I don't believe it-gun owners giving in

[HexHead]

It's because "Universal Background Checks" sounds so much more "reasonable" than Registration, which is what it really is.

 

[JustinJ]

At least in your vision, we are getting something in it for 'us' in a real compromise. ie, it is not just us being steam rolled over and going belly up and saying "Sure, we will give you this as long as you dont take anything else from us now, please and thank you."

I am not against 'compromise'. I am against the type of compromise that the left has pushed on us everytime they get a chance. ie, we take something from you with the promise that it will be all we take from you until we decide to take from you again. :/

Political compromise is when two or more groups with differing views on what is the best course of action meet somewhere in the middle on a course to take. It's not "you want something from us so you must first give us something for it". Where this view came from is beyond me but it's not accurate. I'm not saying compromise is always an obligation but you make it sound like two people are negotiating on a trade of goods.

 

[JRH6856]

Political compromise is when two or more groups with differing views on what is the best course of action meet somewhere in the middle on a course to take. It's not "you want something from us so you must first give us something for it". Where this view came from is beyond me but it's not accurate. I'm not saying compromise is always an obligation but you make it sound like two people are negotiating on a trade of goods.

That is fine if the two sides agree something must be done but disagree as to how best to do it. But if the initial agreement that action is needed is not present, that kind of compromise is a loss for one side and a victory for the other. The way to avoid that is not compromise, but quid pro quo which is exactly like negotiating on a trade of goods. .

Unfortunately, any political quid pro quo is is likely to involve our elected representatives trading our 2A rights for lower taxes or spending cuts somewhere.

 

[JustinJ]

That is fine if the two sides agree something must be done but disagree as to how best to do it. But if the initial agreement that action is needed is not present, that kind of compromise is a loss for one side and a victory for the other. The way to avoid that is not compromise, but quid pro quo which is exactly like negotiating on a trade of goods. .

Unfortunately, any political quid pro quo is is likely to involve our elected representatives trading our 2A rights for lower taxes or spending cuts somewhere.

If the goal of some potential legislation is to reduce mass shootings and overall murder rate by reducing availability of guns to criminals what does something like opening the machine gun registry contribute to that end? Sure, one side may say we don't need to do anything to begin with but just throwing out some unrelated request is not sensible.

 

[JRH6856]

If the goal of some potential legislation is to reduce mass shootings and overall murder rate by reducing availability of guns to criminals what does something like opening the machine gun registry contribute to that end? Sure, one side may say we don't need to do anything to begin with but just throwing out some unrelated request is not sensible.

The answer, of course, is that it does not contribute. But what I was addressing was your question of where the other idea of "compromise" comes from. It isn't compromise, it is quid pro quo.

 

[Cosmoline]

Do ut des. I give so that you give. That's what we're talking about here. And it is much more akin to the exchange of territory to resolve a war rather than traditional political debate. But this is after all a kind of war we're in now. And right now there's at least an opportunity to negotiate from strength. Will there still be in two years? Nobody knows.

 

[JayBird]

If the goal of some potential legislation is to reduce mass shootings and overall murder rate by reducing availability of guns to criminals what does something like opening the machine gun registry contribute to that end? Sure, one side may say we don't need to do anything to begin with but just throwing out some unrelated request is not sensible.

It has just as much to do with mass shooting as a 'Universal Background check'.

As remember, all these mass shooters bought their guns thru an FFL.

ie. Nothing.

If your goal is to reduce mass shootings, you need to look at mental health.

If the left is throwing crap up that they have wanted to 'deal with' for awhile, and are therefore simply using a tragedy to push an agenda, then I think we have every right to push back.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Call me a "Barf Monkey" if you want, but in my humble barf monkey opinion, I see nothing wrong with universal background checks if they are like Bill Clinton's girlfriends:

Fast, cheap and easy.

 

[jcwit]

If your goal is to reduce mass shootings, you need to look at mental health.

While the above is true, who decides who is mentally competent and who is normal, in fact what is "normal"?

 

[Alaska444]

It has just as much to do with mass shooting as a 'Universal Background check'.

As remember, all these mass shooters bought their guns thru an FFL.

ie. Nothing.

If your goal is to reduce mass shootings, you need to look at mental health.

If the left is throwing crap up that they have wanted to 'deal with' for awhile, and are therefore simply using a tragedy to push an agenda, then I think we have every right to push back.

Sorry, unless you have onsite security capable of stopping a mass shooting quickly, there really are very few options to stop such an event. Focussing on mental health is a poor manner to proceed since only a small percentage of "mentally ill" folks commit violent acts.

The best available national data suggest that only 3%–5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness (13), and most of those acts do not involve guns (14). Most studies concur that the added risk of violence, if any, conferred by the presence of a serious mental disorder is small (15).

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=101460

The mental health folks have tried to relate that they have no magic potion to detect who will commit such acts. Certainly there are some that have been stopped by such a process and we should definitely improve the system, but doing so, no one should expect to eliminate this problem through a mental health approach.

Logically, eliminating gun free zones and allowing people the right of self defense has the most efficacy of any proposal I have seen to date.

 

[JayBird]

Sorry, unless you have onsite security capable of stopping a mass shooting quickly, there really are very few options to stop such an event. Focussing on mental health is a poor manner to proceed since only a small percentage of "mentally ill" folks commit violent acts.



http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=101460

The mental health folks have tried to relate that they have no magic potion to detect who will commit such acts. Certainly there are some that have been stopped by such a process and we should definitely improve the system, but doing so, no one should expect to eliminate this problem through a mental health approach.

Logically, eliminating gun free zones and allowing people the right of self defense has the most efficacy of any proposal I have seen to date.

Yes. On site security is the last line of defense. I am all for that. Never said I was not.

And we could argue what changes to mental health can\should be made. It was not really the point of the thread, so maybe I should not have even brought it up. My point was that 'UBC' have nothing to do with reducing any of the mass shootings we have had that are so talked about. So, if the goal is to try to reduce mass shooting, UBC's makes absolutely no sense.

 

[razorback2003]

I would possibly take background checks IF the system did not require a 4473 or transfer through a dealer and IF we got Hughes machine gun 86 Ban REPEALED.

Other than that I am not really compromising because them getting something and us getting nothing is not compromise.

 

[JayBird]

Sadly, I must admit...that the antis won the battle of labeling.

For years, this has always been called 'The Gun Show Loophole' and for years most people were just like...there are those crazy gun grabbers yelling about the gun show loophole again. No one really understood what it meant except for people actually in the firearms community, and even then...probably only a smaller subset of the firearms community.

But they relabeled it as 'Universal Background Checks' and the media picked it up and ran with it. They used shady statistics and shady polls, while we did not publicly dispute them..and here we are.

We were left standing around with our pants around our ankles looking like stooges because we did not properly prepare.

We....were out maneuvered.

 

[Alaska444]

Sadly, I must admit...that the antis won the battle of labeling.

For years, this has always been called 'The Gun Show Loophole' and for years most people were just like...there are those crazy gun grabbers yelling about the gun show loophole again. No one really understood what it meant except for people actually in the firearms community, and even then...probably only a smaller subset of the firearms community.

But they relabeled it as 'Universal Background Checks' and the media picked it up and ran with it. They used shady statistics and shady polls, while we did not publicly dispute them..and here we are.

We were left standing around with our pants around our ankles looking like stooges because we did not properly prepare.

We....were out maneuvered.

Honest law abiding citizens are always "outmaneuvered" by deceitful dishonest folks whose goal is to usurp power. Only by God's grace to "we" hold them off.

 

[Alaska444]

Yes. On site security is the last line of defense. I am all for that. Never said I was not.

And we could argue what changes to mental health can\should be made. It was not really the point of the thread, so maybe I should not have even brought it up. My point was that 'UBC' have nothing to do with reducing any of the mass shootings we have had that are so talked about. So, if the goal is to try to reduce mass shooting, UBC's makes absolutely no sense.

No problem, we keep hearing of mental health as a solution to this situation from our side of the equation, but it is no more workable than what they are proposing as "gun control."

Let's face it, mass killings are an excuse for them usurping the power to confiscate our guns.

 

[TheOld Man]

Universal Background Checks equal De Facto registration. Germany had a gun registration in the early 1930's. Now Adolf knew exactly who had the guns. Then came confiscations and midnight roundups. Then came the cattle cars that took them to the ovens.
This was done to six million of Ms Feinstein's people. I am totally flabbergasted that she is leading the charge on this.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The answer, of course, is that it does not contribute. But what I was addressing was your question of where the other idea of "compromise" comes from. It isn't compromise, it is quid pro quo.

It is amazing to me how pro-2A folks wet themselves over the word "compromise" in a manner wholly analogous to how the anti-2A folks wet themselves over words like "assault weapons."

Let's substitute the term "damage control" for "compromise" so everyone can get past their emotional self-destruct buttons.

I'm not in favor of any new laws, bans, prohibitions, or other ineffective silliness reference guns. I was not in favor of the '94 AWB. It happened anyway.

To my thinking it is ridiculously naive not to be approaching this fight with a multi-track approach. Hammer elected leadership to oppose any action, but also think multiple moves ahead and have contingencies in place if things go pear shaped. Because while I think the pro-2A movement is in a strong position at the moment, they might get the votes to pass something no matter how much gun owners object. It happened in '94, it could happen again.

And so what happens if it does? The vast (like 99.9%) of the folks shouting no compromise to the heavens aren't going to take to the hills to fight it out as guerrillas, despite whatever rhetorical flourishes may enter the debate, if the .gov does pass magazine bans or universal background check requirements. So what happens if that becomes law of the land? What's the next move?

Maybe I'm just too used to engaging in occupations where you hope for the best but plan for the worst, but everyone who equates even a whisper of contingency planning with capitulation isn't somebody I'd want following me into a building as either a soldier or LEO. Situational awareness is how you survive. Anybody who can't wrap their mind around even being able to discuss plans for contingencies and damage control are acting like a child who's been smacked in the face and lost all situational awareness and perspective because they are so fixated on the one strike their opponent landed that they're just reacting to other guy in the fight, not taking the initiative to win the fight.

 

[umadcuzimstylin]

Dont worry the commies are just putting another nail in their coffin.

 

[Walkalong]

It's too much trouble to clean up all the non THR comments and insults, so I'm just closing this one. 3+ pages is enough.