Would you accept compromise on gun control?

No. Everyone I talk to tells me that they are all invalid and require no specific action.

This is the problem.


You aren't going to get a GCA recall passed. But you might be able to get a new GCA passed that replaced the old one, and is much more amenable to the spirit of 2A. That can't happen in the current "no compromise" climate because such a new GCA, even if it was good for us, would still contain "gun control".


No one wants a nibble. They expect the whole enchilda in one bite. A nibble plan would be great.
 
nd if you want to nibble on the GCA, come up with a plan, because the one we have doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I don't have a reference for this, but I have heard that because the GCA is predicated on congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, that individual hobby machinists can and have produced full auto, uniquely designed machine guns for their own use. This practice of a few brave folks has been challenged in court by the ATF and F-troop lost.

If it were legal to purchase one of these weapons in the same state as the manufacturer, it would also be a work around to the commerce clause.

Anyone have any info on this movement?
 
They compromise... with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein, Ted Kennedy, Ho Chi Minh ...
Click to expand...

which makes hard-line pro gunners.....hitler? I would like to think that as a group we can use compromise as a tool for everyone's promotion, without abusing it.
 
Steelheart, I don't disagree with you. We should have access to those things. But are you willing to go through extensive training and licensing to get them? That's compromise, and that might work.



Forget Hitler and Stalin. Want a good example of no compromise? WWII Japan. They stuck to their beliefs through the destruction and loss of their entire military and all their foreign holdings, plus several cities. I fear our position bears too many similarities.
 
Handy,
As I have already said the problem with a 'compromise' is that any solution arrived at would be unconstitutional thus illegal thus non-binding.
While hypothetically speaking there is some merit in keeping the guns away from those who are too irresponsible to handle them....practically speaking people will always twist those rules to exclude people they *don't like* from having them.
It's not pig-headedness, just practicality.
 
I love this.

Handy-
Checkmate in 2 moves. And I think you know it. ;)
Let me offer you a compromise. A real one.

For the sake of argument, I'll compromise as follows:
The Second Stays in it's present, watered down state. No further moves on EITHER side.
- No repeal of existing Gun Laws, Federal or State, except by the Judiciary.
- No new Gun Laws, Federal or State. eg: Those States that don't have CCW now, missed their chance. Those municipalities with registration get to keep it, unless ordered to change by the Courts.
In other words, NO FURTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION, as concerns firearms ownership, from EITHER side.

We just all agree it stays where it is today, except for challenges in the Courts. That's an acceptable first thought unless, of course, I'm dealing with someone who simply wants me to "compromise a bit more".

Without needless digression into the "undeniable nexus between the Courts and the Legislatures", would that be a "reasonable compromise"? Yes or No? Response required in order to maintain your credibility on this subject.

Would that work for you?
Rich
 
Steelheart, I don't disagree with you. We should have access to those things. But are you willing to go through extensive training and licensing to get them? That's compromise, and that might work.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm willing to go through the training and certification to get them.

(BTW, you are a sh*t-stirrer, as someone else pointed out...:D )
 
Rich, are you making fun of me? ;) Your post is pretty much what my first post says. How's my credibility doing?
If tomorrow both parties agreed to drop gun issues and never write any bills pertaining to guns again, would you support this?

Specifically, the current gun control laws would stick, and not be repealed. Meanwhile no new bans or restrictions on gun rights would be passed.

The NFA and GCA would stick, as well as the machinegun ban, the obnoxious state laws in Mass. and Cali., background checks and the block on foreign made military style rifles. There would never be an ammo tax and the states that have CCLs stay that way.
Click to expand...



Unless of course you are leading into: So what's wrong with what we have right now?

The answer to that is volatility. As pointed out, gun laws only take away, and the status quo relies on Congressional stability and Republican majority. I think Iraq has lined us up for another big swing, and since we have very loudly gloated over the end of the crime bill, I wouldn't be surprised at something of a reprisal.

My first post was about a hypothetical law, amendment, whatever that would effectively freeze gun control where it is, invalidating any future laws to the contrary. This would take the issue off the docket and steal gun control, as an issue, back from the Democrats. A short circuit, if you will.


Would that make me happy? Not really, but at least current laws give most state's citizens unhampered access to the kinds of firearms that make for great insurgencies, as well as offering personal protection. So I think it would be better than the spectre of more restrictions in the future.
 
We just all agree it stays where it is today, except for challenges in the Courts. That's an acceptable first thought unless, of course, I'm dealing with someone who simply wants me to "compromise a bit more".
Click to expand...

Would there not be a portion of our own side who would want the anti-gunners to compromise a bit more? Would we not still crave less restrictions just as they crave more? I dont see any reason why there still couldn't be a maintained balance this way.

A question keeps comming up in my head. If (god forbid) a VAST majority of our country wanted guns abolished, wouldn't it be the democratic thing to do to get rid of them? What about freedom of religion? Our democratic government is a naturally changing with the opinions of the people. Even that which is set in stone (#2) isn't safe from infringement if the population (via elected officials) wills it to be so. That brings me to the idea that maybe we should seek out more ways to soften the public to shooting. Take it away from the news stations and t.v. shows and out to a nice peaceful field in the country, or (less idealy) a shooting range. Thats where the future of gun rights lies: in the hands of a growing number voting shooting enthusiests.
 
Rich
Your "compromise" just pulled a Yalta... to hell with the freedoms and rights of Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czeckoslavakia, Romania and East Germany...
Those States that don't have CCW now, missed their chance.
Click to expand...
I know you didn't really mean it... :(

"Say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so." ;)

About "Shoeless" Joe Jackson selling out the World Series.


EDIT... For those who don't know... In order to get the USSR to help as an ally with England, US, and France in WWII... Churchill and FDR agreed to cede those sovereign nations to Russia as spoils of war... This COMPROMISE later enslaved those nations to communism...
 
Last edited:
I believe you can not give up one inch in this

topsy turvy world.

I will stick with the thoughts, as the NRA see's um.

One step further, no prisoners, nada.

Temujin

HQ
 
Initially, after giving it some thought, i was tempted to say that I would accept handy's compromise.
It would be nice if we could agree on something, and focus our efforts on things like shooting and teaching others how to shoot! (although arguably that's the best way to win the argument!)

But.

I don't like the idea of screwing people in restrictive states. And furthermore,
this is as much of a "pipe dream" as a repeal all gun laws including GCA and NFA scenario:

1)I really don't think either side wants to compromise, or would be willing to compromise. Both sides would say "compromise now, we'll get you later".


IN addition, it'll just turn into a court battle. We get to rehash the same thing, only instead of having a vote in the matter, it's now determined by the chief justices and who has the bigger pocketbooks. Call me "old fashioned" but i don't support taking power from the legislature, and giving it to the courts, and i think that's where rich was going with his argument. (I could be wrong).

Alas, i feel we are destined to fight it out until the end of this great country.:(
 
Handy-
Then it's a done discussion, isn't it? In your last post, you have agreed that gun laws have gone far enough. Firearms owners need grant no further "compromise"

I think many here would agree to your compromise, as soon as the Brady Center shuts down. As soon as VPC dissolves my contributions to the NRA will dry up.

But that's not going to happen is it? Is the NRA trying to expand the meaning of the Second? Nope. But Brady and VPC continue to try to constrain it. In short, their idea of "compromise" is for us to "give a little" while they continue to "take a little". As long as that mentality remains, I'm really not interested in their definition of compromise.

Rich
 
status quo

I find the status quo unacceptable. What you propose is not compromise, it is an armistice. Both sides just stop in place. They get to keep everthing they have taken, we get nothing but "peace in our time".

Seems like we have heard this somewhere before. Munich, perhaps?

As far as the idea of us giving up something more, to be "reasonable", which baby do you propose we throw off the sleigh this time?

As an abstract idea (since the antis will never stop), I would accept repeal of ALL gun control laws post 1900. Ok, 1906, make it an even 100 years. Then no further gun control laws, ever. By anybody. That I would accept.

Let every single penny spent on gun law enforcement be spent on violent crime prevention/punishment. Turn the ATFE into what it should be, a Federal organization dedicated to seeing that every American has all the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that he or she wants.:D
I would accept that. Hell, I would even support it!

Hinting that if we don't compromise, we will lose, is defeatist. We did not compromise with the Japanese, when all they wanted was their Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. We did not compromise with the Nazis, when all they wanted was domination over Europe. (well, some did, and look what they got:eek: ) We held our ground against the Soviet Union, and worldwide spread of Communism. And we will hold our ground on RKBA!

Yes, we accept limitation on our rights everyday, in order to get along with the least amount of strife, but your right to wave your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Our Founders recognized certain rights as granted by the Creator. No government, no majority of the people, has the moral right to take them away. You, as an individual, can give up your rights, but you can't give up MINE!

Just because you can convince 51% of the people to do something does not make it right.

You did post an interesting question. Hope you got the answers you were looking for.
 
ledbetter said:
I agree with Handy. The only beneficial change to gun laws lately has been the expiration of the 1994 law. It is Unrealistic to expect that future changes in the law will benefit gunowners.
Click to expand...

Do you, like Handy, fail to realize that more than 3/4 of U.S. states have shall-issue concealed carry license laws in place? Or that many states have passed laws extending the "castle doctrine" to anywhere you have a legal right to be? (Florida got that one in effect in October 2005).

It is unfathomable that you can say it is unrealistic to expect that future changes in the law will benefit gun owners rather than curtail their rights, when we can point to several dozen states in which gun owners' rights have made progress. How could you have missed that?? Don't you get America's First Freedom?

-azurefly
 
Rich,

I think you are misrepresenting the situation. Especially when you use alternate meanings of the word "compromise". When I mention "compromise" I'm talking about an arbitrated agreement, but you are co-opting my language to use a different definition along the lines of "compromised integrity" or "broken". Let's keep those different meanings seperate, please.

First, the BoR is a list of absolutes that contain absolutely no restrictions in their language. From that zero point, of course anything and everything that limits their scope is "taking away" from them. Your language seems to indicate a false paradigm where there is somehow an opposite to a restriction on the absolute. There's no place else to go from absolute zero, so there is no way for the NRA to "expand the meaning of the Second". That's a logical impossibility. As there isn't, then you must admit that any legislation affecting the BoR is a loss only to that absolute, but not necessarily a loss to the citizenry that benefit from a better definition of it. This includes legislation that is a good idea (like limits on types of arms; e.g. nukes).

Second, HCI and VPC are merely symptoms, not the actual cause of gun control legislation. The NFA and GCA were passed without the existence of similar special interest lobby groups - they were passed by concensus of the US population. So let's stop talking about anti-gun forces like they are a few evil people in two offices. Gun control is an attitude that exists in varying degrees amongst all citizens. There may be a few people that truly believe in "any man, any arm", but the rest of us all believe that 'anything goes' doesn't work. The good/bad, black/white thing is a false paradigm when dealing with a starting point of total freedom. See first paragraph.

Third, your language seems to indicate that those who oppose us have nothing to lose, and therefore nothing to gain by a truce. As Azurefly points out, that isn't true. HCI has presided over the biggest concealed carry movement in history, which has got to gall them. And the protectionist legislation for gun maker lawsuits is also a win for our side. Philosophical win? No, a CCL is just another form of 2A restriction. But from the opposition's point of view it is a loss. They may wish to stop further losses of that type.


So one possible agreement (or compromise, if you will) is to freeze it as is. The strongly anti-gun get the assurance that what they've won, they can keep and it won't be reversed. We get the assurance that everything we've gained or held on to is ours to keep. And we gain a victory in the attitudes of the citizenry by making guns apolitical and taking their condemnation out of the spotlight. HCI shuts down then because they no longer have a purpose in life. Despite that, the NRA keeps going because there is still a value in a pro-gun organization, even if it is no longer a lobbyist. HCI has no function as an educator and promoter, but the NRA does.

Is it a good result? Viewed on a global scale, we currently have virtually unrestricted access to weapons, even compared to places like Switzerland and Israel. We do jump through some hoops, but overall our current gun control is relatively minor, no matter how much it galls us. Not such a bad place to be.


That's just one way to do it, and I can think of others. But there is little point in discussing strategies if only a few people are willing to admit that a total victory is both impossible and a conceit that weakens us.
 
Absolutely effing not!

Compromise is what put us in the mess we're in now. The Brady/VPC pukes have counted on it for their victories and "we" (our lobbyists in the NRA) have played into their hands.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top