How do we go about real compromise?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    So if you somehow haven't seen it yet, read through the illustration at the end of this post first. It's an image that I've seen posted in different threads on this forum, and I found it accurate and witty. I read it and laughed, cried, got angry, all of the above, because of how true it is.

    But then I thought about it some more, and the more I think about it, the more I think those of us who value our 2A rights need to shift the conversation to how we can go about actual, real compromise. Did I just say that we should be willing to compromise on our God-given, inalienable right to keep and bear arms? Yes I did; but please hear me out.

    Up until now things have worked this way: Gun grabbers say they want "compromise." As illustrated below they don't mean the actual definition of compromise, where they get something, but give something back in return; they just mean they take away our rights in bits and pieces instead of all at once, but never give us anything back. Stalwart defenders of our 2A rights will oppose them, and refuse to give an inch, which is absolutely the right thing to do in principle. But then enter the slimy, spineless "moderate" types. The ones who want to play both sides of the issue, and who will "compromise" with the anti-2A types. These types may force them to water down their infringement of our rights, and make it slightly less heinous than otherwise in order to get it through, but in the end they still get it through, and our rights just keep getting eroded away.

    If we want this to ever stop happening, I contend that true defenders of the 2A are going to have no choice but to try to get in on the process, and attempt to turn things into genuine compromise. Look, I don't want to be compromising on our rights either, but this is real life, and until the blessed day comes when we are ready to rise up for real and abolish the system that gives our evil overlords in the central state their power, we're going to have to live with the fact that they will ALWAYS be seeking to take away more of our rights, and there's always going to be slimy politicians who are willing to work with them to do so. So if we ever want to have a prayer of getting anything but the same old recipe for eroding our rights, we're going to have to come up with a way of shifting the conversation to talk of genuine compromise.

    What do I mean by a genuine compromise? Here's some examples:

    They want to require background checks for private firearms sales? Fine, we'll stomach that if, in return, we give private citizens some ability to have the background check conducted without having to pay and FFL to do it, get rid of the federal rule forbidding handgun sales by FFL's to those under 21, AND put stronger protections in place against a national gun registry being created by saying that gun sales records will never be turned over to the government, and can be destroyed after 20 years.

    They want to take away guns from those deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others? Okay, but this is an emergency measure to be used only in the most extreme circumstances, and to highlight this and protect against abuse, the person who's guns are confiscated under this law is required to have a trial by jury within 30 days, and if there is anything but a unanimous decision by the jury to convict this person of a crime that warranted their guns being confiscated (such crimes would have to include threatening to commit a mass shooting, assassinate someone, etc) then anyone who testified against this person in the original hearing to confiscate their guns will be found guilty of a felony, AND the judge who granted the order will be forbidden from granting anymore orders to confiscate someone's guns under this law for a waiting period of 5 years. With these safeguards in place we could maybe stomach a "red-flag" law, but what do we get in exchange? Well, how about we end the senseless regulation of an accessory that has been documented as a factor in ZERO crimes so far, and completely de-regulate suppressors?

    Or they want to ban "forced-reset" triggers? Okay, instead of banning them just write a law that makes them count as machine guns (get rid of the outright ban on bumpstocks, and throw them in here too, while we're at it.) In exchange we get rid of the law banning manufacture of new, transferrable machine guns.

    I could go on and on, but you get the point. Yes, the above examples aren't thoroughly thought out and wouldn't exactly work the way I've laid them out, but I'm just trying to explain the spirit of how I think we should be thinking about things.

    I know it sounds awful to talk about compromising on our inherent rights, but I just don't see any other way forward if we want to have a chance of getting any of our 2nd amendment rights back. If we can't bring things to a point where real compromise is possible, I fear we'll just see the 2nd amendment eroded away forever.

    img_0915-png.205613
     

    jwamplerusa

    High drag, low speed...
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 21, 2018
    2,073
    113
    Boone County
    Here is compromise. Vote out the subversive and communist scum, regardless of party and elect constitutionalists. People who have actually read the Constitution, at least some of the contemporaneous works, and have some actual understanding of the document and principles upon which this Nation was founded.

    The NFA is an infringement. The GCA is an infringement, the Hughes Amendment is an infringement.

    The OP is correct regarding the creeping nature of the enemies of liberty who work to subvert the Constitution. Appeasement is not the answer however; restoration is. Stop blaming the law abiding for the actions of the criminal.

    After nearly all of the major events, and I would wager many of the "lesser" (as in news cycle) events, it is usually discovered it was precipitated by a criminal who was "known to law enforcement" (Pulse nightclub, Parkland, Indy FedEx, etc. ) yet "government" did nothing to prevent the tradegdy, they simply work to profit off the carnage. The "government" is NOT going to fix this problem with gun control. They will however work to marginalize YOU!

    What might have an impact? Lock up the criminals. Restore the citizens Right to arms. Put criminals to hard labor to discourage recidivism. Humanely house the mentally ill and indigent (indigent farms and asylums for the dangerously mentally ill) need to make a comeback in a big way, fast.

    How? Vote out the spineless and worthless scum, and until then camp on your servants doorstep (figuratively, sometimes actually) to tell them NO MORE INFRINGEMENTS.

    I am all compromised out in regards to the Second Amendment. Undo some of the damage created by the Communists (AKA Democrats) and their accomplices, remove the infringements upon my Rights (all of them), and then we can talk compromise.

    I am calling the offices of my Senators today. Tonight I will write them, and at least two of the less ideologically driven of the Democrats.

    What are you going to do?
     

    Creedmoor

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2022
    824
    93
    Madison Co Indiana
    So if you somehow haven't seen it yet, read through the illustration at the end of this post first. It's an image that I've seen posted in different threads on this forum, and I found it accurate and witty. I read it and laughed, cried, got angry, all of the above, because of how true it is.

    But then I thought about it some more, and the more I think about it, the more I think those of us who value our 2A rights need to shift the conversation to how we can go about actual, real compromise. Did I just say that we should be willing to compromise on our God-given, inalienable right to keep and bear arms? Yes I did; but please hear me out.

    Up until now things have worked this way: Gun grabbers say they want "compromise." As illustrated below they don't mean the actual definition of compromise, where they get something, but give something back in return; they just mean they take away our rights in bits and pieces instead of all at once, but never give us anything back. Stalwart defenders of our 2A rights will oppose them, and refuse to give an inch, which is absolutely the right thing to do in principle. But then enter the slimy, spineless "moderate" types. The ones who want to play both sides of the issue, and who will "compromise" with the anti-2A types. These types may force them to water down their infringement of our rights, and make it slightly less heinous than otherwise in order to get it through, but in the end they still get it through, and our rights just keep getting eroded away.

    If we want this to ever stop happening, I contend that true defenders of the 2A are going to have no choice but to try to get in on the process, and attempt to turn things into genuine compromise. Look, I don't want to be compromising on our rights either, but this is real life, and until the blessed day comes when we are ready to rise up for real and abolish the system that gives our evil overlords in the central state their power, we're going to have to live with the fact that they will ALWAYS be seeking to take away more of our rights, and there's always going to be slimy politicians who are willing to work with them to do so. So if we ever want to have a prayer of getting anything but the same old recipe for eroding our rights, we're going to have to come up with a way of shifting the conversation to talk of genuine compromise.

    What do I mean by a genuine compromise? Here's some examples:

    They want to require background checks for private firearms sales? Fine, we'll stomach that if, in return, we give private citizens some ability to have the background check conducted without having to pay and FFL to do it, get rid of the federal rule forbidding handgun sales by FFL's to those under 21, AND put stronger protections in place against a national gun registry being created by saying that gun sales records will never be turned over to the government, and can be destroyed after 20 years.

    They want to take away guns from those deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others? Okay, but this is an emergency measure to be used only in the most extreme circumstances, and to highlight this and protect against abuse, the person who's guns are confiscated under this law is required to have a trial by jury within 30 days, and if there is anything but a unanimous decision by the jury to convict this person of a crime that warranted their guns being confiscated (such crimes would have to include threatening to commit a mass shooting, assassinate someone, etc) then anyone who testified against this person in the original hearing to confiscate their guns will be found guilty of a felony, AND the judge who granted the order will be forbidden from granting anymore orders to confiscate someone's guns under this law for a waiting period of 5 years. With these safeguards in place we could maybe stomach a "red-flag" law, but what do we get in exchange? Well, how about we end the senseless regulation of an accessory that has been documented as a factor in ZERO crimes so far, and completely de-regulate suppressors?

    Or they want to ban "forced-reset" triggers? Okay, instead of banning them just write a law that makes them count as machine guns (get rid of the outright ban on bumpstocks, and throw them in here too, while we're at it.) In exchange we get rid of the law banning manufacture of new, transferrable machine guns.

    I could go on and on, but you get the point. Yes, the above examples aren't thoroughly thought out and wouldn't exactly work the way I've laid them out, but I'm just trying to explain the spirit of how I think we should be thinking about things.

    I know it sounds awful to talk about compromising on our inherent rights, but I just don't see any other way forward if we want to have a chance of getting any of our 2nd amendment rights back. If we can't bring things to a point where real compromise is possible, I fear we'll just see the 2nd amendment eroded away forever.

    img_0915-png.205613
    Millennials WTF.
    HK said it so well, No Compromise!

     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    3,839
    77
    Setting aside the question of whether compromise SHOULD be done or not; I think the simple answer to your question is that it CAN'T be done.

    The other side has total control of the media narrative. They do not see the need to compromise with us on anything, they are arrogantly convinced of their correctness and only wish to defeat us.

    I remember many years ago while Clinton was still president, a "compromise" had been reached on universal background checks and it looked like it was going to pass. This was a "compromise" in the sense of the graphic above, gun owners were going to get nothing in return. The whole thing fell apart not due to some victory by gun owners, but because Clinton decided that the "compromise" wasn't enough and demanded more. That is the reality of the people we are fighting, the victories we win are usually due to their arrogance in demanding too much. I don't think you can reach a deal with such people.

    I am still hopeful that the situation will repeat itself, whatever deal the Republicans agree to in the current situation will be torpedoed by the gun-grabbers as not going far enough.
     

    KG1

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    17,870
    149
    I think it’s naive if anyone thinks they will give us anything meaningful in exchange for what we offer to give up in any compromise. Nothing will appease them. They’ll never stop going after things like ARs, magazines and ammunition.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    We've compromised enough with the communist democrats...no more!
    Have we? Name a single thing we've actually compromised with them on regarding 2A rights, in the real sense of the word "compromise"; meaning we give them something and they give us something back.
    Unjust laws should be ignored!
    Do YOU ignore unjust laws in your day-to-day life? No? Me neither. So that's hardly a workable solution, is it?
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    Here is compromise. Vote out the subversive and communist scum, regardless of party and elect constitutionalists. People who have actually read the Constitution, at least some of the contemporaneous works, and have some actual understanding of the document and principles upon which this Nation was founded.

    The NFA is an infringement. The GCA is an infringement, the Hughes Amendment is an infringement.

    The OP is correct regarding the creeping nature of the enemies of liberty who work to subvert the Constitution. Appeasement is not the answer however; restoration is. Stop blaming the law abiding for the actions of the criminal.

    After nearly all of the major events, and I would wager many of the "lesser" (as in news cycle) events, it is usually discovered it was precipitated by a criminal who was "known to law enforcement" (Pulse nightclub, Parkland, Indy FedEx, etc. ) yet "government" did nothing to prevent the tradegdy, they simply work to profit off the carnage. The "government" is NOT going to fix this problem with gun control. They will however work to marginalize YOU!

    What might have an impact? Lock up the criminals. Restore the citizens Right to arms. Put criminals to hard labor to discourage recidivism. Humanely house the mentally ill and indigent (indigent farms and asylums for the dangerously mentally ill) need to make a comeback in a big way, fast.

    How? Vote out the spineless and worthless scum, and until then camp on your servants doorstep (figuratively, sometimes actually) to tell them NO MORE INFRINGEMENTS.

    I am all compromised out in regards to the Second Amendment. Undo some of the damage created by the Communists (AKA Democrats) and their accomplices, remove the infringements upon my Rights (all of them), and then we can talk compromise.

    I am calling the offices of my Senators today. Tonight I will write them, and at least two of the less ideologically driven of the Democrats.

    What are you going to do?
    I love your ideas. But how on earth are we going to get these things done? We simply don't have a majority in this country who really believe in our rights. You can write to politicians all you want, but the slimy "moderate" politicians who worship compromise like an idol aren't going to change their ways just because you found a particularly clever way of explaining things to them. So how about we try a strategy that might actually work? Has it even been tried before? I'm asking genuinely; I haven't been closely involved in politics for a good deal of my life, so there could be things out there I'm unaware of. It's just, as far as I know, we've never seen any proposal at the federal level that attempts to take away at least some of the infringements of our rights by means of an actual, genuine, compromise. So isn't it worth a try? If we don't try it, they're just going to eventually keep eroding our rights anyways...
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    If any part of the Constitution is compromised, it Is no longer a Constitution.
    Well we don't have a constitution then, and haven't for a long time. So how about we wake up to this reality and try to strategize on how we can at least maybe start to work on turning this ship around? Because so far it's not been going very well.
     

    xwing

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 11, 2012
    548
    93
    Greene County
    I think it’s naive if anyone thinks they will give us anything meaningful in exchange for what we offer to give up in any compromise. Nothing will appease them. They’ll never stop going after things like ARs, magazines and ammunition.

    Correct. To the OP: Your suggestion is a noble and reasonable suggestion. But it will never come to pass. The antis are so entrenched in their view, they will never even consider an actual compromise. To them, "compromise" will always mean "taking away our rights, but not outright banning all firearms". A complete ban of citizens' owning firearms is their goal, and they will never understand our POV.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    Setting aside the question of whether compromise SHOULD be done or not; I think the simple answer to your question is that it CAN'T be done.

    The other side has total control of the media narrative. They do not see the need to compromise with us on anything, they are arrogantly convinced of their correctness and only wish to defeat us.

    I remember many years ago while Clinton was still president, a "compromise" had been reached on universal background checks and it looked like it was going to pass. This was a "compromise" in the sense of the graphic above, gun owners were going to get nothing in return. The whole thing fell apart not due to some victory by gun owners, but because Clinton decided that the "compromise" wasn't enough and demanded more. That is the reality of the people we are fighting, the victories we win are usually due to their arrogance in demanding too much. I don't think you can reach a deal with such people.

    I am still hopeful that the situation will repeat itself, whatever deal the Republicans agree to in the current situation will be torpedoed by the gun-grabbers as not going far enough.
    But the ones we might reach with my strategy aren't the majority of leftists. Yes, the anti-2A folks on the left aren't going to compromise and inch with us, but there's a solid block of squishy types who want to be seen as "moderate", and they worship compromise. These types will never be convinced of the truth that our rights should never be compromised, because compromise is everything to them, because to them, compromise means they can play both sides and get votes from both sides, and votes is all that matters to them because that's how they hold on to power and wealth.

    That's why the twisted strategy of the gun grabbers works; they keep pushing their fake version of "compromise", and dangle it in front of the spineless types in the middle until they eventually bite. It's an awful game, but it gets things done, and if we ever want to get things done, I don't see any other way of going about it. Tell me, has it ever even been tried?
     

    Magyars

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Mar 6, 2010
    4,385
    113
    Delaware County Freehold
    Have we? Name a single thing we've actually compromised with them on regarding 2A rights, in the real sense of the word "compromise"; meaning we give them something and they give us something back.

    Do YOU ignore unjust laws in your day-to-day life? No? Me neither. So that's hardly a workable solution, is it?
    I live by my own rules when I can...and break unconstitutional laws when I feel it's in my best interest....so I respectfully and adamantly disagree with you....
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    Correct. To the OP: Your suggestion is a noble and reasonable suggestion. But it will never come to pass. The antis are so entrenched in their view, they will never even consider an actual compromise. To them, "compromise" will always mean "taking away our rights, but not outright banning all firearms". A complete ban of citizens' owning firearms is their goal, and they will never understand our POV.
    Agreed; the radical antis on the left (which is the vast majority of them) will never agree to genuine compromise.

    BUT right now our Senate, for instance, is practically controlled by a handful of "moderate" democrats and RINOs whose entire political game is to try to play both sides of the aisle with "compromise." You've got something like 48 democrats who will vote for ANYTHING to take away our 2A rights, and maybe 40 Republicans who won't vote for things to take them away. So anything you can get by the ones left in the middle will go through and become law. So far the real gun grabbers have realized that they need to play the game of convincing the squishies in the middle that their pet bill is really a "compromise" because it's less radical than the original draft. They're good at this game, and they're winning it. If we can't come up with a real-world strategy that has a prayer of turning this game in our favor, or at least turning it less against us, we're never going to see an end to this same recipe for eroding our rights.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    I live by my own rules when I can...and break unconstitutional laws when I feel it's in my best interest....so I respectfully and adamantly disagree with you....
    Then, respectfully, why do you care? Does it matter to you what the laws are? If you have the capability to just ignore them, why do you care at all what laws are passed to compromise our rights?
     

    BE Mike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Jul 23, 2008
    6,784
    113
    New Albany
    What a pipe dream! The gun control tide is coming in. There is little to stop it. As many gun owners here have shown, they hate the NRA, so pro-gunners are a splintered group without one voice. We can gripe and type, but some very restrictive gun control legislation is going to get passed. Gun owners will get nothing in return. Tens of thousands of anti-gun protesters will be listened to in Washington D.C.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    833
    93
    Bloomington
    What a pipe dream! The gun control tide is coming in. There is little to stop it. As many gun owners here have shown, they hate the NRA, so pro-gunners are a splintered group without one voice. We can gripe and type, but some very restrictive gun control legislation is going to get passed. Gun owners will get nothing in return. Tens of thousands of anti-gun protesters will be listened to in Washington D.C.
    This if my fear, too, but I'm not ready to give up the battle yet. That's what they want.
     
    Rating - 100%
    125   0   0
    Jan 28, 2009
    3,144
    113
    This if my fear, too, but I'm not ready to give up the battle yet. That's what they want.
    When you talk of compromising a Constitutional Right, you are ready to give up.
    The would be killers of our Constitution are not going to compromise, why would we even entertain the idea? If you want to bow to them, go ahead, I will refuse to do so.
    This is the land of the FREE. if you are willing to fight for it, Home of the BRAVE, if you have the balls to stand for what you believe.
    Unfortunately many so called Americans won't and don't.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    5,567
    113
    But the ones we might reach with my strategy aren't the majority of leftists. Yes, the anti-2A folks on the left aren't going to compromise and inch with us, but there's a solid block of squishy types who want to be seen as "moderate", and they worship compromise. These types will never be convinced of the truth that our rights should never be compromised, because compromise is everything to them, because to them, compromise means they can play both sides and get votes from both sides, and votes is all that matters to them because that's how they hold on to power and wealth.

    That's why the twisted strategy of the gun grabbers works; they keep pushing their fake version of "compromise", and dangle it in front of the spineless types in the middle until they eventually bite. It's an awful game, but it gets things done, and if we ever want to get things done, I don't see any other way of going about it. Tell me, has it ever even been tried?
    So could you please sketch out more fully how you think we can "defeat" the "slimy moderates" by compromising with them? I want to make sure I understand your idea.

    You've given some examples of "these-es" that could be traded for "that-s," but no idea of the mechanics of how you actually get to agreement on those things.

    I really want to understand how we open that can of worms, without losing control of the process and just getting another Brady Bill with nothing in it for us.

    And more importantly - I want to make sure _you_ understand that process, and aren't totally mis-characterizing the character and intentions of people you're proposing to make the deal with.
     
    Top Bottom