Should we use some of their rhetoric against them?

[Skribs]

I was just thinking about the term "compromise" as it pertains to gun control legislation. We have heard "compromise", "reasonable restrictions", "common sense gun laws", etc over the recent years, usually following a tragedy involving a gun free zone. While Obama did not explicitly say what his plan was this year regarding gun control, he hinted at pushing forward new regulations in the same speech he discussed using executive actions to bypass congress. It makes sense that he would ignore the checks and balances put into the system to try to break the amendments to that system, but that's another issue...

Coming back to the word "compromise", why can't we use the anti's strategy of incremental legislation to work on "compromise" back to full constitutional rights? Why does "compromise" have to be us doing the compromising? I am a supporter of literal interpretation of where the 2nd Amendment says "Shall not be infringed". Thus, "compromise" to me could mean that instead of reinstating the full power of 2A, we simply regain some of the rights back.

Instead of "compromise" being 10 round limits on semi-automatic weapons or expansions on the background check requirements, why couldn't it mean:

• Re-Open the Machine Gun Registry
• Remove Silencers from NFA
• Carry Rights

These are just a few suggestions I have. We are already in a compromised position with various bills passed along the way at local, state, and federal level. I feel the truest compromise right now is remaining even. But that doesn't mean we can't say "we want it all, just compromise and give us some." I mean, if our government can say that to us, why can't we say that back to them?

 

[captain awesome]

They do it to us, try and chisel away at our rights bit by bit, so let's build them back bit by bit. I agree. Whole heartedly. But they don't want compromise. Say you want a full glass of water but they say you get no water. You compromise and get a half a glass of water. Then the next time you want water you have to compromise and only get a quarter glass. Then an eighth. Then a sixteenth.....you get where I am going with that. It's not compromise, it theft. Theft of our rights and it needs to stop.

I am going to get drink. A full glass of water. I am thirsty.

 

[Skribs]

I agree. Which is why I'm saying give me back a quarter of that glass of water.

 

[dmancornell]

Just show them this illustrated guide:

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Instead of "compromise" being 10 round limits on semi-automatic weapons or expansions on the background check requirements, why couldn't it mean:

• Re-Open the Machine Gun Registry
• Remove Silencers from NFA
• Carry Rights

There is no reason it couldn't, in fact, there are many people who get labeled "anti" who would love to make those changes.

I mean, if our government can say that to us, why can't we say that back to them?

I think by "our government" you mean "the representatives we elected." There are plenty of pro-gun representatives and the House is controlled by a majority of pro-gun individuals. Have they proposed legislation that would make these changes? Why not?

 

[Skribs]

By "our government" I mean a lot of our elected representatives (whom I am not under the illusion are representative of us, but rather representative of the corporations that funded their campaign), especially from a blue state like mine.

I also mean our President and VP (the later of which has made a suggestion that has landed people in jail for following), who are willing to go outside congress to push forward their agenda. If you can make unilateral decisions, then you are our government and something is broken within the system.

 

[AlexanderA]

Instead of "compromise" being 10 round limits on semi-automatic weapons or expansions on the background check requirements, why couldn't it mean:
* Re-Open the Machine Gun Registry
* Remove Silencers from NFA
* Carry Rights

This shows exactly what's wrong with the thinking on our side. You don't open negotiations by putting your minimalist demands on the table. This is a defeatist attitude. You open with your maximalist demands: repeal the NFA, the FFA, and the GCA, and turn the gun-law situation back to what it was pre-1934. From that starting point, we can "compromise."

 

[tuj]

turn the gun-law situation back to what it was pre-1934.

I believe most states at that time banned concealed carry.

 

[Midwest]

These are our demands

Repeal The 1934 NFA, the 1938 FFA, and the 1968 GCA

Repeal Lautenberg Amendment

Repeal 1000 foot 'Gun Free School Zone'

Repeal Import Weapons Ban

Repeal 1966 Sills Act in NJ that requires ID cards to buy firearms

Repeal 1968 FOID Act in IL

Repeal FID law in Massachusetts

Repeal 1911 Sullivan Law in NY State

Require that ALL states must issue shall carry permits and require reciprocity in all states. "Needs" based carry permits would be prohibited.

Repeal so called 'assault weapons ban' and magazine size limits in states that have them.

 

[mokin]

Yes. Check out dmancornell's link.

The hard core cool aid drinking anti has no idea of what has already been "compromised".

But, as a general principle, I try to avoid rhetorical discussions with antis. They are generally poorly informed, unwilling to listen, and will only drag you down to their level. Taking them to the range and letting them handle a real firearm is much more effective.

 

[ATLDave]

Pointing out that a compromise is an arrangement whereby each side gives something of value and receives something of value is a very fine argument/rhetorical move in discussions. Asking what gun owners get that they don't currently have is effective. Of course, the answer is typically "less regulation than I would otherwise want," but at least that lays bare that "compromise" isn't an accurate term for their position, and often exposes the fact that they absolutely DO intend to come back later and ask for more (thus validating the often-fallacious slippery slope argument).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I agree. Which is why I'm saying give me back a quarter of that glass of water.

LOL, what is it that you are offering in return? They have no incentive to give back these things that we have already given up, especially when they think we haven't given up enough.

 

[medalguy]

What's for them to compromise? They have the full glass of water. We want a drink. What incentive is there for them to give anything back after they have stolen all of it from us?

Maybe we could "compromise" to let them keep their jobs if they compromise with us? I doubt that would work. After all, what we usually consider as "the government" is the huge body of bureaucrats and regulators. Politicians come and go, but bureaucrats are forever. I forget who said that but it's true.

 

[J-Bar]

LOL, what is it that you are offering in return? They have no incentive to give back these things that we have already given up, especially when they think we haven't given up enough.

^^^ This.

I like the list in post #9 just fine; what should we offer to the anti's to get it???

 

[Midwest]

^^^ This.

I like the list in post #9 just fine; what should we offer to the anti's to get it???

We in turn promise not to bring them up on charges of treason, and as a bonus give them a one way first class flight to North Korea where they will feel more at home.

 

[Sam1911]

I believe we sort of, kind of, finally saw an inkling of the dawn of such things last year:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2959/text

Just the tiniest start, but change is coming!

 

[Skribs]

Midwest, that would be the endgame plan that starts with my list of compromises. I'm saying if we start small, then when we get those we push for more un-restrictions.

Although your suggestion for a federal requirement for shall-issue carry permits would be more of an interim rule for me, and would be a more descriptive version of my bullet point "carry rights". The endgame for this line of legislation for our side should be constitutional carry.

Re: posts 12-14: We offer them the same thing they offered us in regards to "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense legislation." They want it all, but as a compromise they'll only take some. So, we want it all back, but as a "compromise" we'll only take some back. And then after that we'll take some more back. And then some more. Just like they've incrementally taken more and more.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

These are our demands...

And the opposition says, "So what?"

Besides, who are you making these demands do?

 

[Sam1911]

Or rather the question is, who are we getting to make the demands on our behalf who has the ability to bring proposals "to the table" and the pull to make them stick?

 

[Skribs]

Very good question, Sam.

 

[barnbwt]

"Or rather the question is, who are we getting to make the demands on our behalf who has the ability to bring proposals "to the table" and the pull to make them stick?"

Well, if we can get the NRA to get with the program and start representing the NFA folks, they could easily lobby for removal of silencers, SBS, SBR, and AOW from the requirements. A mounting stack of court cases and conflicting (yet relaxing at the moment) BATFE enforcement decrees are likely to start settling some of these issues in the next few years, so they would probably meet with more success than they know.

But who's out there educating the public, executives, judges, and legislators on a national level that the current restrictions on those items are both arbitrary and purposeless? And then writing and pitching bills correcting the matter to key figures (since no elected rep writes anything anymore, it seems )

TCB

 

[Skribs]

I think there's two big problems with the NRA:
1) They are always there, so they are ignored or shunned by the left. Anyone who is anti-gun is going to automatically disregard anything the NRA says, because the NRA is supposed to defend guns. It's somewhat along the same principle I remember a youth pastor of mine complaining about. He could talk about a certain subject over and over again and the kids in the youth group would seem to ignore his preaching. However, they go to one event where someone else says the same exact thing my YP was preaching all year, and they go "wow, that makes sense, I'm so glad I came here to learn this!"

It's the same with the NRA. Any time the NRA opens their mouths, the liberals start pulling up their anti-gun faux statistics or just write off anything the NRA says as extremism.

2) The NRA is too political. Sometimes they act like politicians and come up with the stupidest suggestions, and those suggestions stick. For example, when the people were suggesting allowing teachers to carry at schools, the NRA suggested hiring armed guards for every school - a much more costly system.

On the other hand, sometimes the NRA is too political in their dealings. If antis want to pass anti-gun legislation, the NRA will side with them on one issue so as to push the rest off the table. The NRA has helped draft gun control legislation in the past.

For these two reasons, I don't think the NRA is the one to push our agenda. Whoever does will need to convince not only politicians, but also the general public, that lifting firearm restrictions is in the best interest of our country.

 

[J-Bar]

I think there's two big problems with the NRA:
1) They are always there, so they are ignored or shunned by the left. Anyone who is anti-gun is going to automatically disregard anything the NRA says, because the NRA is supposed to defend guns. It's somewhat along the same principle I remember a youth pastor of mine complaining about. He could talk about a certain subject over and over again and the kids in the youth group would seem to ignore his preaching. However, they go to one event where someone else says the same exact thing my YP was preaching all year, and they go "wow, that makes sense, I'm so glad I came here to learn this!"

It's the same with the NRA. Any time the NRA opens their mouths, the liberals start pulling up their anti-gun faux statistics or just write off anything the NRA says as extremism.

2) The NRA is too political. Sometimes they act like politicians and come up with the stupidest suggestions, and those suggestions stick. For example, when the people were suggesting allowing teachers to carry at schools, the NRA suggested hiring armed guards for every school - a much more costly system.

On the other hand, sometimes the NRA is too political in their dealings. If antis want to pass anti-gun legislation, the NRA will side with them on one issue so as to push the rest off the table. The NRA has helped draft gun control legislation in the past.

For these two reasons, I don't think the NRA is the one to push our agenda. Whoever does will need to convince not only politicians, but also the general public, that lifting firearm restrictions is in the best interest of our country.

Whatever it's flaws, I'm grateful the NRA is there for us.

Without the NRA I doubt that there would be private ownership of firearms in the United States today.

I think you make the same mistake the anti's make when you talk about the NRA as just a bunch of lobbyists in Washington. The membership is diverse and nationwide and therein lies its strength. I'm proud to be a member, and will still send them money, even though my membership status does not require annual dues.

 

[Deanimator]

I SO enjoy that sort of push back, especially when I practice it on the online comment sections of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It's just so precious when they stamp their little feet and have temper tantrums!

 

[paramedic70002]

No compromise. Rights do not get compromised. They want to fiddle with rights? Tell them we will accept limitations on the 2A that are currently in place for the 1A, nothing else.