What RKBA restrictions would you trade?

[geetarman]

My question: What would you ask for, and what would you propose?

I really think you underestimate our single mindedness toward preserving the Second Amendment.

A lot of us have been around long enough to have to deal with the differences between what people say and what they do.

The choices you offer as talking points are not really choices at all.

I think we have spoken clearly on this.

 

[geetarman]

Anyone that wants to change the constitution or limit our freedoms should GTFO

I understand your passion. The Constitution does provide for changes by amending the document. It has been done on several occasions.

The amendment process, IMO, should be more inclusive rather than restrictive.

Rights given up for "the better good" are usually just gone for good.

 

[shortwave]

The gang has been known to make "compromises," and since it fastidiously honors them, you approach them to ask for one of your other rights back. The current leader responds, "Well we're not in the business of handing out rights, but it's no problem to change things around so long as on net it doesn't look like you've gotten any new rights. If you really want this what would you give up to placate my anti-gun members?"

My question: What would you ask for, and what would you propose?
Today 03:14 AM

Same question different package...

...same answer same package...

NONE!

RKBA is a 'RIGHT' and non-negotiable. Therefore, I could/would not cast my vote in the poll.

You need another line in your poll options saying:

None. There are to many restrictions on our rights as it is.

 

[Salmoneye]

I am trying to get a feel for the utility function of other RKBA proponents by asking them to consider a trade

The question some of us have is 'Why?'

Who are you asking this question for?

 

[geetarman]

Another question I have is why supporters of the Second Amendment are
considered pig headed for being reluctant to negotiate while those who propose "common sense" modifications to that same document are considered progressive.

Something seems wrong about this whole thread. Perhaps someone is testing the water to gage any resistance to new gun legislation?

 

[Spats McGee]

@Spats: Sorry I was unclear. Let me try again: You point out that there is no win-win between opponents. I clarify that's try only if they have the same utility function -- meaning that they value all things in the game/market equally. My preamble asked us to assume RKBA opponents have a different utility function from RKBA proponents. That would enable a win-win trade. I.e., one in which each party feels better off than they did before the trade. Proponents give up something they value less than the opponents do in exchange for something they value more than the opponents do.

Why would I assume that? In my lifetime, the anti-RKBA crowd has leapt at every opportunity to deprive Americans of their RKBA. There's no reason to think they'll do otherwise in the future.

I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that the pro-RKBA crowd do have the same utility function (private gun ownership), but simply approach it from opposite ends: The pro-RKBA crowd supports private gun ownership; the anti-RKBA crowd does not.

So, assuming that I now "correctly" understand the question, no. I still don't want any of those trades.

Oddly enough he/she included the rejection of the premise in their poll, yet doesn't like it when that's the option everyone seems to pick...

Yes, I thought that's only fair. It's just that so far I'm afraid a lot of people arguing for that choice are doing so because I didn't make the purpose or premises of the thread sufficiently clear.

The fact that we haven't given the answer that you're looking for doesn't mean we don't understand the question.

I'd actually be interested to hear an argument for the first poll option that goes further than, "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," and shows some understanding of the question as posed.

The fact that we haven't given the answer that you're looking for doesn't mean we don't understand the question.

As far as going beyond "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," frankly, I that's a perfectly sound argument. However, on this one, I'll play. America tried it the gun-control way, in 1934, 1968 and 1994. The measures passed at those times didn't work. More importantly to me, even if there were some statistical evidence to support the notion that "gun control saved some lives," I do not believe that statistics are sufficient to strip individuals of their right to keep for themselves the means of self-defense. Statistics only show how many people died. I am more concerned about who dies.

The watchwords for the anti-RKBA crowd have long been things like "compromise" and "common sense regulation." Truthfully, there has never been any real compromise involved, any more than common sense has been involved in the legislation that followed one of these "compromises."

I don't want any of the trades offered. I don't want any trade that involves giving up any part of my 2A rights. I'm not interested in trading rights that I have for rights that were already mine to begin with.

 

[Sparks1957]

Who are you asking this question for?

I am wondering that myself. While I suspect the OP is just a poorly informed individual who really thinks appeasement will work with the anti-gunners, there is a shadow of doubt that they are fishing for information on behalf of some organization.

The poll results speak for themselves.

 

[geetarman]

Proponents give up something they value less than the opponents do

There is no part of the Second Amendment I am WILLING to give up.

Being forced to comply is a whole different issue.

 

[PeterGreg]

Not on your list but I’d accept a limit of 10 round capacity on all centerfire rifles for an unequivocal nationwide no license required concealed carry law.

 

[Al Norris]

• I would trade 20-round mag limits for National RTC and federal preemption.
• I would trade 10-round mag limits for National RTC and federal preemption.

Adding the above two "compromises" do nothing to the overall "tone" of the poll.

Moreover, they are not a reasonable "trade." Your added criteria would set up the fed.gov as a defacto power with the ability to license gun-owners in whatever manner, with whatever criteria, said government desires. That is a power they do not currently possess and I see no need to give the fed.gov more power than they already have.

So, no. I decline the invitiation to modify your poll.

 

[shortwave]

Not on your list either but I would be willing to trade doubling the punishment of all gun related crimes with NO chance of the criminal plea bargaining a lessor sentence in exchange for all my gun rights that have been trampled on over the years given back to me.

IMO, in a civilized society, to ask the non-criminal, decent citizens to compromise their rights away in any kind of fashion to appease the fact that some liberal/ignorant minded group thinks restriction on guns is going to somehow drop the crime rate is just absurd.

Here's a novel idea :

Attack the rights of the criminals with tougher compromise's on their lives and NOT the rights of the decent members of society...
...again, erase all gun restrictions for a non-criminal and start enforcing the laws we already have.

 

[dbooksta]

OK guys, I give up.

I appreciate those few who were willing and able to participate in the exercise as proposed.

I am somewhat bewildered by the number of replies that either refuse to admit that we have lost our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms, or that admit it but then insist that we pretend we have not.

For the record, I am a vehement, libertarian-style RKBA advocate, and I started this thread out of my own curiosity and with no hidden agenda.


P.S. @shortwave: The "actually punish criminals not citizens" is another good proposal -- thank you for that. I'd add that to the poll if I could.

 

[Salmoneye]

I am somewhat bewildered by the number of replies that either refuse to admit that we have lost our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms, or that admit it but then insist that we pretend we have not.

Nowhere did I see anyone suggest that we have NOT lost "our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms", and no one I can see is 'pretending' that we have not...

What I do see is someone who seems to have accepted that we have, and is now wanting to 'trade' one infringement for a different infringement that makes them happier in their 'acceptance'...

 

[K_Mac]

OK guys, I give up.

I appreciate those few who were willing and able to participate in the exercise as proposed.

I am somewhat bewildered by the number of replies that either refuse to admit that we have lost our full natural and enumerated right to keep and bear arms, or that admit it but then insist that we pretend we have not.

For the record, I am a vehement, libertarian-style RKBA advocate, and I started this thread out of my own curiosity and with no hidden agenda.

dbooksta your "closing" comments are as condescending and factually flawed as your original premise. We all understand that we have lost some of our 2A rights for a variety of reasons. We don't find this acceptable and many of us work actively to do what we can to change the culture that does accept the limiting of of our Constitutional rights. Many of us are willing and able to intelligently discuss these issues. What we are not willing to do is play your game.

I am a supporter of Libertarian RKBA advocates. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Tom Servo]

The watchwords for the anti-RKBA crowd have long been things like "compromise" and "common sense regulation."

No, that's actually pretty recent. "Compromise" wasn't in their vocabulary when they were winning. We were shut out of the process, something that was readily apparent when Attorney General Janet Reno was able to say on prime-time television "tell the NRA to get lost."

It was only when they started losing that we started hearing phrases like "common sense" and "reasonable." I have a long memory on this, and that's why I'm not inclined to give an inch.

 

[shortwave]

Like you Tom, as well as many others here, I too can remember the era you're talking about. I also didn't forget that the ridiculous restrictions of that era(as well as others) did not work for their 'supposed' intended purposes.

Crime rate did not fall. And, if anyone has statistics that by the results of these ridiculous gun restrictions, there were less guns in the hands of criminals, I'd sure like to see them.

Today, there are many states, cities with drastic gun restrictions and it comes to no surprise that these areas have very high crime rates. Washington DC, Chicago, NJ, NYC. to name a few.
Course, when I used to visit NYC, I could at least defend myself against a gun wielding attacker by throwing my 32oz. 'big gulp' drink at them but gov't there has even taken that away from me.

I digress.

 

[sigcurious]

Many of us are willing and able to intelligently discuss these issues. What we are not willing to do is play your game.

+1 to this, particularly when the OP has not stated their own reasoning for any trade being acceptable.

 

[tyme]

Rights given up for "the better good" are usually just gone for good.

And the people clamoring for "the better good" or "the children" often can't explain in meaningful detail how it will be achieved by giving up rights. And when they do try to explain, they're generally wrong. There is much handwaving, innuendo, and there are many assumptions, but there are very few facts and or pieces of empirical evidence.

In post #13, Aguila linked to and quoted Lawdog's astute comments on this issue of compromising or trading for gun rights.

An attempt to compromise or trade assumes that there's a rational discussion that will converge on an equitable solution that's tolerable for everyone.

That is not the case in much of politics. It is predominantly driven by propaganda, and people consciously or unconsciously parroting propaganda. Any trading or compromising of rights in that environment is toxic.

 

[TAKtical]

There can be no compromise when it comes to RKBA. If we allow more restrictions on 2A, it wont be long before some group tries to restrict 1A. We have too many restrictions as it is and I personally will not be happy until 2A becomes less restricted than it is right now.

 

[Spats McGee]

The watchwords for the anti-RKBA crowd have long been things like "compromise" and "common sense regulation."

No, that's actually pretty recent. "Compromise" wasn't in their vocabulary when they were winning. We were shut out of the process, something that was readily apparent when Attorney General Janet Reno was able to say on prime-time television "tell the NRA to get lost."

You may be right on "compromise," and perhaps it depends on how we define "long." On "common sense regulation," I seem to recall that one being bandied about in the late 1980s & early 1990s.