in the US, more people are killed by poisonings, cars, medical faults and quite a number of other things, than handguns.

So, it does not seem to me that the simple question, "was no one killed before the advent of the gun" is a weak one.

Thanks

So, it does not seem to me that the simple question, "was no one killed before the advent of the gun" is a weak one.

Click to expand...

And the answer is, "Yes, people were killed, and people tried to reduce the level of death by restricting the weapons used in the killings. For example, In 1139, Pope Innocent III and the second Lateran council outlawed the crossbow as a weapon causing unacceptable devastation."

Captain33036 said:

History is full of many large scale murders and killings long before the gun was ever invented.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the recent ethnic madness in Rwanda was mostly machete work.

JRH - good, but that answer is a pretty meaningless, since there are still an unacceptable number of violent deaths.

Which makes having a weapon for personal protection all the more meaningful.

In the UK, when guns were outlawed, knife attacks rose to fill the gap.

Thanks

Sam - exactly. There will always be a means and history, even recent history has given us plenty examples in which large numbers of people were killed, no guns involved.

So, the question is a valid one. Honestly, whenever I run into an anti who begins to go down that path, that simple question most often stops them in their tracks.

And what I am trying to convey is that ANY question, really, usually stops these people. Because their argument never has any logic to it. And can never be defended by them for very long.

Thanks

Captain33036 said:

JRH - good, but that answer is a pretty meaningless, since there are still an unacceptable number of violent deaths.

Click to expand...

Of course the answer is meaningless. As is the question it answered. And the null result demonstrate the weakness of the argument. The only thing to be drawn from the exchange is that when people die, other people try will to stop it no matter how ineffective the effort.

And what I am trying to convey is that ANY question, really, usually stops these people. Because their argument never has any logic to it. And can never be defended by them for very long.

Click to expand...

They may not logically defend it to your satisfaction, but because logic was not involved in their argument to begin with, that doesn't matter to them. They can defend it emotionally and that is sufficient to their need.