What is enough compromise??

All depends on what we get in return. (That's the idea of "compromise")
Click to expand...

Yes, but you go into any horse trading session with an idea of what you will give up and what you won't, as well as an idea of what you want.
We haven't progressed the discussion to "What you would want in return" phase yet. What are you willing to give up is on the table at the moment.
 
It would be a really stupid bargaining position to walk in and present what you have before you have any idea what the other side has to offer. That's just advertising that you can be bought.
If I had to answer your question, I guess I would just say everything is up for grabs, you just might not like the price. What are you offering?
 
There has already been far too much compromise (if it can even be called "compromise").

I don't have a problem with background checks or even mandatory safety tests to demonstrate that your use of a gun will not violate the rights of the innocent. But once a person has been cleared, he should be able to buy and own ANY firearm he wants without further restriction. That means full-auto, short-barreled rifles and shotguns...anything. If ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with these weapons, then neither can the police, since there are criminals among the ranks of the police, too (e.g., the LAPD Rampart division, or the off-duty Chicago cop who was videotaped pulverizing up that tiny female bartender).

The Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to ensure that the US citizenry would always have the means to fight off an oppressive government via guerrilla warfare as a last resort. That wouldn't require full-autos, but it would certainly require semi-auto rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as sniper rifles.

Other items that are protected by the Second Amendment include night vision, body armor, and gas masks, since these would also be helpful in fighting off a modern, tyrannical government.

If a new federal AWB is passed, I will not follow it and will deal with any consequences that may come as a result (which will NOT include going to prison, if you get my drift). That's my line in the sand.
 
It would be a really stupid bargaining position to walk in and present what you have before you have any idea what the other side has to offer. That's just advertising that you can be bought.
If I had to answer your question, I guess I would just say everything is up for grabs, you just might not like the price. What are you offering?
Click to expand...


No kidding:rolleyes:
It would also be really stupid to go into a bargaining room and not have an idea of what you're willing to give up. I'd love to have to bargain with you though, if I were on the other side.
 
WildAlaska
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.
Click to expand...

That is essentially my point. Who gets to define "hate"? You mentioned trying to bring moderate folks from the left into the gun rights circle. I have met many people who describe themselves as such and a majority see little or no difference between Joe Baptist or Jane Methodist who oppose gay marriage and the "godhatesfags" idiots. Likewise, the average pro-lifers and Eric Rudolph are cut from the same cloth as far as they are concerned. The same goes for those who advocate small\limited government , or people from the rural South who have a thick accent (bubba\redneck). Even those who are moderate on the left see them as being no different than the "loonies" you alluded to. Now, I know you're thinking that the moderates\progressives see us that way because we have allowed the fringe into our ranks. I disagree. I belong to several pro-RKBA groups and have attended various meetings and rallies and have never seen any of the "godhatesfags" people there. No one mentioned bombing abortion clinics or federal buildings. I have seen a few rebel flags on hats and belt buckles, but nobody shouted any racial epithets or suggested we go out and lynch anyone. The "loonies" may have guns and claim to be pro-2nd amendment, but that is not their main concern. Likewise for those on the left. I think their view of guns\gun ownership in general has nothing to do with their view of the types of gun owners I mentioned. If you agree with them on other issues (abortion, gay rights, environmental issues, social programs, etc.) they will have a favorable view of you whether you carry a pistol or not. Oppose them on their key issues, and they will not side with you on anything else. Those of us who are pro-RKBA will vote for someone based solely on that person's view on gun rights. Moderates\progressives simply will not. And like it or not, the vast majority of pro-RKBA folks have right leaning views on most other issues. So invite everyone in, but be careful about purging.

Glenn E. Meyer
However, when the gun rights organizations start to pontificate on other things - immigration, gays, abortion, the war, etc. - they can lose supporters.
Click to expand...
As Glenn E. Meyer points out, if gun rights is your main focus, leave everything else out or you will lose far more than you gain.

As for the original topic, I think deadin is correct. You must know what you are up against before you can say what you are willing to compromise.
 
So you would love to bargain with me?
OK, first let’s define and level the playing field.
To start with the anti stance will be “We want complete banning and confiscation.”
The pro stance will be “We want no restrictions, taxes, licenses, etc. whatsoever on ownership, carry and type of weapons available.”

To start off if either side states that their stance is non-negotiable, there is no room for bargaining (“No-Compromise” can come from either side)
and it becomes a worthless exercise in futility
If both sides decide that maybe, just maybe, they can soften their position a little, then there may be a little hope for some kind of agreement.
The next step is for one side or the other to put something on the table. It can be an offer to give up something or a request that the other side give up something. The normal way is for one side to disclose what they want and the other side to declare what they want in return. Then the bargaining begins on deciding what is equitable.
Now would you be willing to go to a bargaining session and start out with, for example, “I’m willing to give up the right to own a FA, what will you give me for it?” or would you rather respond to their “What would you want from us to get you to give up FA’s”?
I would much rather ”horse-trade” when I have something the other side wants instead of trying to get rid of something I have and don’t want.
 
In the history of gun control there has been no compromise. No compromise at all.

The anti self defense crowd just keeps taking, and taking, and taking. They have nothing to give us that wasn't ours long before they came along.

Concealed carry for example. Long before there were laws prohibiting it, we were allowed to carry concealed if we wanted to. It was nobody's business if we did or didn't. But then laws were introduced that infringed upon those rights.

So now groups like the NRA bargain to give up more of our rights in exchange for what? Nothing new..only the return of something that was stolen from us already.

If a robber takes a million dollars from you, leaves, and comes back later to take another million..but "compromises" and agrees to give half of that back to you...had there been any compromise? HELL NO.

That is where we are..and where we have been. There is can be no compromise because the antis have nothing to give us that wasn't stolen from us initially.
 
BTW, something I strongly object to regarding the NRA is the way they rarely seem to make any efforts to get gun laws repealed. They only play defense and never go on the offense.

If the NRA and the rest of our lobbyists never get any major gun restrictions repealed (and I'm not including the 1994 AWB, since it merely had a sunset provision built in), then we are guaranteed to eventually lose our rights (unless there's a violent revolution or something). It's common sense: When your team is on the defense, all the other team has to do is keep trying and trying until they eventually score. If every year there's a 20% chance of a new AWB being passed, then eventually it WILL pass. That's why it's vital that the NRA start fighting to roll back some of these laws. The import bans, the 1986 full-auto ban...there's plenty of work to be done. But the NRA isn't making any effort to roll back these laws! Why not? The same goes for so-called "pro-gun" politicians. The only truly pro-gun politician I know of is Ron Paul. Everyone else, including Republicans, believes that guns in civilian hands are only for "sporting purposes" or, at most, defense against common criminals.
 
Redworm said:
People need to realize that urban life is different from rural life. What works in the boonies does not work in Chicago and suggesting that city-dwelling liberals should live their lives as the farm boys do is going to do more harm than good.
Click to expand...
Are you then suggesting that us farm boys should live our lives as the city-dwelling liberals do? That is going to do more harm than good.
Redworm said:
Are nine year olds not "the people"? We don't allow them to carry in public nor should we ever. That's gun control.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Up until the late 60's it wasn't uncommon to see 9 and 10 year olds walking, on bikes, or riding the bus from Long Beach, CA. to Pasadena or Saugus-Newhall or San Fernando Valley with their rifles, just to go rabbit hunting. In the span of ten years, that all changed.

And you call that good?
Redworm said:
Are convicts not "the people"? We don't allow them to own guns in prison. That's gun control.
Click to expand...
We have never allowed people in jail or prisons to have their guns. That's hardly gun control. What is gun control is that before the 1968 GCA, any felon who had completed their debt to society were allowed guns.

Since then, not only are violent felons classified as "prohibited persons," any felony is so classed. And make no mistake, since then, more and more acts that were classed as misdemeanors are now felonies. Should we get into certain misdemeanors that move you onto the list of "prohibited persons?"
SteelCore said:
That's why it's vital that the NRA start fighting to roll back some of these laws. The import bans, the 1986 full-auto ban...there's plenty of work to be done. But the NRA isn't making any effort to roll back these laws! Why not?
Click to expand...
I agree in principle, we need to take the offensive. The problem (and why the NRA hasn't) is that the 2A is not a Judicially recognized fundamental right. Should Parker go before the SCOTUS and they affirm Parker, then we will have something to fight with. Then we can begin rolling back certain Federal laws. Then we can get to a point where it's incorporated into the 14th and then we go after the States.

None of this can happen unless/until the Supreme Court gets off it's duff and makes a decision. Is it is or is it ain't?

On this, I'm with Oldphart. Let's get it done and over with.

Now as for actual compromise... No more!

I don't really care if what happened in the past was a direct taking or some sort of real compromise. The point is that we are much less free than we were.

The pendulum has swung, gents (and ladies). All we have to do is to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
So you would love to bargain with me?
OK, first let’s define and level the playing field.
To start with the anti stance will be “We want complete banning and confiscation.”
The pro stance will be “We want no restrictions, taxes, licenses, etc. whatsoever on ownership, carry and type of weapons available.”

To start off if either side states that their stance is non-negotiable, there is no room for bargaining (“No-Compromise” can come from either side)
and it becomes a worthless exercise in futility
If both sides decide that maybe, just maybe, they can soften their position a little, then there may be a little hope for some kind of agreement.
The next step is for one side or the other to put something on the table. It can be an offer to give up something or a request that the other side give up something. The normal way is for one side to disclose what they want and the other side to declare what they want in return. Then the bargaining begins on deciding what is equitable.
Now would you be willing to go to a bargaining session and start out with, for example, “I’m willing to give up the right to own a FA, what will you give me for it?” or would you rather respond to their “What would you want from us to get you to give up FA’s”?
I would much rather ”horse-trade” when I have something the other side wants instead of trying to get rid of something I have and don’t want.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got this idea that I said you go in and lay out what you're willing to give up? And yes I would love to be an anti on the other side of the table from you since you would go into a bargaining room unprepared with a list of things that you're willing to give or more importantly a list of things you're not willing to give up.
Basic fundamental of bargaining, know prior to bargaining what you are willing to give, what you want and what you won't give. Sounds like you'd wing it and you never come out a good as you could by winging it.


Antipitis,
I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see the laws rolled back to 1934, but I also wanted a pony as a kid......I didn't get that either.
 
Last edited:
WildpeaceandloveAlaska said:
Easy...I dont want any association with haters. Period. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

It does if you're deciding what kind of "hate" you're not willing to tolerate and associate. Do you hate the current laws? Do you hate the fact that more anti-gun laws are being proposed? Then you're making judgements based on your morality.

Believe it or not, "hate" is a point of view (and, at one time, was protected by the First Amendment).....

...or must your "peace & love" philosophy extend to child molesters and mass murderers, as well?

I'm sure each member of this board has something that they hate. Do you want to disassociate yourself from us?
 
Are you then suggesting that us farm boys should live our lives as the city-dwelling liberals do? That is going to do more harm than good.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Neither one should be forcing the other to change their lifestyles. The point is that the city-dwellers have as much influence - if not more - than the farm boys and thus alienating them is very counter-productive.

Yes it is. Up until the late 60's it wasn't uncommon to see 9 and 10 year olds walking, on bikes, or riding the bus from Long Beach, CA. to Pasadena or Saugus-Newhall or San Fernando Valley with their rifles, just to go rabbit hunting. In the span of ten years, that all changed.

And you call that good?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I can't think of any children that young in dense urban areas that would be responsible enough to be walking around with rifles. Sure, that responsibility falls on the parents but we can't just pretend that blaming the parents is going to suddenly make children more responsible and understanding of death.

We have never allowed people in jail or prisons to have their guns. That's hardly gun control. What is gun control is that before the 1968 GCA, any felon who had completed their debt to society were allowed guns.

Since then, not only are violent felons classified as "prohibited persons," any felony is so classed. And make no mistake, since then, more and more acts that were classed as misdemeanors are now felonies. Should we get into certain misdemeanors that move you onto the list of "prohibited persons?"
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I find it ridiculous that non-violent crimes are classified as felonies and even embezzlement is enough to take away that right. I'm still undecided on whether violent felons who are out of prison should even be allowed out of prison at all let alone have their rights returned to them.

I still don't see the NFA or GCA or AWB as compromises. Those were not instances in which gun owners and anti-gunners decided together what a proper balance would be. Compromise involves agreement by both parties in an argument. I'm sorry but times do change, times have changed and most people do not see it as responsible to allow a nine year old to walk around with a rifle. Compromising and setting a higher age limit on public carry is worth it if that compromise also guarantees that carrying for adults will not be taken away.
 
I'm sure each member of this board has something that they hate. Do you want to disassociate yourself from us?
Click to expand...

Stop being silly :)

I hate stuff too. Everybody hates something. So what.......If you dont know what "hate groups" are I'll be happy to give you a list....:)

WildandonwardAlaska
 
I still don't see the NFA or GCA or AWB as compromises. Those were not instances in which gun owners and anti-gunners decided together what a proper balance would be. Compromise involves agreement by both parties in an argument. I'm sorry but times do change, times have changed and most people do not see it as responsible to allow a nine year old to walk around with a rifle. Compromising and setting a higher age limit on public carry is worth it if that compromise also guarantees that carrying for adults will not be taken away.
Click to expand...

Redworm,
I believe this statement makes my point for my stance. You don't start compromising after the other side has already taken everything that you might be willing to compromise. As for setting a higher age limit on public carry(CCW). It's already at 21 in every state in which I'm aware. At 21 you can, drink, drive, vote, defend for your country and be sent to prison for all of those same things if you act in an irresponsible manner. What would be gained by setting a higher age limit, denying a responsible adult their civil right, I don't see that as any kind of compromise.
I would be willing to put a 100 round magazine limit in exchange for lowering the legal age to purchase handguns from an FFL to 18. You can already make private non-ffl handgun (i.e. used) purchases in MI at 18 and I'm sure it's not the only state.
 
yeah, sorry for the mixup. hell, 21 is too high imho. 18 at least, 16 in areas that consider 16 year olds legal adults. however I'd certainly agree to "shall issue in every state but minimum age is 18"

For the record I'm not very happy about some of those rules. However I also realize that people saying "my nine year old should be allowed to walk around the city carrying a rifle" are not going to win. Can that work in rural areas? Sure. Can it work in suburban areas? Possibly but unlikely. Can it work in urban areas? Absolutely not. But folks that demand all children everywhere should be allowed to carry rifles are not going to win and instead are going make the antis think we're so nuts that none of us should have guns.

There are some things I'm ok with. I'm ok with telling a guy that was in prison for a violent crime that he can't walk into a store and buy a gun. Sure, he can buy one illegally but there is no sense in making it even easier for him. Make him take the risk of getting killed or arrested. I'm ok with requiring that every sale of every gun be accompanied by an instant background check. Sure, some will slip through the cracks but it's a minor inconvenience, not an infringement and may stop a crazy or two from buying a gun from his neighbor.

We will never have unrestricted firearms ownership in this country or any country, not unless someone's willing to violently revolt. Any way we crunch the numbers we are a minority.
 
A minority won their freedom from a tyrannical monarchy in the latter half of the 18th century..don't discount an armed minority!
 
A minority won their freedom from a tyrannical monarchy in the latter half of the 18th century..don't discount an armed minority!
Click to expand...
And at what point are you willing to take up arms? When you're limited to ten round mags? When you can't have barrel shrouds (yknow, those shoulder things that go up :D) or when the federales come for your 1911?

An armed minority can certainly make a difference but not without a lot of bloodshed and not without all of that minority agreeing on when to fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top