bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
This thread topic makes me think of something I used to think was over the top, but not any more- "From my cold, dead, hands"
Compromise with the Anti bloc?
- Thread starter MudPuppy
- Start date
- Status
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
NO!
There's no negociating with the Bill of Rights!
There's no negociating with the Bill of Rights!
foolsgold80z
Member
Hmm, I've given this much serious thought and...............
Just kidding. I would never give any consideration to negotiating for my
rights as provided by the founding fathers and the Constitution.
Just kidding. I would never give any consideration to negotiating for my
rights as provided by the founding fathers and the Constitution.
PedalBiker
Member
If you give up 1/2 every time you compromise it takes only 3 iterations to lose almost everything.
The problem with the antis is that there is no compromise, they're just taking advantage of you one step at a time.
What, exactly, do the anti gunners give up when they compromise? Do they promise to quit using their cars? Do they promise to watch fewer violent movies? Do they promise to make part of your mortgage payment?
It's not like I go to Bill Gates and ask him to "compromise" his salary with me. How about George Soros compromise and build a shotgun rage for disadvantaged youth?
The anti gunners never compromise, sometimes they agree to reduce their demands, but only grudgingly and only temporarily.
The problem with the antis is that there is no compromise, they're just taking advantage of you one step at a time.
What, exactly, do the anti gunners give up when they compromise? Do they promise to quit using their cars? Do they promise to watch fewer violent movies? Do they promise to make part of your mortgage payment?
It's not like I go to Bill Gates and ask him to "compromise" his salary with me. How about George Soros compromise and build a shotgun rage for disadvantaged youth?
The anti gunners never compromise, sometimes they agree to reduce their demands, but only grudgingly and only temporarily.
No compromise is necessary at this point. Actually, the past decade has been pretty good for gun owners. The so-called assault rifle ban sunsetted. There has been continued expansion of concealed carry rights. The leadership of the Democratic Party, while making all sorts of anti-gun noises, really hasn't the political will to pass major anti-gun legislation because they know it will mobilize the pro-gun constitutuency and make things worse for them. I think it's important to stay on the offensive. The fight for open carry should continue and we should try to get open carry passed in as many states as possible. Don't worry about the Gifford backlash, I don't think it has legs.
firemanstrickland
Member
No!!! You give an inch they'll take a mile!!!
oneounceload
member
When the anti's show a willingness to compromise on their end - via deeds, not words, then MAYBE, I'll consider it - but as has been shown with the recent elections and how they want to reinvent the rules since they do not have majority - I wouldn't trust ANY of them as far as I can throw them
LHRGunslinger
Member
A man I rather don't like said something I abslutely adore.
"You can pry them from my cold dead hands."
"You can pry them from my cold dead hands."
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I've been in this gun-control deal since 1967. One thing which has been consistent throughout the entire anti-gun effort has been that they ask for far more than they know they can get, all the while trying to frame their argument in terms of "only a reasonable amount of control" or some such.
Whatever compromise occurs is that we lose more rights, as they settle for a bit less than originally asked for.
And then they return, asking for more--and the process is repeated.
Since for all practical purposes gun control laws do not reduce the rate of violent crimes involving firearms, why should we do more than say, "No."?
Our position should be that since the laws do not accomplish the allegedly intended purpose, they should be repealed.
Let THEM: Prove that the GCA 1968 has reduced the rate of violent crimes with firearms. Prove that the ban on new machine guns has reduced the rate of violent crimes with machine guns. Prove that the ban on imports of any sort of semi-automatic or bolt-action firearm has reduced the rate of violent crimes with them.
Let THEM provide factual evidence to support their position: I say they cannot, and I say that we already have factual evidence to support our position.
And Jim Keenan's comment, above, is spot-on for accurate.
Whatever compromise occurs is that we lose more rights, as they settle for a bit less than originally asked for.
And then they return, asking for more--and the process is repeated.
Since for all practical purposes gun control laws do not reduce the rate of violent crimes involving firearms, why should we do more than say, "No."?
Our position should be that since the laws do not accomplish the allegedly intended purpose, they should be repealed.
Let THEM: Prove that the GCA 1968 has reduced the rate of violent crimes with firearms. Prove that the ban on new machine guns has reduced the rate of violent crimes with machine guns. Prove that the ban on imports of any sort of semi-automatic or bolt-action firearm has reduced the rate of violent crimes with them.
Let THEM provide factual evidence to support their position: I say they cannot, and I say that we already have factual evidence to support our position.
And Jim Keenan's comment, above, is spot-on for accurate.
jerkface11
Member
How's this for a compromise. We let them pick on gun control law to keep on the books.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Art, sir, they can't. And they know it. So they lie.
They lie repeatedly.
They lie loudly.
They lie chronically.
And they never give up.
In the naivete of my youth, I thought that if it could just be explained to them with sufficient clarity, the light would go on. I believed that if we both valued Reason, then we could find the common ground of reality and go forth.
Art, I've looked these people in the eye, and I'm sure you have too.
I have seen the evil in their eyes.
The simple truth is that they, the prime movers, do not value reason, and they do not give a ****. They want want they want, they will use any useful fool or clouded thinker who presents themselves, and that is that.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no peace between them and us. They want that which is mine, and they may not have it.
There are a number of restrictions on the first, on all of the various clauses of it.
That said, this is a retarded standard. I'll only give away some of my rights if I in conjunction I give away others too. BTW some of the same people that are antis have been very interested in curbing first amendment protections, see e.g. placing limits on "hate speech". Heck, Obama went to the extreme of chiding the SCOTUS in his state of the union for protecting first amendment rights. We could also get into various arguments made over the
You point may be a different one that what came out it your typing. I suggest you both articulate it differently if that is the case and take some time to educate your self to the historical and salient fights over the first amendment
As to the OP's question. I agree with others. Any compromise does not get you to an end point. We have had a number of "compromises" in the past. Has the anti movement ceased in pushing for more restrictions? No. There end point is not striking the right balance in gun ownership and safety (as evidenced by the fact that many of the laws they push have no perceivable effect in improving safety, reducing crime etc). There interest in is curtailing to the greatest extent possible and eliminating if possible private gun ownership. I already believe there are far too many gun control laws many of which make zero sense. I see your question suggests getting something in turn and seems to ask what could you live with to get something you really want. This too is problematic for me for reasons discussed below.
Now I might be interested in some frank discussion about what types of measures are appropriate. None of the rights in the bill of rights are absolute, not free speech rights, not free exercise rights and I do not think it will ever be accepted that 2nd amendment rights would be either. Just as there is frank discussion about what is protected and what is not with those other rights there ought to be with the second and then there ought to be a heavy thumb on the scale for protecting the constitutional rights.
IMHO the above would result in parring down a lot of gun laws not implementing new ones.
Although there will be ebbs and flows in the strength given to particular rights at particular times constitutional rights are different in kind from statutes and other types of policy determinations. They have a fixed orientation and not subject to a totally free consideration of preferred policy (short of amending the constitution).
Vern Humphrey
Member
There was an American diplomat (Avril Harriman, I believe) who explained about "compromising" with the Soviets.
The Soviets start by complaining the western diplomats have brought their wives, but the Soviet Union is poor, so they had to leave their wives at home. In the name of "fairness" they propose the Soviets sleep with the western diplomats' wives to the for the duration of the session.
When the uproar dies down, the Soviets offer a compromise -- "Let us sleep with half of your wives."
That's how the Antis compromise -- not by giving up something they have, but by accepting a bit less than their most outrageous demand (for the time being.)
As for the machinegun registry, it's closed because Congress simply won't fund it -- it's still legal to register machineguns but it's illegal to spend public money to do it. Stop and think a minute -- the whole thrust of the NFA is that it is a tax measure. Now imagine a lawsuit that contends the public have no duty to pay a tax that the government refuses to collect.
The Soviets start by complaining the western diplomats have brought their wives, but the Soviet Union is poor, so they had to leave their wives at home. In the name of "fairness" they propose the Soviets sleep with the western diplomats' wives to the for the duration of the session.
When the uproar dies down, the Soviets offer a compromise -- "Let us sleep with half of your wives."
That's how the Antis compromise -- not by giving up something they have, but by accepting a bit less than their most outrageous demand (for the time being.)
As for the machinegun registry, it's closed because Congress simply won't fund it -- it's still legal to register machineguns but it's illegal to spend public money to do it. Stop and think a minute -- the whole thrust of the NFA is that it is a tax measure. Now imagine a lawsuit that contends the public have no duty to pay a tax that the government refuses to collect.
oldbear
Member
As much clout as the NRA may have in D.C. and other places they still do not make the laws, that is the job of those we elect to office, either at a state or federal level.
Does anyone have any thoughts about Dick Chaney's comments re. limiting the number of rounds a mag can hold? If I remember correctly he said that he could see no reason not to limit mags to 10 rounds.
Brass Rain
Member
Never give up, never surrender. And never compromise. At least not with this. Pro-rights citizens and organizations have been pushing for very light gun laws on American citizens for years and years and there's still heaps of regulation. Imagine where we'd be if we were happy with some obscure middle ground.
Personally, I'd rather not.
Personally, I'd rather not.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's what I wrote in post 4.
We should be there by noon today, I think.
lizziedog1
Member
Ask the good people of California how well compromising works.
An anti-advocate's idea of compromise goes this way...
Anti: Let's ban ALL rifles and pistols that are, or look like military/police weapons and/or take detachable large capacity magazines...
Us: NO WAY!!!
Anti: Well we'll compromise. How about that we just ban SOME of them, and of course we'll pick which ones... It's for the children.
Then it's supposed to go this way.
Us: Well maybe we can talk about it...
To them, the discussion will always be about how much our side, and only our side, is willing to give up. Of course if we don't the mainstream media will say we're unreasonable... :banghead:
When they pull this I ask, "How much of the 1st Amendment are you willing to compromise?"
Their answer is usually, "None, because that's different!"
How so???
Anti: Let's ban ALL rifles and pistols that are, or look like military/police weapons and/or take detachable large capacity magazines...
Us: NO WAY!!!
Anti: Well we'll compromise. How about that we just ban SOME of them, and of course we'll pick which ones... It's for the children.
Then it's supposed to go this way.
Us: Well maybe we can talk about it...
To them, the discussion will always be about how much our side, and only our side, is willing to give up. Of course if we don't the mainstream media will say we're unreasonable... :banghead:
When they pull this I ask, "How much of the 1st Amendment are you willing to compromise?"
Their answer is usually, "None, because that's different!"
How so???
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Actually, this last couple of weeks is a really good time to look around and challenge that assumption.
There's plenty of evidence that our opponents are willing to throw free speech under the bus.
Icky speech they don't like, upon which they slap stickers of convenience like "hate" and "violence" and "insurrectionist rhetoric", without regards to whether those stickers are actually applicable or not.
The limit of free speech is well defined and settled: incitement to imminent lawlessness is not protected.
It's pretty clear to me that they want that standard changed to mere reference to violence, or mention that lawlessness might be justified or appropriate.
alsaqr
Member
Trying to compromise with anti-gunners is like wrestling with big boar hogs in their pens. You get mud and hog crap all over and the hog just loves it.
No.
The antis have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted. Once you start on the path of trying to compromise with them you look like the bad guy on every cable network but one. You suddenly become the "Roadblock" to "Common Sense" gun control and are accused of "Holding America hostage."
Nope. It's better to nip this in the bud and simply say NO COMPROMISE. When there is no negotiation there is no story. The antis either have the votes they need or they don't seriously bring the Bills to the floor for a vote. No one wants to be a loser on national TV.
When you compromise on an issue the public expects some kind of resolution and a misinformed undecided majority may end up forcing a compromise that you don't want. I know hunters that thought my AR's were full auto until I educated them. I wouldn't want to see what MSNBC and CNN would do with a compromise summit between the Brady Campaign, VPC and NRA.
The antis have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted. Once you start on the path of trying to compromise with them you look like the bad guy on every cable network but one. You suddenly become the "Roadblock" to "Common Sense" gun control and are accused of "Holding America hostage."
Nope. It's better to nip this in the bud and simply say NO COMPROMISE. When there is no negotiation there is no story. The antis either have the votes they need or they don't seriously bring the Bills to the floor for a vote. No one wants to be a loser on national TV.
When you compromise on an issue the public expects some kind of resolution and a misinformed undecided majority may end up forcing a compromise that you don't want. I know hunters that thought my AR's were full auto until I educated them. I wouldn't want to see what MSNBC and CNN would do with a compromise summit between the Brady Campaign, VPC and NRA.
Onward Allusion
Member
Having grown up in Chicago, I can state that it is an absolute fact in that city. Many of the gun laws are enforced based on skin color. A woman I knew was involved in a bad car accident and ended up at the hospital. She had a loaded 38spl in her purse. She got it back unloaded with the cartridges in her purse and no legal issues. A number of years ago, I had just moved back from Wisconsin and had my apartment broken into and several handguns were stolen. I also had an "unregistered" shotgun that wasn't stolen. I never got into trouble over any it. I would like to see that happen to one of the people of color on the South side.
I've talk to people in Bridgeport, North-side, & NW side and hell yes, they are all for gun control - they want to have theirs but the "N*'s and S*'s shouldn't be allowed to have them". I know it sounds really harsh being posted here, but people gotta know this...
There is definitely a good portion of those who are for gun-control who are also scared to death of an armed black, brown, or yellow populace. Seriously, every person of color who is a gun owner should join the NRA because it isn't the overweight white guy gun-owner who they should be afraid of. It's the ones in political office who want what is "right" that they should be afraid of. An honest government should have no worries toward its people.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Gun control began in the south, and the original purpose was to protect the Ku Klux Klan -- can't have Blacks shooting back at the night riders, you know.
There was actually a case before the Florida Supreme Court in the '40s where a White man's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was overturned because, "The law was not intended and has never been applied to the White Race."
Added later from http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm
There was actually a case before the Florida Supreme Court in the '40s where a White man's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was overturned because, "The law was not intended and has never been applied to the White Race."
Added later from http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
