How do we go about real compromise?

[AndreusMaximus]

So your solution is for us to compromise even more? Every time we do that we gain nothing and they gain more by not giving anything back. Every time we compromise we lose something.

I give up. I can only explain my position so many times in so many different ways before I'm forced to assume that people aren't just misunderstanding me, but purposefully misrepresenting it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I give up. I can only explain my position so many times in so many different ways before I'm forced to assume that people aren't just misunderstanding me, but purposefully misrepresenting it.

It's been a long and confusing thread, but tell me if I'm close... I *think* your position is not that *we* compromise more, but that we get *them* to compromise and give us something back.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It's been a long and confusing thread, but tell me if I'm close... I *think* your position is not that *we* compromise more, but that we get *them* to compromise and give us something back.

Yes, thank you, with just two clarifications:

1) Scratch the word "more". AFAIK, there has been no compromise so far, just giving away our rights and getting nothing back. That's not really compromise.

2) I am only proposing this position not as the "right" solution, but only as a means to start shifting things back towards the right direction, which would be moving towards abolishing ALL of their infringements on our rights.

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, thank you, with just two clarifications:

1) Scratch the word "more". AFAIK, there has been no compromise so far, just giving away our rights and getting nothing back. That's not really compromise.

2) I am only proposing this position not as the "right" solution, but only as a means to start shifting things back towards the right direction, which would be moving towards abolishing ALL of their infringements on our rights.

You suggest that there are parties interested in compromising, there are not. The word is only used to mask the taking of rights by the leftists. Nice try but not even close to something that could work…

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You suggest that there are parties interested in compromising, there are not. The word is only used to mask the taking of rights by the leftists. Nice try but not even close to something that could work…

For the majority on the left, this is true. But you don't think there's even a chance that we'd gain some leverage with the few politicians who just want to be seen as "moderates"? They're few in number, but when Congress is split like it currently is, their swing votes often determine what goes through and what doesn't, especially on hot-button issues.

 

[KG1]

You suggest that there are parties interested in compromising, there are not. The word is only used to mask the taking of rights by the leftists. Nice try but not even close to something that could work…

Exactly. I think it's woefully naive to think that they would be willing to compromise anything that would move us back in the direction of eliminating ALL infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights. Not even close. They won't give anything back that they have already taken away.

 

[Ingomike]

For the majority on the left, this is true. But you don't think there's even a chance that we'd gain some leverage with the few politicians who just want to be seen as "moderates"? They're few in number, but when Congress is split like it currently is, their swing votes often determine what goes through and what doesn't, especially on hot-button issues.

In the democrat party there are so few moderates as to be negligible, the republicans are about half RINO’s ready to do as you suggest. That math does not work…

 

[KLB]

Let's all be honest here. The United States of America will never get to no infringements on gun rights.

 

[Ingomike]

Let's all be honest here. The United States of America will never get to no infringements on gun rights.

Sad but likely…

 

[KG1]

Yes, thank you, with just two clarifications:

1) Scratch the word "more". AFAIK, there has been no compromise so far, just giving away our rights and getting nothing back. That's not really compromise.

Why should we be giving away any part of our rights even if we get something in return for doing so? Those rights I will not compromise whatever they offer in return for them.

2) I am only proposing this position not as the "right" solution, but only as a means to start shifting things back towards the right direction, which would be moving towards abolishing ALL of their infringements on our rights.

Do you actually think by compromising our rights they would concede anything to us that moves the needle back in our direction towards abolishing ALL of their infringements?

Compromising our rights by the very nature means that we are infringing on our own rights to try and get them to stop infringing. That's just plain ludicrous IMO.

I will not bargain away any part of my rights.

 

[MCgrease08]

So far it's just been our rights being taken away and nothing being given back in return. So in my book, as far as I'm aware, there's never been a real compromise, at least not at the federal level.

This right here sums up what a majority in this thread have been saying. If dems have been successful in eroding gun rights without having to compromise, why would they even entertain the idea of giving us anything?

This nebulous "compromise" you keep referring to gets us nothing.

 

[MCgrease08]

I'm thinking of the few politicians who generally are the swing votes to decide if otherwise party-line legislation goes through or not; the sort who ONLY want to be seen as "moderate" and "compromising." If we can pull them closer to our side, maybe we can mitigate the damage, or at least use it as a delaying tactic until after the midterms.

Or, we could drum up enough support to vote these ****ers out.

 

[KG1]

This right here sums up what a majority in this thread have been saying. If dems have been successful in eroding gun rights without having to compromise, why would they even entertain the idea of giving us anything?

This nebulous "compromise" you keep referring to gets us nothing.

I just can't get a grasp on the notion of giving up some of our rights in a bargain to stop them from eroding those rights let alone giving us anything in return for doing so. Wut?

It's like we'll give up a percentage of our rights if you agree not to take more in return.

What can they possibly offer me to make me be willing to give up my rights?

NO DEAL.

 

[Mikey1911]

Ayn Rand on "compromise":

"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal."

Note: gun-banners have no value to offer to gun owners; the "cake meme" is a graphic illustration of this.

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway."

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . ."

 

[BigRed]

This bull**** is still being "debated"?

 

[wcd]

For the majority on the left, this is true. But you don't think there's even a chance that we'd gain some leverage with the few politicians who just want to be seen as "moderates"? They're few in number, but when Congress is split like it currently is, their swing votes often determine what goes through and what doesn't, especially on hot-button issues.

You mean like I got your back Lindsay Graham that voted for further dilution of our God given Rights.

 

[Twangbanger]

...The thing is, in order to try it, some of the pro-gun politicians would have to get onto the committee that drafts these bills, and in order to do that they have to claim that they're willing to "compromise" and "work with" the other side, which is something most of us would immediately hate them for. Which is really my whole point; maybe we should be asking our politicians, instead of putting on a tough face, to jump in the fight and get scrappy.

This is the crux of your point, because it's the only part of your plan we can control. We would have to "authorize" those who represent us to offer giving up something of value to the other side, in exchange for asking for something back which is also of value to us.

So let's take that idea, and put it into play. Let's say we put this into action, and we give "agency" to a certain number of Republican politicians to enter into an agreement offering the other side something they want, if they will give us something we want.

Now (and this part is key):

- Mitt Romney is still out there.
- Susan Collins is still out there.
- Lisa Murkowski is still out there...

...you get the point.

Now, taking the example of what just happened this week:

When it comes "deal time," and the Democrats need 10 Republicans to pass the bill. *Which* 10 Republicans are they going to go to?

I'm going to suggest to you that they're not going to broker the deal with "our" 10 Republicans, who will ask something in return. They're going to walk right past them, and cut the deal with Collins/Romney, et al, who are asking nothing in return.

It's a paradox that, in order to implement "your" (correct) definition of compromise, we'd first need to vote out the Romneys and Collinses. Because otherwise, the Dems will just broker the deal with whomever gives them the best deal.

 

[actaeon277]

55 years old.
I have NEVER seen a "compromise" offered.
NEVER.

Their idea of "compromise" is that they ask for the moon, and we ONLY give them half.

No matter what is offered, or exchanged, there is no amount of both sides "giving up" something.

 

[actaeon277]

Once again.
Put the foot down.
Make them work.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Let's all be honest here. The United States of America will never get to no infringements on gun rights.

Sad but likely…

Wait, if that's true, doesn't that mean you're saying that compromise is the best we can ever hope for?