Would you accept compromise on gun control?
- Thread starter Handy
- Start date
This is not correct. I have not said that current gun laws are a standard for what is "proper". You are mixing two seperate points I made:
1. We have always lived with compromise, including about arms, since the beginning of the Constitution. There is no historical precedent for saying that 2nd Amendment rights were absolute - they never were.
2. Today's laws were mentioned as a starting point for a discussion about what laws might be practibly tolerable if we had to choose some. They were not offered as a floor for the discussion of the first point at all. I drew no connection between them.
What is my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? That it blindly states that all adult occupants of the United States (as we may assume "Men" was intended) have the involiable right to own any arm that serves the needs of defense. Any person, any arm. It is not a protection of non-felon sound minded citizens to own guns, but of any adult to own anything that qualifies as a military arm. Is that the position we are absolutely defending, because it is the only logical one contained in the language of the BoR.
Nor should you. But the debate isn't between a couple hundred people while the rest of the country spectates. Gun control is everyone's debate, no matter how nasty the Brady's of the world have made it. The gun control position isn't invalidated by the tactics of some of its proponents, so I don't see how HCI or the like figure in this - you have more than them to convince.
How about grenades, armed aircraft, nukes and artillery? Oh, silly me, that was most of YOUR list.
I don't have a list, but I guess I could dream one up if needed. But it isn't my decision, or point. It is something we should all be logically considering.
If I had to draft a compromise, I would look at the intent of the 2nd Amendment and attempt to satisfy the need for a citizenry able to resist tyranny, while limiting certain people and weapons from access. It would be more "liberal" than current laws, but not a free for all, because you can't sell "anything goes".
azredhawk44
Moderator
Regarding "Compromise" and "Liberals" :
Liberals use the term "compromise" in order to force the opposition side to give ground when logic cannot compel us to do so.
They want something awfully badly, and are only compromising what they want in order to get part-way there. Once the first compromise is forgotten, they start another "compromise" to get a portion of the remaining 50% that they missed out on.
Liberals don't compromise, because they don't leave the target alone after the first compromise. They steal, in little chunks.
Conservatives need to learn how to steal back, in little chunks.
Liberals use the term "compromise" in order to force the opposition side to give ground when logic cannot compel us to do so.
They want something awfully badly, and are only compromising what they want in order to get part-way there. Once the first compromise is forgotten, they start another "compromise" to get a portion of the remaining 50% that they missed out on.
Liberals don't compromise, because they don't leave the target alone after the first compromise. They steal, in little chunks.
Conservatives need to learn how to steal back, in little chunks.
MeekAndMild
New member
Right. Never? As long as the rivers run and the grass grows, eh? As long as the great white father loves his red children?
That's why they call them politicians, Handy.
If the liberals could walk up to the the pres and ask: will you outlaw and confiscate all guns right now, and he said OK. They would!
Since they can't.
They pass a little law here, and a little compromise there. Just like climbing a mountain, one step at a time.
Just like progressive taxation, a little at a time, until they have all of our money.
The media helps too, they convince the sheep it's good for society, in a very subtle mainstream way.
Since they can't.
They pass a little law here, and a little compromise there. Just like climbing a mountain, one step at a time.
Just like progressive taxation, a little at a time, until they have all of our money.
The media helps too, they convince the sheep it's good for society, in a very subtle mainstream way.
azredhawk44
Moderator
Handy, I read the whole thread before responding.
I still stick to my guns and agree with Rich that liberals are whining thieves that take anything they can get, while salivating to get more as soon as they can pull it off.
The only thing holding back the dems right now is the recent backlash over the '94 AWB, and the stinging road rash on the @sses of those dems who were kicked out and replaced with conservatives.
We've got another 5-10 years before they try anything again, but they will. it will be semi-auto 50bmg's. Then it will be semi-auto guns with more than 2500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Then it will be any gun with more than 2500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle (except alaskans with a funky permit). Then it will be supermagnum handguns... on and on until they get rid of your .22LR thompson center contender. Probably about 100 to 150 years of work, all in all.
I'm not interested in surrendering the '86 FOPA or the '34 machine gun ban, or the '68 GCA. I want to see these nibbled away at, eroded to a threadbare fallacy that depresses Sarah Brady, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy right into their graves. I want them to become frantic, even manic over their slowly eroded failures.
I want to lick the tears from their faces and feast upon their combined miseries and angst...
Oh, wait... I'd be a liberal if I fed on misery. Nevermind.
I still stick to my guns and agree with Rich that liberals are whining thieves that take anything they can get, while salivating to get more as soon as they can pull it off.
The only thing holding back the dems right now is the recent backlash over the '94 AWB, and the stinging road rash on the @sses of those dems who were kicked out and replaced with conservatives.
We've got another 5-10 years before they try anything again, but they will. it will be semi-auto 50bmg's. Then it will be semi-auto guns with more than 2500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Then it will be any gun with more than 2500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle (except alaskans with a funky permit). Then it will be supermagnum handguns... on and on until they get rid of your .22LR thompson center contender. Probably about 100 to 150 years of work, all in all.
I'm not interested in surrendering the '86 FOPA or the '34 machine gun ban, or the '68 GCA. I want to see these nibbled away at, eroded to a threadbare fallacy that depresses Sarah Brady, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy right into their graves. I want them to become frantic, even manic over their slowly eroded failures.
I want to lick the tears from their faces and feast upon their combined miseries and angst...
Oh, wait... I'd be a liberal if I fed on misery. Nevermind.
GoSlash27
It ain't "broke"... so don't fix it!
Handy
Oh hell, Handy, you aren't a "badguy" or a bad guy...
You're just a sh**stirrer... and ya can't play in it without getting some of it on ya!
Or you can just put a match to it... and use the excuse that it was written ONLY for the times some 225 years ago... so it MUST be antiquated and obsolete...
It ain't "broke"... so don't fix it!
Handy
Oh hell, Handy, you aren't a "badguy" or a bad guy...
You're just a sh**stirrer... and ya can't play in it without getting some of it on ya!
Im with Handy...
An unwillingness to compromise is, in my opinion, ignorant. My informal training on campus is a "conflict mediator". When married couples fight what is the answer? When rival companies are at each other's throats what do they do? When enemy nations want solve a territory dispute what do they do?
There are two answers to each of the questions. One is not compromise. The results being (respectively) divorce, takeover/job liquidation, and war.
The other answer is compromise. Its easy to stand on the hilltop and declare "victory or death!" But what we sometimes fail to recognize is that death is a possible outcome. A smart man knows the value of compromise.
And yes we have the 2nd amendment, which is why most of us say "i shouldnt have to compromise, its my right!". But being rigid and refusing to even address the concerns of the anti-gunners (they being a substantial part of the current american make-up) doesnt sound very democratic to me. And history is filled with examples of people who were so rigid in what were their honest-to-god rights, that they got trampled over.
Which brings me, finally, to my point. Compromise has the connotation of "giving up ground". I prefer the term "mutually beneficial conclusion". Find an outcome so that both sides are not just appeased, but satisfied. I honestly believe that if you could take a composite person who represented the average gun owner, and someone who represented the average anti-gunner they could sit down and work out a plan that would benefit both sides in the long run. Of course a lot of the people on this board would still be mad because some concessions would probably have to be made. Thats doesnt really bother me though, because if you refuse to budge at all you're never gonna be happy, and same with the hard'liners on the other side of the issue.
Or you can go on demonizing the other side as evil minions with no valid concerns or points to be made.
Fire those flames away!
Ryan (specialist in Gandhian philosophy)
An unwillingness to compromise is, in my opinion, ignorant. My informal training on campus is a "conflict mediator". When married couples fight what is the answer? When rival companies are at each other's throats what do they do? When enemy nations want solve a territory dispute what do they do?
There are two answers to each of the questions. One is not compromise. The results being (respectively) divorce, takeover/job liquidation, and war.
The other answer is compromise. Its easy to stand on the hilltop and declare "victory or death!" But what we sometimes fail to recognize is that death is a possible outcome. A smart man knows the value of compromise.
And yes we have the 2nd amendment, which is why most of us say "i shouldnt have to compromise, its my right!". But being rigid and refusing to even address the concerns of the anti-gunners (they being a substantial part of the current american make-up) doesnt sound very democratic to me. And history is filled with examples of people who were so rigid in what were their honest-to-god rights, that they got trampled over.
Which brings me, finally, to my point. Compromise has the connotation of "giving up ground". I prefer the term "mutually beneficial conclusion". Find an outcome so that both sides are not just appeased, but satisfied. I honestly believe that if you could take a composite person who represented the average gun owner, and someone who represented the average anti-gunner they could sit down and work out a plan that would benefit both sides in the long run. Of course a lot of the people on this board would still be mad because some concessions would probably have to be made. Thats doesnt really bother me though, because if you refuse to budge at all you're never gonna be happy, and same with the hard'liners on the other side of the issue.
Or you can go on demonizing the other side as evil minions with no valid concerns or points to be made.
Fire those flames away!
Ryan (specialist in Gandhian philosophy)
AZ, Rich didn't say that liberals are whining liars. He identified certain specific groups, rather than the nearly 50% of Americans the term "liberal" might be used to identify. "Liberal" is a term also worn by gun owners, some of which post on this board.
And if you want to nibble on the GCA, come up with a plan, because the one we have doesn't work. That's what I'm talking about - strategy. Not all or nothing philosophy.
And if you want to nibble on the GCA, come up with a plan, because the one we have doesn't work. That's what I'm talking about - strategy. Not all or nothing philosophy.
azredhawk44
Moderator
Handy... I don't have any plans. I'm not well enough versed in firearms legislation to find little pieces that would be agreeable to removal from federal or state law. That's a job for a lobbyist or lawyer.
I am neither of those... I'm a computer geek with an affinity for outdoors activities.
If some group actively has a viable plan to fix firearms laws and regulations, I will donate $20 to them right now.
NRA doesn't. Only initiative I know of by them is a federal CCW reciprocity law. I'm looking for someone who wants to remove existing laws, not add new ones. Concealed carry is currently not a federal crime (except in federal property). If a bill outlines situations where concealed weapons are permissible, then it inadvertently outlaws concealed carry in other situations. Adding legislation always creates snarls. Removing legislation makes things simpler.
You know of anyone with a valid initiative to remove federal firearms legislation?
I am neither of those... I'm a computer geek with an affinity for outdoors activities.
If some group actively has a viable plan to fix firearms laws and regulations, I will donate $20 to them right now.
NRA doesn't. Only initiative I know of by them is a federal CCW reciprocity law. I'm looking for someone who wants to remove existing laws, not add new ones. Concealed carry is currently not a federal crime (except in federal property). If a bill outlines situations where concealed weapons are permissible, then it inadvertently outlaws concealed carry in other situations. Adding legislation always creates snarls. Removing legislation makes things simpler.
You know of anyone with a valid initiative to remove federal firearms legislation?
azredhawk44
Moderator
Handy - In post #37 rich called anti-gunners "liars". I added "whining" for my own enjoyment.
steelheart
Moderator
Well then Handy, in order to resist tyranny we'll need full auto 16s and M60s, as well as grenades, antitank missles, stinger missles, Hummers with 50 cal. machineguns mounted and blocks of semtex to blow up the facilities of the tyrannical government and silencers for assasination of key peronnel of the oppressive government.
I like your idea!
Last edited:
They compromise... with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein, Ted Kennedy, Ho Chi Minh ...
AND they usually do it for the good reason of preventing a war!!!!
Which conflicts, more often than not, have turned out to be inevitable... and the result was only to delay and delay, until the enemy got strong enough to wage that war... :barf:
There are some things for which if you compromise makes you, "in my opinion, ignorant".
