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