What RKBA restrictions would you trade?

[dbooksta]

Is there a win-win to be had in the RKBA battle?

For the purposes of this hypothetical discussion let's imagine that the anti-RKBA interests would like, more than anything, to see another magazine-capacity ban.

Is there some concession on existing restrictions that you would accept in exchange for some 1994-style magazine capacity ban?

I asked myself that question and began thinking about how irritating and pointless I find the NFA and associated restrictions. Would I trade the right to buy new mags that hold more than 20 rounds for the ability to buy silencers and SBRs without registration, extra tax, and waiting? Probably.

 

[K_Mac]

Getting short barreled guns and "silencers" approved is dependent on the will of the American people. Trading away other rights for the privilege is not an option. A win for gun control is not a win for those of us who understand the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

 

[dbooksta]

Try to think of this as a tactical question. There's no need to rehearse principles of natural rights or the U.S. Constitution. Imagine you're the U.S. President, or in a position to advance legislation to exchange one existing restriction for another. What's your "breakeven?"

I feel that NFA regulations and restrictions are as much an infringement on RKBA as magazine capacity restrictions. But I practice tactical reloads, so to me a 20-round mag limit is less of a burden than the hassles (and impossibility in many states) of buying NFA items. If you disagree then pick some other current restriction -- perhaps it's import restrictions, state-level concealed or permitted carry, "gun-free" zones -- you feel is comparable and let us know what it is and what you'd trade to eliminate it?

 

[Tom Servo]

First of all, if we have to trade one for the other, then neither is a right, and we invalidate all the arguments we've made up until this point. Having relinquished the idea that the RKBA is a right, then all sorts of restrictions are permissible.

For the purposes of this hypothetical discussion let's imagine that the anti-RKBA interests would like, more than anything, to see another magazine-capacity ban.

Oh, there's no hypothesis: they want it, and they've been clear on that matter. I have no intention of giving it to them. In fact, I have no intention of giving them anything they want. They weren't interested in bargaining before, and when they had a position of superiority, they did all they could to hurt us.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we don't owe them the opportunity to negotiate.

As it is, I don't see any separability when it comes to the NFA. It'll have to be repealed as a whole, or not at all. There is nowaynosirhecknonono that the anti-RKBA crowd is ever going to give an inch on machine guns.

(Why are these "what rights are we willing to give up" threads popping up so often lately?)

 

[pnac]

First of all, if we have to trade one for the other, then neither is a right, and we invalidate all the arguments we've made up until this point. Having relinquished the idea that the RKBA is a right, then all sorts of restrictions are permissible.

Quote:
For the purposes of this hypothetical discussion let's imagine that the anti-RKBA interests would like, more than anything, to see another magazine-capacity ban.
Oh, there's no hypothesis: they want it, and they've been clear on that matter. I have no intention of giving it to them. In fact, I have no intention of giving them anything they want. They weren't interested in bargaining before, and when they had a position of superiority, they did all they could to hurt us.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we don't owe them the opportunity to negotiate.

As it is, I don't see any separability when it comes to the NFA. It'll have to be repealed as a whole, or not at all. There is nowaynosirhecknonono that the anti-RKBA crowd is ever going to give an inch on machine guns.

(Why are these "what rights are we willing to give up" threads popping up so often lately?)

Well said Tom! I agree 100%!

 

[dbooksta]

(Why are these "what rights are we willing to give up" threads popping up so often lately?)

Sorry; I have had less time to read than to think. If any of those other threads are any good could you post URLs?

I'm surprised this is such a difficult question. Yes, RKBA is both a natural right and an enumerated right, and I believe that American governments have far exceeded their authority infringing the RKBA. But here we are: our rights are being infringed, and as always there are groups and governments threatening to infringe them more.

The question I posed here is not whether we can or should move the needle on the scale of infringement, but rather assuming we can hold it constant how we might reshuffle the current infringement.

(Economists or game theorists may notice that this is -- or should be -- a straightforward equilibrium problem. I am assuming that the status quo is suboptimal and that the utility sets of the two opponents are different. I am stipulating the utility function of one while trying to discover that of the other.)

 

[Spats McGee]

A couple of the recent links:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=506472
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500665

Tom Servo spake wisely.

I am not interested in trades or compromises when it comes to the RKBA.

 

[MLeake]

I suspect some of these "what would you trade?" threads may be anti-gunner noses pushing under our tent.

There is no support RKBA pledge required for people to join TFL, and I would be amazed if we did not get the occasional "reasonable gun control" proponent in our ranks, either as infiltrators, or as honestly curious folks.

 

[Warrior1256]

I agree with Tom Servo. The anti-gunners showed no willingness to compromise 15-20 years ago when they held all of the marbles. It would be great if representitives on both sides would get together and hammer out a "binding for all time" agreement that both sides could live with. But even if this were possible the antis would be back later stating "Well, unforseeable circumstances have come up and we now need additional gun laws".

They will never stop. We will have to fight constantly to uphold our gun rights.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

In a fantasy world where I could just switch one for the other, I'd gladly accept a 20 round magazine ban for a complete elimination of the NFA and the '86 ban.

NY has a 10 round mag limit anyway.

In the real world, I third (or fourth) Tom Servo's post.

 

[Tom Servo]

Tom Servo spake wisely.

Wait...say that again...

Tom Servo spake wisely.

Oh yeah...now the ego's stoked

Dbookstra, the question of equilibrium is interesting in theory, but it's troublesome in practice. We're winning, but things are still precarious. As it stands, real 2nd Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy. Four years (since Heller) is a blink of the eye in the historical longview.

We've made some very real gains, and we've laid the groundwork for more, but I won't concede anything for worry that we'd inadvertently tip the scales in the other direction.

For example, weapons capable of using magazines holding more than 20 rounds are weapons in common use. They're used by law enforcement and the military. Those magazines are protected by the 2nd Amendment. If I say, "OK, I'll give up larger magazines in favor of a little leniency on silencers," I'm trading something that's in common use for something that's not.

Then a silencer gets used in a public shooting, and they get regulated back to Title II status, and we're worse off than when we made that deal.

Frankly, the other side had their day in the sun. It's only now, after things changed and they found themselves on the losing side, that they want to have a "conversation." I remember the 1990's, and I remember their arrogance and malice. They had their chance.

 

[SHR970]

I'm in California.

I refuse to concede any ground, period, end of discussion.

If you are willing to concede any of YOUR rights, move here into Los Angeles, Alameda, or San Fransicso counties and help us win some of ours back. You can give up some and help us gain some back; to me that is a win-win.

Otherwise go pound sand.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Is there a win-win to be had in the RKBA battle?

No.

For the purposes of this hypothetical discussion let's imagine that the anti-RKBA interests would like, more than anything, to see another magazine-capacity ban.

Is there some concession on existing restrictions that you would accept in exchange for some 1994-style magazine capacity ban?

Why should we "accept" anything? To put this in perspective, I refer you to the following, which I am cribbing from The Lawdog Files ( http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html ):

**Anti-gunner: Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

**LawDog: Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Besides, the anti-gun forces aren't going to give us back anything in exchange for a magazine capacity restriction. They expect us to just "compromise" by giving them that and getting nothing in return, because it's "commonsense regulation" and besides, "It's for the children."

 

[Patriot86]

I don't think its a matter of "trading" rights; its a matter of securing through legal decisions and legislation that the second amendment is a right that shall not be infringed. It is also a matter of using legislation and litigation to roll back current undue restrictions in many "anti gun" states and localities.

 

[NWPilgrim]

We already traded away machine guns, suppressors, short bbl rifles and shotguns, imported "non-sporting" pocket pistols, privacy, guns over .50 caliber, mailorder purchases, imported AK rifles with pistol grips, and probably more. We've traded too much alteady.

Appeasement does not work.

 

[Tom Servo]

Appeasement does not work.

Thank you! That darned word has been on the tip of my tongue all afternoon, and it sums up the idea perfectly.

Metaphorically, we're through Cherbourg and closing. We're still fighting, but there's no expectation that we should be offering anything up.

 

[hermannr]

accepting any restrictions first assumes that restrictions are legit and legal...I do not believe they are either unless they might want to restrict LE and the military, but not the private citizen

 

[K_Mac]

I'm surprised this is such a difficult question. Yes, RKBA is both a natural right and an enumerated right, and I believe that American governments have far exceeded their authority infringing the RKBA. But here we are: our rights are being infringed, and as always there are groups and governments threatening to infringe them more.

The question I posed here is not whether we can or should move the needle on the scale of infringement, but rather assuming we can hold it constant how we might reshuffle the current infringement.

It is not that your question is difficult, or that we don't understand your premise. It is the assumption that we can, "hold it constant" while we, "reshuffle the current infringement" that we reject. In the same way that negotiating with terrorists is a losing tactic that will incite more terror, conceding that high capacity magazines are an acceptable loss for the return of rights currently held hostage will only embolden anti-gun activists. Game theory notwithstanding, a simple quid pro quo is neither desirable nor acceptable when it comes to our 2A rights.

 

[geetarman]

Tom,

Good responses. Good on 'ya!

My cat, Samantha always starts off on the arm of my LazyBoy. . . then one paw touches the laptop. . .then half her body moves to the laptop. . .then you have to shoo her away and reboot.

We will likely never regain what has been lost. . .all that has been accomplished is a new line in the sand setting the benchmark for more restrictions.

That benchmark will not be used as a starting point for easing restrictions.

 

[dbooksta]

OK guys, I understand where your hesitation to engage in this hypothetical exercise comes from. I've also lived through the FOPA, AWB, and while on active duty was stationed in two of the worst states (though the military's restrictions on RKBA went above and beyond even those!). I too have been thrilled with the progress made during the last decade on the RKBA.

But it seems odd to refuse a hypothetical discussion because you reject its premise in principle when in practice you actually accept the premise. I.e., unless you're engaged in civil disobedience you have, in practice, "accepted" the restrictions you reject in principle.

This is not to question your principles, beliefs, or your intent to work within the governments' systems to try to correct things. But as we're all aware the governments have already trampled this right. The needle has recently moved back a bit, but again, if you submit to this system of government it's no longer a question of whether your rights will be infringed but how and by how much.

The original question was to suggest that we hold the "how much" constant and ask if there is a "how" you would prefer to the status quo. Another way to pose it is to try to imagine all possible sets of restrictions that might be as desirable to opponents of the RKBA as the current set (i.e., their indifference curve), and then pick the one from those sets you'd most prefer. I thought it would be unlikely every RKBA proponent would pick exactly the current set of restrictions.

Again: I'm all for a discussion of principles, natural rights, reform, and civil disobedience, but this particular thread was about practice. If you reject infringements of your RKBA in practice I applaud and support you. But for the rest of us who aren't in jail why not save the principles for a different thread and try this hypothetical exercise?