Compromise with the Anti bloc?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MudPuppy

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,529
Location
UK and Texas
Whoa, settle down--I know you're angry just reading the thread title. :)

Sorry if this has been discussed, but what if we could compromise with antis--like, okay, you can't have hi-cap mags without a FOID, but we're going to open up the NFA registration.

I guess this happened to some degree with the '86 protection act, but typically the media portrays compromise as the antis want to ban all hand guns, but would "compromise" and only ban standard or high cap mags.

I know, it's a bit like negotiating with a snake, but it could be interesting if we could truly improve the situation. It's hard to fight for an absolute win, when a sole nutjob can influence so many sheeple.
 
No.

Anyone who treats citizens like potential felons gets no quarter. It isn't the hardware that needs to be compromised on anyway, it is the initial attitude that tools will somehow make someone more violent.
 
Yeah, neither side is going to let the other have what you listed. Brady is not going to allow machine guns, and the NRA is not going to allow a license to have high caps. Plus, way more people would want the mags compared to new machine guns. Good idea, but bad idea.
 
Everyone has their selling point. No one will ever go into a negotiation admitting they'll give an inch. Without something realistic on the table, there's not much point discussing the maybes. And there will never be a deal like this.

Heck, FOPA '86 didn't go down like this scenario, either.

Asking, "what would you give up," just guarantees about 60 responses saying, "Not one dang inch!"
 
I'm not trading half of my rights today, so that I will have to worry about them going after the other half of my rights tomorrow.

There can be only one.

We are locked in a life or death struggle for the future of freedom, and the soul of America.
 
The problem is that has been tried already and all the compromise is on our side. Now we are turining the tide and the anti-gun folks would love some more "compromise" and "common sense." As has been said:

NO!
 
Really it's a moot argument.

Neither side has much to 'give up' in the debate going in. Any specificity after that just curdles the cream.

You used the term "FOID"--you'd need some draconian measures to just get a FOID enacted in Texas (shoot, mere rumors of that would create an ugly mess).

The anti's are equally rigid--their idea of compromise is to allow LEO to carry (for a while). It's good to remember that the antis believe all LEO to be fascist, minority-hating, power-abusing thugs, as is.

I know I could not approach to "reasonable compromise" in an unbiased manner. I'd start with requiring another Amnesty for NFA, and repeal of Lautenberg, and yanking the "sporting use" requirements from GCA'68. That's not going to leave a lot of wriggle-room vice the "must haves" of the anti contingent.
 
Ric said:
I'll agree to as many restrictions on the second amendment as they agree to on the first.
Click to expand...

Well that's a really bad plan. Look at the people pushing the agenda, and they aren't that thrilled with the first amendment either.
 
You can no more "compromise" with an anti than that doctor in Connecticut could compromise with the two monsters who raped and murdered his wife and daughters.

Any "compromise" premised on the honesty and decency of pathological liars and sociopaths is nothing but an obtuse form of capitulation.
 
The anti's are equally rigid--their idea of compromise is to allow LEO to carry (for a while). It's good to remember that the antis believe all LEO to be fascist, minority-hating, power-abusing thugs, as is.
Click to expand...
...but they can live with that so long as those "facist", "racist" police are taking away the guns of NON-criminals. They'd deal with Klaus Barbie and Adolf Eichmann if they thought the end result was general citizen disarmament.

Of course in my long personal experience, a BIG chunk of anti-gunners are themselves racists. They're not afraid of guns. They're afraid of non-whites with guns. And in unguarded moments, they'll tell you so, even using all of the racial epithets they can muster to do so.

Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.
 
It's a slippery slope, and we're best served by staying completely off it.

There are large numbers of the anti crowd who truly desire an absolute ban; they consider every other restriction a 'step in the right direction.'

So we need to not take ANY steps. They'll never say, 'enough, we can keep it like this.'


Larry
 
:fire: NO! :fire:
The <anti-gunner> definition of compromise, is;
You (gun owners) abandon your rights, principles and values, and just do it our (Democrat) way.
HELL NO!
I'm not a politician, but I work for one. I know how the political games are played and what compromise is all about. There is a time, however, to draw the line. ​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We could take two simple steps:

1. Lock up criminals and keep them in prison. No early parole, no phony rehabilitation. Unfortunately, inmates are potential Democratic voters.

2. Institutionalize crazy people. Any time some nut job goes on a shooting spree, it always comes out later that they were considered to have serious behavioral problems by other people YEARS BEFORE the tragic event. But it is now politically incorrect to institutionalize these disturbed people, and there are even laws that now keep people OUT of mental hospitals. Crazy people are a protected class of citizens.

The thing that everyone needs to remember is that in a free society, <deleted> happens. There is no guarantee in life --or in the Constitution-- that bad things will not happen to good people. It's the price of liberty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam1911 said:
Everyone has their selling point. No one will ever go into a negotiation admitting they'll give an inch. Without something realistic on the table, there's not much point discussing the maybes. And there will never be a deal like this.

Heck, FOPA '86 didn't go down like this scenario, either.

Asking, "what would you give up," just guarantees about 60 responses saying, "Not one dang inch!"
Click to expand...
Absolutely right.

While we live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control", this is neither the time nor place to be discussing possible trade offs.
 
Compromise with the anti's seems impossible because all the "give" is to be on our side. They won't accept something like the repeal of any anti-gun law.

What they mean by "compromise" is that they propose some extreme Draconian law, and then allow themselves to "compromise" on something less rigid. But we still lose.

I have made this comparison:

You have two $50 bills in your wallet. One day while waiting for a bus, you feel your wallet being pulled from your pocket and grab the pickpocket's hand. He begs you not to call the police and offers a "compromise". He will take $50; you keep the other $50 and the wallet. See how easy that is. No hassle, no need to testify, no trouble.

But if you accept that "compromise", you are a stupid sucker and he is a crook who got away with $50 of your money.

That is the anti's "compromise". They compromise by taking less from us than they originally wanted. But we still lose. And they will introduce more anti-gun laws next week.

And that pickpocket will be back tomorrow for the other $50.

Jim
 
Sorry if this has been discussed, but what if we could compromise with antis--like, okay, you can't have hi-cap mags without a FOID, but we're going to open up the NFA registration.
Click to expand...

You actually want to have to go to all that trouble to own a magazine with a higher capacity than 10-rounds? Hell No. No FOID. No Compromises.

Do you believe this will reduce crime? Why else would such a thing exist?
 
The premise of your question supposes that the anti-gun supporters are willing to move towards the direction of more gun freedoms in one area in exchange for taking it away in another.


Since this process began, what has the anti-gun movement capitulated on. Ever?
 
Ignoring, for a moment, the problem of compromising away a fundamental right -

It's really tough to negotiate a meaningful compromise because there aren't two sides to this discussion, there are three - gun owners, gun banners, and criminals.

Gun banners think the deal is that they agree to a certain level of gun ownership and we won't have any more crime, especially big media-attracting mass murders. When they don't get what they bargained for, they want more bans.

Gun owners - if it were possible, it's tough to write this with a straight face - would agree to a certain level of restriction of their right to own guns, in exchange for no attacks from criminals or tyrants. When we don't get what we bargained for, we're going to want our rights back.

Until we can get the criminals and the maniacs to negotiate with us in good faith, the whole "compromise" thing is moot - because our "deal" is going to be a disappointment, and having been disappointed, we're going to want to undo the "deal" and renegotiate ... but the people who actually create the problem aren't willing to do that. (And, even if they were, I'm not going to agree to some "minimum acceptable level of crime" or to fund permanent income for criminals who agree not to reoffend, or whatever. And I'm sure not going to agree to "disarm yourself and we, the government, promise to take care of you and protect you, even from ourselves.")
 
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will soon find themselves plowing...

...for those who didn't.

-Benjamin Franklin

Never take a step backwards.
 
The "Firearms Owners Protection Act" of 1986 may have given us some advantages, but basically ended private ownership of any full auto/select fire weapon made after '86.

And in 1993 we had the assault weapon ban (with the Hi-cap mag restriction).

There is NO "compromising", because it will never stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Pro 2A vs. antis: "Compromise of the century"
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
189
Views
7K
Robert
Robert
Justin
  • Locked
Making a concerted effort to dismantle an anti meme
Replies
18
Views
1K
Roadkill Coyote
R
Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
More on Chicago--and a 'suggestion' for 'compromise'
Replies
13
Views
800
Bix
B
S
  • Locked
No Compromise NRA Director Nominees
Replies
11
Views
1K
sur+rifle
S
R
  • Locked
compromise on AWB II?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
Back
Top