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

[goon]

We did that with the issue of slavery once upon a time... and segregation. Sometimes there's just no choice...

Yeah, but slavery isn't a parallel to this situation. No one owns you.
If you don't like the state you live in, you're free to move. If you don't like NY, you can move Texas. If you like working in NY but don't want to live there, you can live in PA and drive across the border. No one forces you to stay somewhere you don't want to live.

And point of fact, we're segregating ourselves already into different geographic areas - a quick look at the map and the voting habits of each region's inhabitants is evidence of that. All my idea would do is allow people to decide how they want to live in each area. Beyond that would be between the residents who live there, their representatives, and the courts.

My point was, and is, the situation we're facing IS NOT "Either/Or" unless we choose to make it so.

So if it's not an Either/Or situation, then we have to compromise.
What compromises do you suggest?

Seriously - that's a straight up question.
Not trying to beat anyone up here... I'm just trying to see specifically what alternative you're suggesting.

 

[Mitlov]

I have seen people's views evolve after long periods of polite, reasoned debate, particularly that in which both debaters recognize that the other is also just trying to ensure the best for society, and they simply disagree on how to get there. I've never seen such debate come from someone who took a "you're either with us or against us" stance.

No, you can't change everyone's minds, but you can change the minds of some people who, at the current time, have a very anti-second-amendment stance. And you never know whose minds can be changed and whose can't unless you treat everyone you disagree with on the firearms issue as a well-meaning person and engage them in polite, reasoned debate instead of name-calling.

Just my personal approach; your mileage may vary.

 

[Mike1234567]

<snip> Yeah, but slavery isn't a parallel to this situation. No one owns you.<snip>

Obviously not... but 2A passions often run just as deep among some people.

 

[JN01]

"How can we assure the Second Amendment rights of the populace AND ensure the safety rights of all?"

You CAN'T ensure the safety rights of all. People like to demand that "something be done" but sometimes there is no solution. Nothing is gained by some token gesture that produces no results while at the same time infringes on the rights of others.

What I am saying is this -- Hear me, people! -- we can either be willing participants in this discussion (thereby assuring our rights), or we can be on the outside of this discussion (thereby allowing others to specifiy our rights).

Being involved in the discussion does not ASSURE anything. Many anti-gun politicians have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say and will do everything in their power to deprive you of your rights. The only thing that will change their position is having a court require them to do so. And even then, they will try their best to weasel around the decision.

But I do agree that attempting to be involved is better than not. 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.

In the final analysis, which course will you take? Will you take the binary, us-or-them, approach that can only lead to WAR!??? Or will you take the reasoned, this-AND-that approach -- the one that can lead us into the future?

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.

There have been a few recent set backs, but over all, the RKBA has been WINNING in recent years without resorting to war. Why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

 

[goon]

But I do agree that attempting to be involved is better than not. 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.

If nothing else, you can't gain anything if you don't sit down at the table. Also, if we don't engage in the conversation we look unreasonable to outsiders and we allow our opponents complete control of the narrative.

Along with that, I think we need to start pushing for stuff we want instead of just trying to stop them from taking.
By that, I think we should push for reopening the NFA registry and having suppressors and short barreled rifles removed from NFA requirements the next time the other side wants something.

They say they want compromise, so let's tell them what we want and see what kind of a deal can be made.
If it's "compromise" they want, let's show them what it really tastes like.

 

[Nighteyes]

My thanks to all of you, because you have helped me make my point. In the words of Billy Crystal and Carol Kane in the movie The Princess Bride, "Have fun storming the castle!"

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."

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

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

 

[goon]

And, by the way I never said anything about a "quote" 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.

A consensus would likely require some concession on our side, hopefully in exchange for something other than the illusion of safety or appearing more "reasonable."

Just ain't any way around that. What do you suggest we surrender or exchange to reach this consensus?
The concept may seem reasonable, but when it comes down to details, complications will ensue.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If I could do one thing here, its that I suggest everyone read Adam Winkler's book Gun Fight. He talks about the history of the 2A from inception all the way up to and including DC versus Heller. He gives a very good history of gun laws, and a good history of the NRA, both pre and post-1977 convention. Winkler is not a staunch 2A-er nor is he an 'anti'. He is just a historian.

For example, Winkler cites that in the late 1800's there was no firearm law more common than bans on concealed carry. And yet now some states will give anyone a CCW permit. So the slippery slope argument that a lot of people like to make isn't historically true.

There are 280 million+ guns in this country. Its logistically impossible to take them all away.

Which state would that be? I think they all run a background check on the applicant.

 

[JRH6856]

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.

And there is nothing to gain from engaging them in either a conversation or a shouting match. So don't. Instead, talk to those who are willing to talk and try to find some common ground. If it can be found, the Schumers, Feinsteins, and Bloombergs with be marginalized and left shouting into the wind.

 

[torqem]

Think so? and just WHAT do the anti's EVER give up, hmmm? Nothing, ever. So compromising is always against us. To hell with those people, man. They are the type that we've fought plenty of wars against, and indeed, are fighting one right now. If the Feds made gunownership illegal, in general, and locked up 10,000 gunowners the first year of such a law, I guanantee you that 90+ % of those guns will be turned in, pronto. 90% of the remaining 90% will just get buried, too. Not 1 gunowner in 1000 will bust a grape over this issue.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'd suggest that rather than going down this path, we could just as easily redraw state borders and leave the RKBA issue to each state to determine independently. I could still serve in the military with guys from NYC or respond to wildfires in California even if our government were a little less centralized.

Just ain't no way you're going to come up with a nationwide strategy that makes everyone happy. And maybe we shouldn't. All it does is end up with trying to force what you want down someone else's throat. I support the right of New Yorkers to bear arms, but the NY courts say that means something different than the courts in other states. So though I don't necessarily like it, I'd rather just let NY do its own thing, and let Montana do its own thing, and let Texas do its own thing, etc.

The one size fits all thing is a big part of this problem.

Allow states to redraw their borders if they need to and make the law that they see fit, loosen the federal alliance a little, and let everyone get on with their business.

No need to get so nasty about this.

This is the way it will go. It's already going that way.

The fed has some restrictions like the NICS check and full auto weapons but generally the really onerous restrictions come from the states and cities. The SCOTUS has already declined to put any teeth in 2A and has left it open to the states to formulate their own gun control. So the states are in control of what you own and carry. There is still some question about national security and the fed collecting information that is a violation of your civil liberties but I think that will be corrected. In time NICS will be proven to be ineffective and scraped. There have been numerous examples of it's failure, one in the last few days.

What we will end up with is red states with little more than federal restrictions. We will also have blue states and those will be gun free. The anti gun crowd will all live in those states and demand that the gov't protect them from the criminal element. It won't work but they will always have hope living in the blue state. The pro gun crowd will all live in the red states and deal with the criminal element on a more personal level. The red states will have lower crime rates but that won't change anyone's view on the subject. You will have to surrender your weapon when you enter the blue state. You won't have to arm yourself when you enter the red state because most people will think you are armed anyway.

Seems like a workable solution to me.

 

[torqem]

Rights come from the barrel of a gun. They are derived by the harming of those who try to usurp those rights. Everyone agrees that a rabbit has the right to fight back vs the fox, agreed? Well, humans found a better way to fight back, and tyrants and their minions hate it. Tough stuff for them.

 

[JRH6856]

Seems like a workable solution to me.

Except that people in the red states will continue to be fearful of the guns available in the blue states and continue lobbying for both federal laws to control guns nationally and change in the blue states as we saw in Colorado. That is how Bloomberg started--guns coming illegally from red stated. That is the Illlegal in MAIG>.

And that is no different than what we have now so it is no solution at all.

 

[barnbwt]

"So the slippery slope argument that a lot of people like to make isn't historically true."
Remember that we somehow got to the top of the hill in the first place though we're sliding down it. There's also two sides to every slippery slope. We are currently sliding in a different direction than before, but there's a strong headwind

TCB

 

[CoalTrain49]

Except that people in the red states will continue to be fearful of the guns available in the blue states and continue lobbying for both federal laws to control guns nationally and change in the blue states as we saw in Colorado. That is how Bloomberg started--guns coming illegally from red stated. That is the Illlegal in MAIG>.

And that is no different than what we have now so it is no solution at all.

You mean like education, health care and social services? :banghead:

 

[lonegunman]

Anti-gunners hate you, generally they despise the Constitution and those who believe in freedom and they yearn for government control of their lives.

Anti-gunners see you as the criminal and want to prosecute you as they would an actual criminal. Look at any law they propose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they make NO distinction between a lawful gun owner and a felon on a robbery spree.

They are filled with hate and loathing, they are utterly intolerant and devoid of facts and knowledge. They want to see you arrested for the mere thought of self-defense and prosecuted for thinking your rights are yours and not the governments.

Read their tripe if you think I am joking.

 

[silicosys4]

Anti-gunners hate you, generally they despise the Constitution and those who believe in freedom and they yearn for government control of their lives.

Anti-gunners see you as the criminal and want to prosecute you as they would an actual criminal. Look at any law they propose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they make NO distinction between a lawful gun owner and a felon on a robbery spree.

They are filled with hate and loathing, they are utterly intolerant and devoid of facts and knowledge. They want to see you arrested for the mere thought of self-defense and prosecuted for thinking your rights are yours and not the governments.

Read their tripe if you think I am joking.

It's hysterical, hostile nonsense like this that pushes people who are indifferent and could be friendly, right off the fence on the wrong side.
Hostility is not going to win any friends.

 

[barnbwt]

"Anti-gunners hate you, generally they despise the Constitution and those who believe in freedom and they yearn for government control of their lives."

1) Just because people are frothing lunatics online doesn't mean they care enough to donate 1$ or 1min of their time to meaningful things like voting or activism

2) Read the internal MAIG emails and you'll see that, while they are certainly ignorant, the vocal leadership could care less about the state and morality of gun laws or rights so long as they get to live the high life drinking in fancy hotel bars and hanging out with celebrities

3) Absent a dueling arena where they are encouraged to behave like frothing lunatics, nearly all --no, make that all, since that is closer to accurate-- anti's are decent people with their own motivations and prejudices which have caused them to see the world differently than us. Wrongly, as is seen by their inability to logically support it, but still very legitimate in their own eyes.

They aren't fire breathing dragons to be slain, or monstrous ogres bent on devouring us; hyperbole gets us nowhere

TCB

 

[Mitlov]

There's almost nobody in America who hates freedom. There are people who have gotten to different conclusions because of (1) different exposure to facts (or to "facts"), (2) different first-hand experiences, and (3) different logical processes and political theories. But pretty much everyone out there just wants everyone to live a happy, pleasant life. They just disagree as to what laws and what policies would get us there.

Demonizing and vilifying people who disagree on a policy or legal issue as hating freedom, hating America, etc is both unproductive and inaccurate. In America, most political issues are resolved in the favor of whatever faction can best convince the fence-sitters that facts and logic are on their side. And saying that the people on the other side of the fence are bad people alienates far more fence-sitters than it wins over.

 

[AlexanderA]

CoalTrain49 wrote:

What we will end up with is red states with little more than federal restrictions. We will also have blue states and those will be gun free. The anti gun crowd will all live in those states and demand that the gov't protect them from the criminal element. It won't work but they will always have hope living in the blue state. The pro gun crowd will all live in the red states and deal with the criminal element on a more personal level. The red states will have lower crime rates but that won't change anyone's view on the subject. You will have to surrender your weapon when you enter the blue state. You won't have to arm yourself when you enter the red state because most people will think you are armed anyway.

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.

 

[tuj]

Remember that we somehow got to the top of the hill in the first place though we're sliding down it. There's also two sides to every slippery slope. We are currently sliding in a different direction than before, but there's a strong headwind

I get what you are saying (I think), but my point is that the laws in this country change to suit the times. In the so-called 'Wild West', it was common to have to turn or check your weapons with the local law enforcement and it was also common to have bans on concealed carry. Why you ask? Well if Johnny Q. Public was likely to get shot in crossfire in a shootout on main street, he won't very well be able to deposit his check or go about his business. And the business of America is Business. Therefore society at the time in general wanted, and got, some of our first forms of gun control because they wanted stability and an air of civility. Remember this was coming off the worst war the nation had ever seen.

Which state would that be? I think they all run a background check on the applicant.

What I mean by 'anyone' was any legal citizen; I was referring to the 'shall issue' states. My point is that historically, concealed weapons were illegal in the vast majority of the United States. I am not trying to say if that was right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that some of that cowboy legend you hear is the furthest thing from truth. And to point out that our laws have come nearly 180 degrees since the late 1800's regarding concealed carry. How come no one is out there proclaiming this a victory?

(You don't have to answer that, I know why...)

 

[JRH6856]

Anti-gunners hate you, generally they despise the Constitution and those who believe in freedom and they yearn for government control of their lives.

Anti-gunners see you as the criminal and want to prosecute you as they would an actual criminal. Look at any law they propose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they make NO distinction between a lawful gun owner and a felon on a robbery spree.

They are filled with hate and loathing, they are utterly intolerant and devoid of facts and knowledge. They want to see you arrested for the mere thought of self-defense and prosecuted for thinking your rights are yours and not the governments.

Read their tripe if you think I am joking.

I don't think you are joking. I have been told the same thing almost word for word to my face more than a few times. But a few times I have also been able to get past the words to their motivation: not hate, but fear. And when I have manage to help them get past their fears, I have found a friend. But not often. The fear is usually too strong. So strong that they almost seem more afraid of who they will be if they overcome that fear. Most of them I feel sorry for. Like I feel sorry for a pet that has rabies.

 

[goon]

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.

It should be one country... but it isn't. Not sure how to change that. We're not miracle workers.
Perhaps the best strategy would be to pull the left back to the center and get them to abandon gun control as a part of their party platform. Then, blue state or red, the RKBA would be secure.

So how we gonna accomplish that?

 

[Deanimator]

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."

What was the "win-win solution" regarding slavery?

What's the "consensus" between Frederick Douglass and Nathan Bedford Forrest?

I want to keep my guns. Anti-gunners want to TAKE them. Them agreeing to take them INCREMENTALLY is a strange "consensus".

There are ONLY "win-LOSE solutions" in such fundamental matters.

 

[Deanimator]

My thanks to all of you, because you have helped me make my point.

Name calling isn't really a "point".