Why aren't we compromising?

[ApacheCoTodd]

^^That right there would be a form of compromise truer to the definition of the term.

Re-open unlimited machine gun registration and I'll consider universal background checks with the termination of one tied to the other.

Now there's a compromise - each side gets/gives up something... compromise.

Allowing rights to be further restricted without getting something in return is not compromising, it's acquiescing.

I'll let you cut off a part of my body every few years rather than stab me to death... how is that a compromise?

 

[Warp]

Compromise implies that both sides have entered into negotiations willingly. Would you call it compromise if someone broke into your house and you agreed to only have half your belongings stolen?

What the OP describes is not compromise, it is trying to get the bully to take less of your lunch money.

Excellent analogy and description.

 

[Cdigman]

No compromise. Ideas to push back:
Nationwide CCW Reciprocity
Remove SBR's and SBS's from the NFA. (They are only on there, because the original legislation was intended to ban handguns, and sawing off a rifle was making a handgun.)
Reduce the price of the tax-stamp on suppressors, and make it an instant approval.

 

[kludge]

They don't want compromise, they want concession.

 

[Tom from WNY]

Here's what compromise looks like

Google the NY SAFE act. Then look at what Rep. Steve McLaughlin from NY got from Rep. Joe Lentol as the original language for the bill.

CONFISCATION Yes, a so-called American (and this pains me to call him that) politician calling for outright confiscation of our legally owned firearms.

Compromise is not part of the Progressive agenda. Get over it. DEMAND YOUR 2A RIGHTS BE RESTORED AND NOT INFRINGED.

 

[OilyPablo]

Compromise?

Why? I haven't done anything wrong. I can say with pretty strong confidence that 99.99% of the members here have not committed any gun crimes. And why would this even come up - because the people who want to take our guns away absolutely treat us like criminals. Think - these groups only see all gun owners as criminals. Sick as that sounds, I really can not come to any other conclusion. They would start full confiscation if they could get away with it........you compromise with these groups? Why?? When has that worked in the favor of gun owners?

NO Compromise

Here's a saying to chew on if the above is too much for you: "All gun owners are criminals. The sooner we accept that, the better it will be for everyone."

 

[ljnowell]

Even you even thought about it the anti-gun loonies would freak out. They would insist you are being more than unreasonable, you are downright crazy and want to give machine guns to kids and criminals.

Thier idea of compomise is for us to give something up and they take it. See, thats give and take.

 

[ScrapMetalSlug]

What I was trying to say with the original post wasn't to mean that we should compromise or that we even need to. There is a long list of gun rights that have already been taken away over the years, so in the past 80 years we have already "compromised" numerous times.

Rather than accepting the way things are now, I'd like to see some push back to get some of those rights back. If they want to pass a new law, I would think a requirement would be giving something back that has already been taken over the years for any sort of bill.
Warp has a pretty good list:

-Re-open machine gun registry
-Reduce minimum age for an FFL to sell a handgun to 18 (same for "other" like stripped receiver)
-Reduce processing time for NFA stuff from whatever they want (6-8 months) to 60 days maximum
-Get rid of the federal gun free school junk
-Allow production and importation of armour piercing ammo

I am not aware of any legislation to get the ball rolling on any of those issues. Most of the current federal fight seems to be all defense. Is this because the pro-gun congressmen are afraid of what the media would say, or do they think supporting repeal of some older gun control laws would cost them votes?

 

[EBK]

"I am going to take everything you own and give you nothing in return.. oh that doesnt work for you lets compromise. I will only take half of what you own still with nothing in return, sound better."


That is their version of compromise.

IF your answer to the above is "NO!" then that is why. If that is okay with you PM me I will give you my address.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

"Compromise" rather reminds me of "sensible" or "common sense" regulations.
You know what you'll be getting when it's only the antis that get to set the terms.

I don't see a point in even attempting to be "reasonable" about this most recent demand for concessions.

 

[JERRY]

compromise?! why should we give up any of our rights?

 

[JFtheGR8]

I actually used to think I'd be ok with a compromise but the more I looked at what the antis wanted the more I realized they want to take EVERYTHING. No compromise here.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[Sam1911]

Well now the conversation has taken a slightly different turn, and a positive one!

Instead of trying to "compromise" in the debates of some of these anti-gun bills, what about introducing free-standing and independent bills of our own to push for the things we really want to see change?

I can think of a few reasons why we might not (only so much time and energy available in the Congress and we don't want to distract effort from our resistance movement fighting the bad stuff while we're trying to distract THEM from their efforts by introducing good stuff -- and backing a losing horse shows up as weakness in the public eye, for two) but that's a whole lot more palatable than OFFERING to give up something in exchange for lost ground on the other side.

 

[Jesse 8]

Because I'm done compromising.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?m=1

 

[GiorgioG]

Because this is what happens when you compromise: http://scopeny.org/New_York_State_Association_of_County_Clerks.html

Note bullet point #3:

The State police also said that gun confiscation will be carried out as an end result of non compliance with the permit renewal process or gun registry.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Compromise implies that both sides have entered into negotiations willingly. Would you call it compromise if someone broke into your house and you agreed to only have half your belongings stolen?

What the OP describes is not compromise, it is trying to get the bully to take less of your lunch money.

Brilliant take on it. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

[rdhood]

-Reduce processing time for NFA stuff from whatever they want (6-8 months) to 60 days maximum

BS. Remove SBR and suppressors from the NFA altogether. There is no reason why any law abiding citizen should be prohibited from owning/using short barreled rifles or suppressors. Criminals will use a hacksaw and a 2 liter bottle suppressor.

 

[sixgunner455]

No compromise. No new infringements. Repeal some of the 20k infringements already on the books. Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, not progressive talking points.

Reduce the price of the tax-stamp on suppressors, and make it an instant approval.

Let's really shoot for the moon: Eliminate the tax stamp, registration, and all controls on suppressors. They are just gun parts, nothing special in and of themselves. Liberal social Democrats like how Europe does stuff so much, let's treat suppressors like what they actually ought to be - safety devices for hearing, and noise abatement devices to reduce annoying the neighbors, like lots of European countries treat them.

 

[dbp]

"Shall Not Be Infringed" --- PERIOD

This is how Molotov Mitchell puts it

Forget it. Can't get it to copy.

 

[AlexanderA]

"Shall Not Be Infringed" --- PERIOD

That's fine -- if you have the votes (in Congress and outside of Congress) to make it stick. If you don't have the votes, then you have to make the best of whatever bad situation you find yourself in. (Play the cards you're dealt.) For example, over 90% of the public is telling pollsters that it wants universal background checks. The politicians are going to respond to this.

The fact is, the RTKBA has already been infringed. We need to have a strategy to roll back some of these infringements. Bills need to be introduced to do that -- these are our cards. What follows is a process of "negotiation" (not to use the taboo word "compromise"). This sort of counteroffensive should have been done from the very beginning of this crisis, rather than trying to stonewall and play for time. (Stonewalling has worked well in the past, but this time it's different.)

 

[Old Fuff]

It takes at least two parties to make a compromise, and both have to be willing to deal.

If one sets aside wishful thinking and actually reads the text of the various bills, it becomes clear that the other side isn't interested in compromising.

They think that there is now an environment where the national mood on guns has shifted to the point where they can advance their long standing plans, and they intend to take advantage of it.

Nowhere in the various bills before Congress do you find the slightest evidence of any willingness to compromise. The whole game plan is to advance more regulation, and hopefully bans on some firearms. They propose a system where the government will specify what you can and cannot have, even to the point of having a list of "approved" makes and models, that at any time can be revised to make it more restrictive.

Those that now call for compromise only weaken our position and resolve.

 

[phil dirt]

No compromise. The anti's ultimate goal is to take everything, all at once or whatever they can get incrementally, but ultimately everything!

 

[Warp]

BS. Remove SBR and suppressors from the NFA altogether. There is no reason why any law abiding citizen should be prohibited from owning/using short barreled rifles or suppressors. Criminals will use a hacksaw and a 2 liter bottle suppressor.

It is not feasible to get everything at once. Same as the antis, applies to us too.

I think RPG's should be legal. But I'm not about to seriously suggest that legislation be introduced tomorrow.

 

[Deanimator]

Why is no one on our side offering up an actual compromise where both sides get something?

Because it's the equivalent of Ann Frank offering an "actual compromise" to Adolf Eichmann.

When one side's goal is the ELIMINATION of the other side, what basis is there for "compromise"?

They want us to stop BEING gun owners. What's your counter-offer to THAT?

That of course presupposes that you have one iota of trust in the honesty of the other side.

I don't.

 

[AlexanderA]

Old Fuff wrote:

Nowhere in the various bills before Congress do you find the slightest evidence of any willingness to compromise.

Of course not. And you wouldn't expect to see that in the opening gambit (the maximalist position) in what is sure to be a process of negotiation. The problem, as I see it, is we haven't put our opening gambit (other than to defend the status quo) on the table. For every bill that Feinstein & co. introduce, there should be a corresponding pro-gun bill introduced from our side! Merely saying "no!" (that is, trying to defend the status quo) is a sure-fire losing strategy, as any business negotiator will tell you. When you end up "splitting the difference," the result is always going to be to your detriment.