Why aren't we compromising?

[traderpats]

"probably because true compromise is not on the table."

First post and all....

 

[mbt2001]

I realize when you get nothing in return, it is not a compromise. When the antis take less of our rights than they want, it isn't a compromise. Why is no one on our side offering up an actual compromise where both sides get something?

If they want "tougher" background checks, why not say sure, if they agree to open the MG registry for example. Why not more mental health support and universal background checks for the repeal of the '34 NFA?

My point is we aren't asking for and they aren't offering up anything in a compromise, and why not? I realize positive gains have been made in many states over the past several years but, are we content to keep things the way they are at the federal level?

The NRA tried that in '94 and got shown the door. There is no compromise with extremists.

 

[dbp]

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.

Perfectly put!! 'Nuff said!

 

[1911Tuner]

Our own Texas Law Dog said it better than I can.

Click and read.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

 

[481]

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

This.


The Left's de rigueur position that law-abiding Americans surrender any part of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in penance or contrition for the acts of a criminal is nothing more than a convenient avenue of attack against a right that the Left has never liked.

Asked to give up a right the Left supports (such as their well-used right to free-speech), they'll kick and scream and even go as far as to cite the very document they've been assailing for decades; their behavior is the very definition of hypocrisy itself.

This is also why we can never "compromise" with the Left. The Left's only goal is the elimination of the 2A and based upon the hypocrisy described above, there is no limit to how far the Left will stoop to accomplish that.

There is no value in the promise of a hypocrite.

 

[Alaska444]

This.


The Left's de rigueur position that law-abiding Americans surrender any part of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in penance or contrition for the acts of a criminal is nothing more than a convenient avenue of attack against a right that the Left has never liked.

Asked to give up a right the Left supports (such as their well-used right to free-speech), they'll kick and scream and even go as far as to cite the very document they've been assailing for decades; their behavior is the very definition of hypocrisy itself.

This is also why we can never "compromise" with the Left. The Left's only goal is the elimination of the 2A and based upon the hypocrisy described above, there is no limit to how far the Left will stoop to accomplish that.

There is no value in the promise of a hypocrite.

+1, that is what we face. That is what they faced in the '34 NFA and all that have followed. It took over a hundred years to ban firearms in England, we are about 20-30 years behind them now. Where they are headed is easy to see.

Registration, i.e., UBC will be the first step to confiscation. That is the line drawn in the sand today even more so than the AWB.

 

[coloradokevin]

The other side doesn't want compromise. They want to subjugate us to their beliefs. How exactly would you suggest we compromise?

The compromises I've heard have been laughed off by the other side:

1) Arm teachers
2) Provide for nationwide concealed carry

 

[kimbernut]

Queen of Thunder-agreed!!!

I wholeheartedly agree with Queen of Thunder, " No compromise, now or ever."