What is enough compromise??

Wildalaska
Duh...are you serious?
Click to expand...

Of course I'm serious, and I would love to hear your answer. I'm amused by the way you speak of being inclusive and then, without so much as a pause, proceed to banish undesirables and "loonies". Who decides what groups get the boot? You?

Gyou'redodgingthequestionandseemtobealittletooproudofyouropinionLM
 
So you think a proper member of your group is a gun owner that thinks non christian aryans are "mud people", that thinks blacks and jews have tails, that has a poster of uncle adolf on his wall and walks around with SS runes on his Carharts?

You want to include him, ja?:D

WildyouknowwhatimeantbyinclusivestopbeingsillyAlaska

PS....all hate groups should be disavowed
 
Who gets to define "hate group"?

Seems some have fairly recently forgot we compromised for years. Gave in when the extremists came for the full-autos, demanded FFL's, age restirctions, etc, etc, etc. For every inch surrendered they demanded another foot. Only by refusing to give any more did we stop them, finally.

Now that they are stopped, for a very short time, some want to talk about compromise again. Offer that inch, again, and lose another foot when the Dems control all branches of fedgov soon. Frankly, the only thing I see here is a further reason to wonder where the loyalties of some actually are.
 
And I wonder about your grasp of the facts of the history of what you so freely call compromise.

They (them, the gun grabbing politicians) had the votes to do more, much more, than what we (the country) ended up with.

And hate groups, well, I know one when I see one. Or hear one. The majority of their message is...wait for it... hate.

John
 
Wildalaska
So you think a proper member of your group is a gun owner that thinks non christian aryans are "mud people", that thinks blacks and jews have tails, that has a poster of uncle adolf on his wall and walks around with SS runes on his Carharts?
Click to expand...

Victory is now staring the gun movement in the face. Gun Control as we knew it is the bad old days is a dying political concept. The EDUCATED liberal academeicians are now accepting the 2nd as an individual right. The moderate, progressive left is becoming more accepting of firearms, mirroring the overall moderate thoughts of the US population. The all or nothings on both sides are falling by the wayside. Now is the time for us to become a progressive, inclusive movement and purge our ranks of the far right loonies so as to make gun rights even more all pervasive.

Like it or not, the racist, sexist, homphobic, xenophobic, and "bubba" image foisted on progressive gun owners by elements within have cause as much harm to gun rights as screaming lefty meemies, who only got a sopabox due to the gun movements actions.
Click to expand...

No, I surely do not want the KKK, skinheads, neo-nazis, or any other such group to be considered part of any group in which I claim membership. But racists were not the only group on your initial list.

What about evangelicals/fundamentalists who believe homosexuality is a sin and abortion is murder? Could they be considered the "homophobes" you mentioned? Their ideology surely could not be labeled "progressive" or "moderate". And they would not vote for a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage politician no matter how good he/she would be for the gun rights movement. But a large majority of evangelicals/fundamentalists are pro-RKBA/pro-2nd amendment folks. And the vast majority are decent people who are an asset to the gun rights agenda, not a liability.

I also know many who feel free trade and US involvement in the UN are bad for the country. Are they "xenophobes"? Maybe, but they are far from being "loonies".

I'm from Tennessee, so most of the men I know who are proponents of the gun movement would be considered "bubbas" by those born outside of the southern states. I don't think they should tossed aside as most are intelligent, hard working, decent people.

I suppose my main point is that we should be very careful when we speak of "purges" or else we may end up alienating people who could be valuable to our cause.
 
And I wonder about your grasp of the facts of the history of what you so freely call compromise.
Click to expand...

My grasp of the issue is quite thorough. It's been my primary interest, and history itself is a big interest as well, for about half my life.

They (them, the gun grabbing politicians) had the votes to do more, much more, than what we (the country) ended up with.
Click to expand...

You think so? The fact is, they did everything they thought they could get away with at the time and not either be demolished in court challenges, the ballot box or open rebellion. They might have theoretically "had the votes" but then history is full of examples where politicos are cowed by fear. These are hardly examples of compromise.

And hate groups, well, I know one when I see one. Or hear one. The majority of their message is...wait for it... hate.
Click to expand...

That's a conveniently simplistic explanation. So is it hate to refer to illegal invaders as, well, illegal invaders? To some, certainly. Was the phrase "nappy headed ho's" hate? Guess it depends on who said it. Is it hate to oppose special handling for minorities? Special privileges for homosexuals? Abortion?

Depends on who you ask, but by golly they know it when they see it.
 
Is it hate to oppose special handling for minorities? Special privileges for homosexuals? Abortion?
Click to expand...

Not touching that last one. As for the others, I find that often "special handling" and "special privileges" actually refer to "equal rights." You know, like the right to marry somebody you're sexually attracted to and want to spend your life with. "Special privileges" like that.
 
You're right, that is a special privilege. Marriage is a religious institution and a social convention...between a man and a woman. You want inheritance and insurance and familial visitiation in the hospital? Then change the laws and stop insisting government redefine society.

It's "equal" to establish quotas for hiring or schooling based on race/gender, even if it means lowering the standards? Seems, increasingly, people don't agree...but some are only too happy to scream that disagreement is hate or intolerance.
 
Then change the laws and stop insisting government redefine society.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by this.. isn't changing the laws the way the govt redefines society? Isn't that precisely what happened in MA, and what started the "we need an amendment" hubbub so that people COULDN'T create laws?
 
"So is it hate to refer to illegal invaders as, well, illegal invaders?"

No. Why would you think it would be? It's no more hate speech than calling someone driving over the speed limit a speeder, or calling someone crossing the street in the middle of the block a jaywalker. Now, if you add on a word or three of the slur variety it would be. You know, by saying "those blankety-blank illegal invaders blanety-blanks." Now you've crossed the line from describing behavior to name calling.

Do you hate the people who move here to make a better living? Shouldn't your anger be directed at the people who allow our borders to remain unguarded?

John
 
The point was, John, that to a fairly large segment of illegal supporters calling those invaders essentially anything other than "immigrants", and thus conveyiong on them legitimacy, IS hate. Intolerance. "Hate speech". Racism. Attach your label. hence why I asked "who decides" and snickered over the comment that you'll know it when you see it. So will lots of other people...and you won't agree with them...

Sec, no, passing legislation is not necessarily redefining society. Are you saying the government giving legal status to homosexual marriages as opposed to simply extending insurance coverage ability is the same thing? One's the same as the other?
 
Marriage ceases to be simply a social convention and religious institution as soon as the government starts officially recognizing it and affording people rights and privileges based on it. As soon as the government tells me I cannot marry another consenting adult, whether due to race, religion, or gender, then they are not treating people equally.

But that's the subject of a gay marriage thread, which is a forbidden topic since folks here can't handle it in a mature and civil fashion. If you want to discuss it for the (likely) short life of the thread, go start it...I've reached my quota, I think.

As for calling illegal immigrants "invaders," I'd not call that hate. It's somewhat excessive rhetoric meant to drum up emotions in the weak minded, but not hate speech.

I think what WildAlaska is talking about is the general impression society gets of firearms enthusiasts that we're all a bunch of rednecks and/or racists...generally the latter. And based on my experiences at ranges (of the less official type) when there are no minorities around, unfortunately they're all too often right. I think he means that maybe we should start excluding the folks who think that certain words that start with "N" are perfectly acceptable as long as no black folks are around (or sometimes even if they are). Or who think giving blacks and women the vote was a mistake, a wrongful usurpation of power by the federal government, and something best left to the states. You know, the ones who don't really think slavery was an objectively bad thing.

Because like it or not, defending the unrestricted (or even the moderately restricted) firearms rights of a bunch of mouth-breathing racist homophobic misogynist rednecks is a losing proposition. I mean, if they were just homophobic, or just racist, or just misogynist maybe we'd have a chance. Well, maybe not with that last one...they outnumber us, you know. But no, it seems like a large number of firearms enthusiasts (and definitely when taken as a group) feel the need to piss off every group that isn't a white Christian male. And by embracing and including them, we make our cause almost indefensible.

Of course, the question (and the problem) is whether or not these people are actually just a fringe minority of the firearms community or whether they actually make up the bulk of it.
 
What about evangelicals/fundamentalists who believe homosexuality is a sin and abortion is murder? Could they be considered the "homophobes" you mentioned? Their ideology surely could not be labeled "progressive" or "moderate". And they would not vote for a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage politician no matter how good he/she would be for the gun rights movement. But a large majority of evangelicals/fundamentalists are pro-RKBA/pro-2nd amendment folks. And the vast majority are decent people who are an asset to the gun rights agenda, not a liability.
Click to expand...


OK look you are mixing apples and oranges here...someone may beleive that being gay is a sin, thats their right and it isnt "hate"....then you get to those wonderful folks over at godhatesfags.com.....ya want them associated with you? Arent they Homophobes?

Its easy to point out the difficulty of making the distinction, its harder to make the distinction. The lefts inability to discern between a political position and racism/sexism/homophobia is less astonishing to me now that I have come to recognize that the right has the same inability.

WildoandbythewaywearewinningAlaska

PS...thank you JC, you explain me better than I do :)
 
Gun rights organizations make a terrible mistake by wandering into other issues. They should focus clearly on the RKBA.

Sometimes, it is necessary to focus on related civil liberties in the criminal realm as the NRA has worked with the ACLU.

However, when the gun rights organizations start to pontificate on other things - immigration, gays, abortion, the war, etc. - they can lose supporters.

Unfortunately, it is some of the social conservatives in the gun rights movement that want to demand that supporters of gun rights must have ideological purity towards those other things.

The general use of liberal as a curse shows their lack of philosophical depth in these discussions.
 
Sec, no, passing legislation is not necessarily redefining society. Are you saying the government giving legal status to homosexual marriages as opposed to simply extending insurance coverage ability is the same thing? One's the same as the other?
Click to expand...

Then I guess the question boils down to*:
When we elect representatives and they enact laws that affect society in ways unheard of 100 years earlier, is that action an imposition upon society (authoritarian) or a reflection of society?

I'd like to hope it is a reflection and any impositions are short lived if at all.

* While new laws are required to handle a changing world, marriage does seem to be one of those things that has remained fairly constant for a long time. It may be both inappropriate for this thread AND for the purposes of this sub-discussion.
 
Wildalaska said:
OK look you are mixing apples and oranges here...
Click to expand...

So let's get all this fruit out of the way & get to the meat of the matter....

Would you be willing to keep fighting for RKBA if it meant you might have to associate & cooperate with people who don't measure up to your standard of morality?.....

...or would you be willing to lose more of your RKBA but still keep your conscience "pure"?....

We may be winning now....but the wind can change without warning...
 
Easy...I dont want any association with haters. Period. Morality has nothing to do with it.

We may be winning now....but the wind can change without warning...
Click to expand...

As long as we have haters and not reach out to all the non haters you are right.

WildpeaceandloveAlaska
 
Wow, leave the thread for a day and it's wandered off to debating about apples and oranges. I pick oranges;)
Guy's, it was a simple question. What is enough compromise? I'll further define the question.
What are you willing to give up in a 2A compromise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top