Compromise with the Anti bloc?

[Owen Sparks]

Here is how compromise works:

They want something
way over..........................................................................................here.



You compromise and give them something.....................here.



They repeat.

 

[hillbilly]

Why compromise with a group when you've recently begun totally whipping them?

 

[alsaqr]

"Compromising" with the antis is never an option. It's not about "assault weapons or high capacity magazines: Rather, it's about incremental gun control.

Did anyone else on this forum watch TV the interview with a well known NY congressman after the AWB was signed into law? The congressman gloated "wait until you see the rest of the camel"; implying that the AWB was the first of a number of anti-gun laws to be passed by congress.

The camel lost it's nose when the AWB expired. Unless we are ever vigilant the camel will get its nose under the tent again.

 

[thorn726]

real compromises

give them what they want, get what you want. trade gun laws for drug or other objectionable laws that the ultra liberals would like repealed. Other than that, i see no reasonable compromises- what has been given is already too much.

 

[Hypnogator]

On the one hand, compromise is the way almost all bills are passed.

On the other hand, you don't compromise civil rights. Imagine what would have been the reaction in the '60s if the civil rights movement had been offered such a compromise: "OK, you culuds can sit anywhere you want on the bus, but you can't eat in the same restaurants as white folk." :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[smallbore]

No.

 

[happygeek]

give them what they want, get what you want. trade gun laws for drug or other objectionable laws that the ultra liberals would like repealed.

If you're talking about repealing restrictions on both, that's not compromise, it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

 

[george29]

Arr, Show Them No Quarter

 

[kayak-man]

I think Goerge29 has said it best so far...

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

 

[Larry E]

Giving in to anything the antis "feel" is a "moderate law that will make us (or the children) safer shows them that we're willing to compromise so maybe we'll do it on something else, and pretty soon we'll have to have a license to have a book on guns.

I prefer living in a place where I don't need a license or anything else but the money and the gun I'd like to buy to have that gun.

 

[David E]

Here's the thing that folks wanting to appease the anti's forget: "They" don't want to compromise. They don't want to understand, relate or empathize with gun owners.

Here is how they "compromise:"

"Nice car you have there. Tell you what, I'd like to keep it 6 months out of the year. That way, no one will be killed with your car while we have it in storage."

"WHAT?!" you exclaim. "There's no way I'm going to do that."

"Ok, I'm reasonable and willing to compromise....how about 5 months? You care about saving innocent lives, don't you?"

"NO, I won't do 5 months."

"Ok, how about 2 months? I'm trying to work with you here, so give me something...."

Then the media, President, etc, all praise the anti's for wanting to "find common ground" and for "negotiating in good faith," but that the pig-headed gunowners just won't budge.

But the big thing that's overlooked here is, the anti's aren't giving up anything, only the gunowner is. If he agrees to give up HIS car for even one minute a year, he's lost. What did the anti's ever put on the table? NOTHING. It was always "negotiating" for something already belonging to the gunowner.

And that's why you can't compromise with anti's.

 

[mgmorden]

There is a simple reality here:

The goal of the anti's is a complete and total ban on private firearms ownership - TOTAL. Not handguns, not hi capacity magazines - total and utter ban. There was just an anti on the Bill Mahr show who referred to the 2nd amendment - paraphrasing from memory but I'm not off by much - as a "relic of frontier times about as relevant to modern society as chamber pots".

With that in mind, there is no compromise. Whatever you give up is simply ground lost because THEIR GOAL IS NOT ACHIEVED. They got closer to the goal, but they're always coming back for more later. They compromised on full auto in 1934. In 1986 they "compromised" further. That wasn't enough - in 1994 they cam back for the semi-autos and hi cap magazines. Amazingly, that bill sunset, but they're coming back for it - and most of the stuff that squeaked by in the original 1994 bill was simply regarded as loopholes. They could subtract the carry handles and such from AR15's and still sell them under that bill, but every replacement bill I've seen simply bans such weapons by name, not by feature - though a feature list is provided to ban future weapons development.

Think of it this way: an attacker has already told you that his intention is to rape your wife and daughter and then kill you all. Do you start negotiating with him about just how far into the house he can come?

Don't let them take ANY steps towards their goal.

 

[Cryogaijin]

I'm about as on the fence as you can be and still own 10 firearms, tbh.

The single biggest thing that bugs me about the whole "Anti-gun" thing is that they are so utterly blatantly ignorant about the subject. . .

. . . or they are so highly pampered in their lifestyle that they can afford private security to carry their gun for them.

I mean what idiot came up with the import restrictions that won't let me use the stock 5 round mag on my Saiga? Great, force me to use a 20 round magazine now! (Last I checked, without the magazines, I only have 3 US parts. Need 4 to be legal. . .)

 

[General Geoff]

Here's the thing that folks wanting to appease the anti's forget: "They" don't want to compromise. They don't want to understand, relate or empathize with gun owners.

Here is how they "compromise:"

"Nice car you have there. Tell you what, I'd like to keep it 6 months out of the year. That way, no one will be killed with your car while we have it in storage."

"WHAT?!" you exclaim. "There's no way I'm going to do that."

"Ok, I'm reasonable and willing to compromise....how about 5 months? You care about saving innocent lives, don't you?"

"NO, I won't do 5 months."

"Ok, how about 2 months? I'm trying to work with you here, so give me something...."

Then the media, President, etc, all praise the anti's for wanting to "find common ground" and for "negotiating in good faith," but that the pig-headed gunowners just won't budge.

But the big thing that's overlooked here is, the anti's aren't giving up anything, only the gunowner is. If he agrees to give up HIS car for even one minute a year, he's lost. What did the anti's ever put on the table? NOTHING. It was always "negotiating" for something already belonging to the gunowner.

And that's why you can't compromise with anti's.

Quoted for truth. Compromise implies give & take. Antis never give, they only take.

 

[Deus Machina]

I mean what idiot came up with the import restrictions that won't let me use the stock 5 round mag on my Saiga? Great, force me to use a 20 round magazine now! (Last I checked, without the magazines, I only have 3 US parts. Need 4 to be legal. . .)

You can use that mag. The law requires that you need more parts if the rifle holds more than ten rounds.

Back to subject,

Compromise implies give & take. Antis never give, they only take.

QFT. I will never vote for anything that limits rights or liberties that cause no harm.

 

[2ndAmFan]

No compromise is possible.

 

[BHP FAN]

We have compromised. That's how we ended up with waiting periods and magazine limits that make no sense, and help no one. Arguably in the LA riots, waiting periods got folks killed. Granted it was mostly idiots that voted for waiting periods that were clamoring for guns now, but I already had mine. No more compromises.

 

[RimfireChris]

ageekWithA.45 wrote

"They want that which is mine, and they may not have it."

This, in a nutshell. To elaborate, as so many others have noted, compromise usually involves both sides giving something up, the antis never give anything up. I think it's because they're completely backwards on a very fundamental level-they assume that rights are a boon granted by a benevolent government, instead of the the birthright of every human being.

It will NOT stop at firearms, look at England. After the guns, they took the knives, even the heavy sticks. As I understand the laws over there, if you use something for self defense and they can show that you purposely kept it for that, you can face serious jail time, maybe even more than the BG who broke into your house.

It boils down to this for me, how in good conscience can I compromise with a group of people whose sole reason for being is to deprive me of the ability to protect those I love?