Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"

[Sam1911]

Now, to be absolutely precise, I never said anything about a "compromise" resolution. What I was talking about was CONSENSUS, commonly defined as a general agreement; an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people. In other words, a "win-win solution."

I see some good words in here, but I'm not sure what they mean.

If you aren't talking about a compromise, what are you talking about?

What does "consensus" mean to you, and how would we reach it without compromise? ... Or rather, and more to the point, how ELSE can we reach consensus without giving up our RKBA?

Only those who are locked into their own monkey-brains would have interpreted my words as advocating a compromise.

This statement is well invested with emotional weight, but I'm not certain that it means anything. It appears to be a way of insulting or denigrating others who don't agree with you (or, to be fair, haven't understood your words), using the language of pop psychology -- but maybe I misunderstood what you meant to say.

Thank you yet again for helping me to make my point.

I'm sure your point is very clear to you, but you really need to make it clear to the rest of us reading this or you are kind of wasting your time typing.

1) What does a consensus on gun control look like in your vision?
2) How would we get there?
3) How could it not involve giving up some aspects of the right to bear arms?
4) What would be gained by our side in such a give-and-take?
5) Is this compromise, and why do you think it is or it isn't?

 

[HexHead]

As far as I'm concerned the BEST route for this country to take is to follow the lead of the old Soviet Union and split into several countries. I'm sick to death of people along the coasts and in crowded urban areas, who share none of my values, trying to tell (and force) me how to live my life. Peacefully or violently, I don't care. I wouldn't hesitate to take up arms against the liberals, err socialists that want to control every aspect of my life.

 

[Mike1234567]

"Consensus" doesn't necessarily mean "compromise". Consensus is nothing more than general agreement via persuasive debate. Although compromise "can be" a part of that it often isn't a "must". How do we win? Know the facts and learn how to present and defend those facts without alienating the other side. Learn how to calmly and persuasively depose fiction and hear-say... with the facts. Learn how to listen and how not to yell. Learn how to not take offense and how to not offend.

 

[Deanimator]

"Consensus" doesn't necessarily mean "compromise". Consensus is nothing more than general agreement via persuasive debate. Although compromise "can be" a part of that it often isn't a "must".

However in this context, such a "consensus" would require either:

• Michael Bloomberg to stop trying to ban guns and make ownership as hellishly difficult as possible.
• Wayne LaPierre to enthusiastically submit to all of Bloomberg's demands.

There's a BIG difference between the literally POSSIBLE and the likely.

For the foreseeable future, Feinstein will try to take our guns, and we will try to keep them.

 

[Mike1234567]

However in this context, such a "consensus" would require either:

• Michael Bloomberg to stop trying to ban guns and make ownership as hellishly difficult as possible.
• Wayne LaPierre to enthusiastically submit to all of Bloomberg's demands.

There's a BIG difference between the literally POSSIBLE and the likely.

For the foreseeable future, Feinstein will try to take our guns, and we will try to keep them.

My comment was intended regards to the general public... not fanatical power-freaks.

 

[Deanimator]

My comment was intended regards to the general public...

The "general public" has already come to a "consensus" that they have a lot more important things to worry about such as not having a job, or their health insurance premiums and deductibles doubling (or MORE).

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Compromise is a nice idea, but it doesn't always work out that well in the real world- it takes the cooperation of both sides. The Schumers, Feinsteins, Bloombergs, etc, and those who support them will never budge. Giving ground to them will only be a loss, never a gain. I don't see how they could be viewed as anything BUT enemies of the Second Amendment.

It definitely takes both sides.

Maybe Feinstein wouldn't budge, but you don't need feinstein, you need a majority of Senators/Representatives.

When was the last time a real compromise bill went to a vote? A bill that gave something to both sides? (and maybe there has been something that I have not heard of, would love to see the text if it is out there)

Example:

A bill that:

-Implemented Universal background checks
-Removed Suppressors from NFA
-Made it illegal to prohibit weapons based on superficial characteristics or magazine capacity (weakening NYC Safe Act and California's madhouse laws and preventing their implementation elsewhere)

(Note: Not saying those are equal or workable, just putting out an example)

THAT would be a compromise deal, something for both sides. But, you know what would happen to any "pro-gun" representative who voted for it?

For example, the NRA has sometimes been able to steer legislators to soften the blow of some terrible bills, though they are usually criticized as "sell outs" for doing so.

They would get the "Dick Metcalf" treatment from the pro-gun side. The NRA would drop their rating, NAGR would call them traitors (and ask for money), and people here on THR would crucify them in the activism thread and talk about how to get hose turncoats voted out of office for voting for that gun control bill.

And the politicians know this. The pro-gun people who NEED the pro-gun vote won't TOUCH a bill that has any sort of increased gun control, even if it was a net positive for gun rights, because the way the pro-gun community reacts, they would get hammered by their core constituents and lose their office.

The anti-gun folks know it to. They know that the pro-gun reps can/will never vote for anything that even smells like gun control, so there is no reason to offer any concession because it won't change their vote. Why put in a pro-gun element when the pro-gun people will still vote against the bill? So the anti-gun folks just push through whatever they have the power to push through, which results in incremental increases in gun control.

As long as the pro-gun side tells their representatives that ANY increase in gun control (even if there is a compromise that is a net positive for gun rights) will get them voted out of office, there will be no compromise. And that is the message I get from the pro-gun community.

 

[Deanimator]

-Implemented Universal background checks

"Universal background checks" are a scam and a Trojan horse.

They're a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, without which they're UTTERLY unenforceable.

Registration is a stalking horse for BANS and CONFISCATION.

How did Chicago implement its handgun BAN?

Funny, nobody pushing this con will answer THAT question.

Only an utter FOOL would trust an administration which rewrites laws wholesale by extra-legislative fiat to NOT play the Chicago game.

One MORE time: NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Gaffer]

You can't get any more accurate than this!

This is straight forward country thinking.. by Gaffer

Which side of the fence? If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test! If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a Liberal is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him. If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. A Liberal demands that those they don't like be shut down. If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his. If a Conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. If a Liberal reads this he will delete it because he is offended.

Guess which one I am!

 

[MErl]

When was the last time a real compromise bill went to a vote? A bill that gave something to both sides? (and maybe there has been something that I have not heard of, would love to see the text if it is out there)

1986 FOPA comes to mind. While crafted as a pure positive for gun owners the poison pill that was added gets talked about today (and still held against the NRA).

There really does not seem to be any room for real compromise and the reason is that while there may be a net positive at the moment those positives then get whittled away. FOPA safe transit for example, dead and gone in some states. FOPA database restriction, after last summer I doubt anyone believes there is not such a database available to the federal gov. While the poison pill remains and is untouchable. A compromise gives "loopholes" to be targeted by the other side.

Is that just poor negotiation on the pro gun side? I don't know but the result is an eventual degradation of gun rights. If one cannot bargain well (or in good faith) it is probably better to not bargain at all.

 

[Deanimator]

Is that just poor negotiation on the pro gun side? I don't know but the result is an eventual degradation of gun rights. If one cannot bargain well (or in good faith) it is probably better to not bargain at all.

And that's really the bottom line, isn't it?

The other side is SO thoroughly suffused with bad faith and indeed malice, that there's simply no reason to trust ANYTHING they say. The excursions into rule by decree demonstrated in the Obamacare fiasco only reinforce that.

The other side is untrustworthy, hence virtually nobody trusts them. That's only a "problem" if you think that not sending money in response to Nigerian "404" emails is a problem.

 

[rdhood]

Is that just poor negotiation on the pro gun side? I don't know but the result is an eventual degradation of gun rights. If one cannot bargain well (or in good faith) it is probably better to not bargain at all.

It is not poor negotiation. That is what happens when you negotiate in good faith when the other side is a pack of liars. You get rolled. But there is a saying, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." There is no compromise. No one has given up anything in this century-long battle except the gunnies. Now someone else said:

Maybe Feinstein wouldn't budge, but you don't need feinstein, you need a majority of Senators/Representatives.

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong to the point of absurdity. Someone hasn't noticed that Harry Reid has and will stop ANY legislation he doesn't like, and has been doing so for the better part of the last 7 years. The other 99 senators can be all for something, and Harry Reid can stop it. He stopped ALL changes to Obamacare. He stopped ALL changes to the budget that just passed. He blocks all legislation coming from the house that he doesn't agree with from reaching the floor. He can prevent any gun legislation that he does not agree with from seeing the Senate floor.

 

[CoalTrain49]

CoalTrain49 wrote:



What you are describing is de facto secession, and breakup of the country. The federal government should enforce gun freedom nationally (based on the 2nd Amendment) just as it enforced racial desegregation nationally in the 1960's (based on the 14th Amendment). Is this one country, or is it not? If it is, it's unacceptable to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights simply because they live in "blue" states.

I guess what it comes down to an interpretation of 2A. I won't go into 14A but it has some very specific language in there regarding states. Mostly because the fed wanted to be very clear about their preemptive authority with any legislation to come after it. If the fed intended to have any authority over the regulation of firearms beyond GCA and NFA they would have done it by now. Actually, with the present adm. and so many people frothing at the mouth after Newton calling for a new GCA we are lucky to have state representatives that won't let it pass the house. The fed has demonstrated and made me a believer that they are not going to do anything in the direction that you prescribe. As a matter of fact, if they do anything at all it will be in the opposite direction. The level playing field (fed) that you describe won't be in your best interest. I think the fed knows something you don't. They don't have to pass a new GCA because the states will take care of it for them.

I really wish people would forget about 2A because it's a dead horse. The real fight should be over new legislation at the state level. The only thing happening at the fed level is a defensive action at best.

Your idea is grand, just isn't going to happen.

 

[Robert]

Ok, after 9 pages we are pretty much just going around in circles.