Compromise with the Anti bloc?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No way! Our rights have been compromised enough. The problem is that nothing will ever satisfy the anti's. Just look at the UK... they gave up their guns, and now the anti's want to take sharp kitchen knives, and glass pints. It never ends until we are all in cages for our own "protection".
 
Last edited:
I could see more of a compromise coming in two unrelated areas such as restricting hi cap mags and health care gets repealed. Or doing away with the full auto ban and gay marriage gets legalized. That being said, getting a compromise like that could really piss off some voters and affect re-election chances for people in both parties. So very unlikely to happen
 
I think there can be some good compromise out there....

We can keep form 4473 and the Brady check. Get rid of the rest, from the NFA on.


I agree with the sentiments of others - "compromise" as the anti-lobby uses it just means "we won't take all the guns YET". One compromise now, another a few years later. Let the next generation grow up used to those restrictions so it seems "normal", then make a few more compromises and keep whittling us down. The simple truth is that the anti-lobby is playing for the long term and they are playing for keeps. How do you compromise with someone who wants you gone?
 
I'm willing to compromise a little-I decided I really don't need a 14" naval gun.
Compromise-what are THEY willing to give up?
 
IME negotiating and mediating, I've found a lot of trouble with the truism:

"A compromise is an agreement where neither side is satisfied."

The Antis would never give up, not being satisfied.

As to gun control:

Hitler had gun control-WWII cost the world 28 million lives.

Chairman Mao had gun control- The Shining Path cost China ALONE 31 million
lives.

Perhaps we should call gun control what it really is-population control!
 
BlackhawkNJ, No compromise, even if you don't want the 14 inch naval gun someone else may.
 
jerkface11 said:
BluEyes I'm thinking more like we keep GCA '68 and ditch everything else.
Click to expand...

The GCA has some parts that need gone. Mainly import restrictions and interstate sales. Why can't I as a citizen of the USA and resident of Michigan, buy a firearm while traveling in Florida? Wyoming? Arizona?

The import restrictions of course are where we get the silly "sporting purposes" stuff.
 
Why can't I as a citizen of the USA and resident of Michigan, buy a firearm while traveling in Florida? Wyoming? Arizona?
Click to expand...

Uhhhh.... you CAN. Any state in the union that doesn't prohibit the sale by state laws. FOPA '86 removed the contiguous states provision.
 
NO WAY, NO HOW!

As for compromising on 2A as much as the banners would on 1A, I wouldn't go for that because there are those that are now saying that 1A doesn't give people the right to say something that offends some politician or disagrees with them. That's precisely what 1A was for, so that the people could stand up and say, "the king is a fink!".
 
Ya know, it's not an unreasonable question. But I doubt you're going to get a neutral discussion here. So far 85% of the response has been sloganeering and chest-beating.

By selection, most people here feel strongly pro-2A and interpret it liberally.

And, while it seems reasonable to restrict psychotics (in the strict clinical sense, like the AZ shooter) from getting firearms, there are a lot of folks who see the "creeping edge" of any such proposal and imagine it being used against sane dissidents. Doesn't help when the press paints this guy's concerns about the banking system as evidence of his insanity.

Bottom line is, I think most people don't trust the motivations of the other side. Same reason that both sides of the abortion debate can't work together to reduce the number of abortions.

My 2 cents.
 
avs11054 said:
I could see more of a compromise coming in two unrelated areas such as restricting hi cap mags and health care gets repealed. Or doing away with the full auto ban and gay marriage gets legalized. That being said, getting a compromise like that could really piss off some voters and affect re-election chances for people in both parties. So very unlikely to happen
Click to expand...

Wow. That's more horse-trading than compromise. Completely unrelated issues... I hope the pro-2A movement doesn't get further conflated with these other issues, whatever stance you take on them. Straw-man issues, in some ways.

That said, you're probably right. ;)
 
"...what if we could compromise with antis..." It's been done and they came back demanding more.
"...the antis want to ban all hand guns..." They want the private ownership of all firearms banned. Single shot muzzle loaders included.
 
Ask Neville Chamberlain how well that worked for him...
No, when it comes to "compromise", aka, the camel into the tent slowly, I refuse, sorry.
 
dkk73 said:
And, while it seems reasonable to restrict psychotics (in the strict clinical sense, like the AZ shooter) from getting firearms, there are a lot of folks who see the "creeping edge" of any such proposal and imagine it being used against sane dissidents. Doesn't help when the press paints this guy's concerns about the banking system as evidence of his insanity.
Click to expand...
The detractors of restrictions on clinical psychotics who exhibit violent tendencies are abusing the slippery slope argument. They're spurning regulation on the basis that there exist other potential legislation that would magically get passed.

Unless qualified mental health professionals are making the statements, the media is just blustering about in their description of him as insane. At best, they would be using it colloquially rather than clinically. Any legislation would always use the clinical definition. For those who still worry about being prohibited from RKBA due to clinical psychosis, there is a bigger concern than the RKBA.

Bottom line is, I think most people don't trust the motivations of the other side. Same reason that both sides of the abortion debate can't work together to reduce the number of abortions.
Click to expand...
In some cases, the foundations on the side who wishes to punish others will hinder compromise.
 
One of the worst forms of compromise is "grandfathering". I.e. they won't take what "you" have, they just stop future acquisitions. In this case you're basically selling out your kids.
 
No! No! No!:cuss: Never give up something that is rightfully yours! :banghead: The right to keep and bear arms in the defense of yourself, A right which predates the Constitution and all laws of man! Guarenteed by our creator! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IS SEZ! WHAT PART OF THAT ISN'T CLEAR FOR YOU???:fire: No more compromise!! Repeal all guncontrol laws! NOW!!!! If an individual cannot be trusted with a firearm, because of something they did or because of some mental condition, then they shouldn't be out wandering around in public without a keeper!
 
Last edited:
Compromise is the wrong way.

The gun haters do not have an interest
in public safety and the general good
of the people.

If this would be the case,
they wouldn't try to ban guns in general.

If you compromise, you'll lose.

Here in Germany we don't have a strong
gun lobby like the NRA.
As a result only hunters and members
of shooting clubs are allowed to have guns;
all guns are registered and you even have
to pass a psychological test to get guns
stronger than .22lr.
 
You have got to be kidding. Any thing you give the antis is in their own words "a good first step".
 
How about all those bans that the anti's like - No high cap magazines, no supressors, no FA, no SBS/SBRs - we just let them have BUT they don't apply to law abiding citizens?

MY views are lawful(ish - I'm willing to give a little bit of leeway) citizens should not be restricted in what they may posses. If you can pass the background check, you can have a supressed, FA, SBR manufactured in 2011, clean and legal.

Is it ideal? Of course not. Ideally, I could just buy such a gun, and for my legal defence show a copy of the bill of rights.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson
 
Compromise

COMPROMISE, co promise..a promise by at least two parties. Another example of a basic problem with the lack of leadership and the decline of the American people. Too many compromises, giving up too much of our culture and the loss of excellence. We should continue the push the other way to do two things. First we re-establish constitutional law in the country. The other thing we should do is continue to attack the gun control idiots at every chance.
 
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