How do we go about real compromise?

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

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.

So you would not accept a bill that abolishes a relatively onerous infringements on our rights while imposing a relatively insignificant one?

 

[Creedmoor]

So you would not accept a bill that abolishes a relatively onerous infringements on our rights while imposing a relatively insignificant one?

No!!!!!!!

Because it will just happen again and again and again and again and again
.... Forever.

Those simple words ARE so difficult for some to understand.
Shall Not Infringe.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No!!!!!!!

Because it will just happen again and again and again and again and again
.... Forever.

I don't really see why this has to be true, but IF, hypothetically, what I said repeats forever, which is that a relatively onerous restriction is lifted while a less onerous one is imposed, doesn't that mean that the infringements on our rights are becoming less and less severe... forever?

Unless you believe there's a realistic chance of getting to no infringement, isn't this the next best alternative?

 

[Creedmoor]

I don't really see why this has to be true, but IF, hypothetically, what I said repeats forever, which is that a relatively onerous restriction is lifted while a less onerous one is imposed, doesn't that mean that the infringements on our rights are becoming less and less severe... forever?

Unless you believe there's a realistic chance of getting to no infringement, isn't this the next best alternative?

You dont see why this has to be true. Seriously?
Its only been going on better than 200 years here.
I guess those Simple words ARE really hard to understand.
Move past it man.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You dont see why this has to be true. Seriously?
Its only been going on better than 200 years here.
I guess those Simple words ARE really hard to understand.
Move past it man.

Well, let's not get hung up on that then, and I'll accept it as true for the sake of conversation, because my bigger question still stands, which I'll repeat:

IF, hypothetically, what I said repeats forever, which is that a relatively onerous restriction is lifted while a less onerous one is imposed, doesn't that mean that the infringements on our rights are becoming less and less severe... forever? Unless you believe there's a realistic chance of getting to no infringement, isn't this the next best alternative?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Ayn Rand on "compromise":
...

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...

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

Thank you, all three, for your responses. There's a lot for me to chew on there, so I'll probably have to spend some time digesting it before giving a proper response, but I'll just post my initial thoughts below.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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 . . ."

The point is very well made. Perhaps others have been trying to say this to me in various ways, but I've been too dense to understand it, but I think what you're trying to say by using these quotes might be something along the lines of:
"Even if we COULD mitigate the damage dun by anti-gun legislation in the short term by coming to a real compromise that gives us something back, it wouldn't be worth it, because we'd be weakening our own position in principle by the act of signaling that compromise is something we're okay with"?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

I guess now I'm not so much thinking that "our side" could bring the democrats to bargain with us instead of the "moderates"/RINOs (whatever you want to call them; I mean the politicians who want to be seen as compromising and in the middle; the ones you listed who are likely to broker a deal with the dems. I'll just call them RINOs), but more so that if we had our own version of a compromise, which was at least better than the democrats' version, we might gain more leverage with the RINOs to make it harder for the dems to get them to vote for something, or even bring them to our version instead.

If nothing else I think this might be used as 1- a delay tactic and 2- start to shift the conversation in a direction where the other side has to admit that what they want is not truly compromise, and that they're never going to give us ANYTHING back with regards to our rights, which might help shift the perception that the general population has of the whole debate.

I don't know for sure if that makes sense, but those are the ideas I'm trying to hash out in my head right now...

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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

In the end, I'm too young to remember the last time a significant "gun control" bill was being put together and haggled over in this manner at the federal level, so being able to watch the process, and see what eventually comes out of it, will hopefully be a learning experience for me.

From the video, though, it sounds like the ones snarling the process are the same RINOs who said they would work with the dems on gun control. Of course it would have been a lot better if they had just told the dems to go pound sand, but that's not what RINOs do. So what's the best way the keep these RINOs on the path to derailing the bill? Maybe it's most effective to keep harping on them to "never compromise", or, what I'm proposing is that it might be an easier sell to convince them that, hey, you can compromise with the dems, but just be sure that means getting something back for us in return, not just giving them a little less of what they want.

Of course with this particular bill, it's too late in the process for my approach to be effectively tried; so I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens (it sound like we might know soon?)

 

[yikes]

Quantify hate.

 

[KG1]

So you would not accept a bill that abolishes a relatively onerous infringements on our rights while imposing a relatively insignificant one?

I can't even begin to consider your hypothetical bill. I don't believe for one millisecond they would be willing to abolish an onerous infringement in exchange for a relatively insignificant one.

I think it would be incredibly naive for anyone to think that they would do such a thing.

l'll stick with my previous post and say that I am against bargaining my rights away that I am entitled to..

 

[actaeon277]

In the end, I'm too young to remember the last time a significant "gun control" bill was being put together and haggled over in this manner at the federal level, so being able to watch the process, and see what eventually comes out of it, will hopefully be a learning experience for me.

From the video, though, it sounds like the ones snarling the process are the same RINOs who said they would work with the dems on gun control. Of course it would have been a lot better if they had just told the dems to go pound sand, but that's not what RINOs do. So what's the best way the keep these RINOs on the path to derailing the bill? Maybe it's most effective to keep harping on them to "never compromise", or, what I'm proposing is that it might be an easier sell to convince them that, hey, you can compromise with the dems, but just be sure that means getting something back for us in return, not just giving them a little less of what they want.

Of course with this particular bill, it's too late in the process for my approach to be effectively tried; so I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens (it sound like we might know soon?)

1994 Assault Weapons Ban was not that long ago.

Also, look at the history of "gun control" at the federal level.
Notice it's been accelerating.
Notice all the "compromise" seems to be one way.

Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

A rundown of the most important events influencing Federal gun policy

time.com

1791​

On Dec. 15, 1791, ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution — eventually known as the Bill of Rights — were ratified. The second of them said: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

1934​

The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”
The NFA imposed a tax on the manufacturing, selling, and transporting of firearms listed in the law, among them short-barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers. Due to constitutional flaws, the NFA was modified several times. The $200 tax, which was high for the era, was put in place to curtail the transfer of these weapons.

1938​

The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 required gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license. It also defined a group of people, including convicted felons, who could not purchase guns, and mandated that gun sellers keep customer records. The FFA was repealed in 1968 by the Gun Control Act (GCA), though many of its provisions were reenacted by the GCA.

1939​

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case United States v. Miller, ruling that through the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress could regulate the interstate selling of a short barrel shotgun. The court stated that there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

1968​

Following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA repealed and replaced the FFA, updated Title II of the NFA to fix constitutional issues, added language about “destructive devices” (such as bombs, mines and grenades) and expanded the definition of “machine gun.”


Overall the bill banned importing guns that have “no sporting purpose,” imposed age restrictions for the purchase of handguns (gun owners had to be 21), prohibited felons, the mentally ill, and others from purchasing guns, required that all manufactured or imported guns have a serial number, and according to the ATF, imposed “stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry.”

1986​

In 1986 the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed by Congress. The law mainly enacted protections for gun owners — prohibiting a national registry of dealer records, limiting ATF inspections to once per year (unless there are multiple infractions), softening what is defined as “engaging in the business” of selling firearms, and allowing licensed dealers to sell firearms at “gun shows” in their state. It also loosened regulations on the sale and transfer of ammunition.


The bill also codified some gun control measures, including expanding the GCA to prohibit civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns made after May 19, 1986, and redefining “silencer” to include parts intended to make silencers.

1993​

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was permanently disabled from an injury suffered during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. (Brady died in 2014). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, which amends the GCA, requires that background checks be completed before a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. It established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI.

1994​

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.

The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

2003​

The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.


“The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”


There have been efforts to repeal this amendment.

2005​

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by President George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.


The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.

2008​

District of Columbia v. Heller essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”


Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”


It did not however nullify other gun control provisions. “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” stated the ruling.


Correction: The original version of this story misstated what happened to White House Press Secretary James Brady during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. He was injured and permanently disabled, but he did not die in the attack. He died in 2014.

 

[ditcherman]

1994 Assault Weapons Ban was not that long ago.

Also, look at the history of "gun control" at the federal level.
Notice it's been accelerating.
Notice all the "compromise" seems to be one way.

Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

A rundown of the most important events influencing Federal gun policy

time.com

1791​

On Dec. 15, 1791, ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution — eventually known as the Bill of Rights — were ratified. The second of them said: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

1934​

The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”
The NFA imposed a tax on the manufacturing, selling, and transporting of firearms listed in the law, among them short-barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers. Due to constitutional flaws, the NFA was modified several times. The $200 tax, which was high for the era, was put in place to curtail the transfer of these weapons.

1938​

The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 required gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license. It also defined a group of people, including convicted felons, who could not purchase guns, and mandated that gun sellers keep customer records. The FFA was repealed in 1968 by the Gun Control Act (GCA), though many of its provisions were reenacted by the GCA.

1939​

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case United States v. Miller, ruling that through the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress could regulate the interstate selling of a short barrel shotgun. The court stated that there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

1968​

Following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA repealed and replaced the FFA, updated Title II of the NFA to fix constitutional issues, added language about “destructive devices” (such as bombs, mines and grenades) and expanded the definition of “machine gun.”


Overall the bill banned importing guns that have “no sporting purpose,” imposed age restrictions for the purchase of handguns (gun owners had to be 21), prohibited felons, the mentally ill, and others from purchasing guns, required that all manufactured or imported guns have a serial number, and according to the ATF, imposed “stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry.”

1986​

In 1986 the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed by Congress. The law mainly enacted protections for gun owners — prohibiting a national registry of dealer records, limiting ATF inspections to once per year (unless there are multiple infractions), softening what is defined as “engaging in the business” of selling firearms, and allowing licensed dealers to sell firearms at “gun shows” in their state. It also loosened regulations on the sale and transfer of ammunition.


The bill also codified some gun control measures, including expanding the GCA to prohibit civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns made after May 19, 1986, and redefining “silencer” to include parts intended to make silencers.

1993​

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was permanently disabled from an injury suffered during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. (Brady died in 2014). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, which amends the GCA, requires that background checks be completed before a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. It established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI.

1994​

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.

The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

2003​

The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.


“The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”


There have been efforts to repeal this amendment.

2005​

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by President George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.


The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.

2008​

District of Columbia v. Heller essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”


Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”


It did not however nullify other gun control provisions. “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” stated the ruling.


Correction: The original version of this story misstated what happened to White House Press Secretary James Brady during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. He was injured and permanently disabled, but he did not die in the attack. He died in 2014.

^this comment should be a sticky in and of itself.

 

[BigRed]

Nothing is gained in compromising with the spawn of Hell.

 

[BigRed]

In the end, I'm too young to remember the last time a significant "gun control" bill was being put together and haggled over in this manner at the federal level, so being able to watch the process, and see what eventually comes out of it, will hopefully be a learning experience for me.

From the video, though, it sounds like the ones snarling the process are the same RINOs who said they would work with the dems on gun control. Of course it would have been a lot better if they had just told the dems to go pound sand, but that's not what RINOs do. So what's the best way the keep these RINOs on the path to derailing the bill? Maybe it's most effective to keep harping on them to "never compromise", or, what I'm proposing is that it might be an easier sell to convince them that, hey, you can compromise with the dems, but just be sure that means getting something back for us in return, not just giving them a little less of what they want.

Of course with this particular bill, it's too late in the process for my approach to be effectively tried; so I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens (it sound like we might know soon?)

I have no idea of your age nor do I give a damn.

I do think you are naive. That is not related to age.

I encourage you to continue your own homework.

 

[actaeon277]

They're trying to rush, because they've figured out their best chance is IMMEDIATELY after a shooting.

Well, they missed their first deadline.
Things aren't working out well.
Not to say it's impossible. But once again, dig in. Let your voice be heard.

 

[Ingomike]

This, thankfully seems to be the pattern, in the immediate aftermath of an event proposals fly, then over a few weeks of discourse they lose steam. Hopefully this continues to lose steam…

 

[KG1]

The Democrats always immediately go kneejerk hognuts wild thrashing about wanting to penalize law abiding gun owners in the aftermath of these incidents and they wonder why a deal never gets done.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sorry if I missed something as I read the OP and the last page here…

I’ve long complained where are our zealots in the House and Senate? Where are our “nuts” that after a mass murder event will call for the immediate end to the “gun free” school zone law(s)? Where are our guys/gals that year end and year out call for a ”national conversation” about ending the Hughes Amendment or phasing out the NFA?

Our guys only know compromise. They will brag about their NRA A+ ratings but will seldomly do anything bold. Oh, they’ll fritter around the edges sometimes. They’ll “hold tough” on the democrats’ gun control bills and only give up the minimum…because it could have been much worse.

No more compromise. We must insist a more offensive posture.

 

[tude]

Can this horse possibly be beat on anymore?