First of all, "compromise" =/= "appeasement" --not sure why this is such a hard concept for so many, unless of course they are being disingenuous. You don't cede your opponents' objective in the hope it stops future aggression with a darn iron-clad circumstance to guarantee that arrangement. That's what we would call 'detente' or 'armistice.' Compromise can fall under these categories, though usually one party has the upper hand; if not, there's little reason for the conflict to cease. Ceding territory based only on hopes or unenforceable guarantees is simply retreat, and unfortunately history has shown that stalling tactics don't really work on this issue, and that all territory lost can be assumed to be lost permanently (or requires so much effort to reclaim that doing so while in a defensive posture is impossible).
The other thread had some folks theorizing that politicians were not motivated by long term strategic thinking that extends beyond their personal term or lifespan. I would argue that gun owners have lost so much precisely because of such short sighted thinking; the belief that ceding ground now will buy enough decades for the current generation to die happy with their rights somewhat intact, without regard for what happens to those who come after. The government institutions the anti-gunners service are themselves capable of such long term strategy, but it wasn't until fairly recently with the NRA and GOA 'militarization' that gun owners developed similar institutions with far-reaching aims. Lo, and behold, we've been gaining ground pretty consistently since them.
No, it's more like the energy lobby writing environmental laws, or big pharma writing medical laws.
Wait, so you're arguing that 'the gun lobby' (tell) should be agitating for legislation that distorts the free market for our own benefit, and this is supposed to somehow prevent the anti's from passing laws to do the opposite? Last time that was (sort of) tried, we got possibly the most moronic gun law there is; 922r. A blatantly protectionist nonsense bill that created an entire industry to duplicate assorted gun parts for no other reason than Uncle Sam's say-so. No laws are necessary to protect our rights, besides the clear recognition in our system of government that these rights are to be protected. I seem to recall something like that on the books, already. The repeal of the slew of laws on the books already *is* the solution we're looking for.
Did you miss the part about Germany? They recently reached 100% renewable energy.
What's imaginary about that?
http://energytransition.de/files/2016/01/2016-01-PrimaryEnergyConsumption.png (linked because big image)
Rather off-topic, but I recall reading how their vaunted solar projects weren't working anywhere near as well as they were supposed to (they never do, especially at that latitude), and ended up costing a lot more than advertised for less generation than planned. If Germany is anything like the states, the whole initiative is just a cover for corporate fascist policies of the government to launder money to its biggest industrial supporters, and is underpinned by the phoniest of accounting gimmickry like Carbon Credits.
I only mention this as further evidence of how people can blind themselves to or deny the reality of policy in the face of a belief.
History is not some people's friend.
The original meaning of Godwin's Law was in reference to cries of Naziism in discussions that had nothing to do with the matter ("All you Cubs fans are Nazi's!") but sadly such moronic ravings became so common that even when a reference to Nazi crimes or history is directly relevant, many now see them as illegitimate rhetorical devices, rather than supporting arguments. "Appeal to History" is seen as a logical fallacy by many
Perhaps the first such was not having a Federal Marshal intervene in Dodge City Kansas & throw the city's head of law enforcement, a Mr. Wyatt Earp I believe, in jail for violation of the second amendment
Or my favorite part, going out on his own to hunt down and murder his self-proclaimed outlaw enemies extrajudicially. "Oh, well they were gangsters and deserved to die," yes, well so did Earp. But the victors get the spoils, and they get the history books written in their favor, and now he's a favorite legend of the old west. I see him more as an symbol of the brutal transition from anarchy to civilization, and certainly not something you'd want around any decent society, similar to the Indian War purges.
The pro 2A side could be passing a 'Constitution Preservation Act' requiring that any new technology driven restrictions on guns must be proven technology to Six Sigma standards to a life span of 50 years and be cost competitive to the general public with-in 1% to ensure that it doesn't negatively impact low income families.
Okay, unless this Act is a constitutional amendment, exactly how does it prevent a future congress from simply ignoring the previously-passed restrictions on 'technology driven restrictions?' No such restrictions are supposed to be on the table in the first place per the amendment we have now, so even an amendment to that effect would not be a long term solution.
I hate to say it, but I keep coming to the same conclusion over and over; either we're going to have no firearms rights at all, or Gun Control is going into the scrap heap of history alongside Alcohol Prohibition. This isn't the sort of political disagreement that can persist in a stalemate with mutual respect for the two sides, at least not at the federal level (hence the need for a 2nd Amendment in the first place to get the 13 colonies to ratify the new constitution)
TCB
