How do we go about real compromise?

[jamil]

How does one compromise a principle?

Simple. You take pictures of the principal having sex with the secretary and then show him the photos, and tell him that you expect A's for yourself and all your friends.

Oh. Wait. You said principle, not principal.

Okay, so you have some principle, and then you negotiate some or all of it away for some price that you feel is worth the compromise. Usually that price is a feeling that people won't think you're poopy, and you'll keep your seat next election. Another word for this process is "Republican".

 

[BigRed]

(copied from another thread)

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Do you not see it? Most of us see it. Your proposal, if executed would end with compromising your rights…

Okay, let me try to explain this for you.

Suppose someone gets hurt, doesn't get proper medical treatment, and develops gangrene in their foot. Then that person tells you they fear there is not choice left but to have the foot amputated.

Do you run around telling people that person wants to chop their own foot off? No, they don't want to chop their own foot off, but the circumstances have left them with no alternative.

So, yes, my proposal would lead to our rights being compromised to some degree. But guess what, our rights look like they're pretty well on track to being straight up taken away, without any compromise or anything received in return. So IF we could at least get something worthwhile back at the same time, I'd take that as a preferable alternative to just having our rights slowly whittled away, in much the same sense that I'd prefer to have my foot chopped off than to have my entire leg slowly rot away with gangrene.

 

[2A_Tom]

Here we go again.

In all seriousness, do you work at a 3 letter agency?

ETA 84!

Edit again. That is not the appendage that will be chopped off.

 

[jamil]

Okay, let me try to explain this for you.

Suppose someone gets hurt, doesn't get proper medical treatment, and develops gangrene in their foot. Then that person tells you they fear there is not choice left but to have the foot amputated.

Do you run around telling people that person wants to chop their own foot off? No, they don't want to chop their own foot off, but the circumstances have left them with no alternative.

So, yes, my proposal would lead to our rights being compromised to some degree. But guess what, our rights look like they're pretty well on track to being straight up taken away, without any compromise or anything received in return. So IF we could at least get something worthwhile back at the same time, I'd take that as a preferable alternative to just having our rights slowly whittled away, in much the same sense that I'd prefer to have my foot chopped off than to have my entire leg slowly rot away with gangrene.

We all understand the argument you're making. And let me say, I understand the anxiety here. It's a natural thing to think. But this is actually a fallacy; the thinking that if we don't compromise they'll take away even more rights. So maybe that conversation looks to you like:

Them: those evil guns caused this mass shooting, we need to ban everything! We blame those gun rights advocates. They have the blood of innocent children on their hands. We need common sense gun safety measures to make sure this doesn't happen again. We need to ban AR 15's.

Us: Oh, please don't take our rights away. If you promise not to ban guns, we'll give you red flag laws.

Them: Well, throw in universal background checks and we'll accept this time.

Us: Oh, thank you. It's a deal.

Whew! We we saved ourselves from AR's being banned.

No we didn't. And this is the fallacy in that thinking. If they could ban ARs they wouldn't need compromise. And if they CAN ban ARs without our compromise, they WILL do it. So compromising is the only action we can take that itself could bring about more gun control. The fact that they need our compromise for them to get anything, means that we don't have to compromise. There's no downside to not compromising, because either they have the political capital to do it or they don't. And if they don't, they can only get it done with our compromise. And we don't compromise, worst they can do is call us mean names, which they do anyway.

The way to handle the mean names is to have a platform and use it to rebut those silly straw arguments against gun rights proponents. But compromising to avoid mean names, is tacit admission that those mean names are fitting. When they tell you that you have the blood of innocents on your hands, and that makes you compromise, you're agreeing that you have blood on your hands.


ETA: This may **** off the faithfuls, but I gotta say it. Using all the platforms we have to rebut the silly straw arguments against gun rights is tricky. Not all platforms are helpful. I for example, as much as I love the Nuge, Ted Nugent is not the best spokesman to put out in front. People see all the negative gun owner/stereotypes when they see him. I think someone like Colion Noir breaks the stereotypical gun owner, and thus is much more difficult to dismiss as some crazy old gun nut.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

We all understand the argument you're making. And let me say, I understand the anxiety here. It's a natural thing to think. But this is actually a fallacy; the thinking that if we don't compromise they'll take away even more rights. So maybe that conversation looks to you like:

Them: those evil guns caused this mass shooting, we need to ban everything! We blame those gun rights advocates. They have the blood of innocent children on their hands. We need common sense gun safety measures to make sure this doesn't happen again. We need to ban AR 15's.

Us: Oh, please don't take our rights away. If you promise not to ban guns, we'll give you red flag laws.

Them: Well, throw in universal background checks and we'll accept this time.

Us: Oh, thank you. It's a deal.

Whew! We we saved ourselves from AR's being banned.

No we didn't. And this is the fallacy in that thinking. If they could ban ARs they wouldn't need compromise. And if they CAN ban ARs without our compromise, they WILL do it. So compromising is the path towards more gun control, not less. The fact that they need our compromise for them to get anything, means that we don't have to compromise. There's no downside to not compromising, because either they have the political capital to do it or they don't. And if they don't, they can only get it done with our compromise. And we don't compromise, worst they can do is call us mean names, which they do anyway.

The way to handle the mean names is to have a platform and use it to rebut those silly straw arguments against gun rights proponents. But compromising to avoid mean names, is tacit admission that those mean names are fitting.


ETA: This may **** off the faithfuls, but I gotta say it. Using all the platforms we have to rebut the silly straw arguments against gun rights is tricky. Not all platforms are helpful. I for example, as much as I love the Nuge, Ted Nugent is not the best spokesman to put out in front. People see all the negative gun owner/stereotypes when they see him. I think someone like Colion Noir breaks the stereotypical gun owner, and thus is much more difficult to dismiss as some crazy old gun nut.

jamil, while we've often disagreed on things, I've found your voice of all the others posting here on INGO to be the one that most often strove to be completely fair, and fully understand the other side. I greatly appreciate that.

That being said, you've completely misunderstood the argument I'm making here. That's NOT my thinking! Your example does NOT represent real compromise. As you pointed out, it represents giving up our rights "for free" while falsely calling it a compromise because they supposedly didn't do everything they threatened to. Everything I've said up until this point has been suggested as a strategy for taking away their false narrative of compromise that they get away with every single time.

The whole reason I started this thread is because I believe that we need to start putting the conversation out there that real compromise would involve giving gun owners something in return for their concessions, such as repealing some of the endless multitude of ineffective and useless restrictions that are currently on the books. Yet people keep saying that I'm calling for the same old false version of compromise that the left peddles. I honestly don't know how I can be any more clear in saying it: I DON'T WANT any more of their false compromise, not even in the sense of seeing it as a necessary evil, like cutting off a gangrenous limb. But if we could move towards a REAL compromise, one where we receive something of more or less equal value back from the other side, then I would be willing, as an intermediate step, to accept that for the time being as a preferable alternative to the way things have inevitably been going every time up until now.

Yes, there's also been a few people on here who understood my actual point, and they gave me some pretty convincing arguments for why, on the practical level, that is unlikely to ever work, and I can accept that. But people still come on here every day telling me that what I'm calling for is the old, false version of compromise, and I don't know how to get across that I am NOT.

Okay, sorry, rant over.

 

[jamil]

jamil, while we've often disagreed on things, I've found your voice of all the others posting here on INGO to be the one that most often strove to be completely fair, and fully understand the other side. I greatly appreciate that.

That being said, you've completely misunderstood the argument I'm making here. That's NOT my thinking! Your example does NOT represent real compromise. As you pointed out, it represents giving up our rights "for free" while falsely calling it a compromise because they supposedly didn't do everything they threatened to. Everything I've said up until this point has been suggested as a strategy for taking away their false narrative of compromise that they get away with every single time.

That's fair. But in my example, I couldn't make it realistic and be your way.

Seriously though I do understand your argument. I think we all do because we've been talking about this **** since I've been on INGO. 11 years or whatever. And I'm sure it was discussed before that. You're not the first to talk about it. So it's not the case that, but for us understanding, we'd agree with you. We don't disagree because we don't understand. We disagree because it still erodes more rights than we could possibly get.

But my joke is kinda true. I can't write a scenario that is realistic, where we offer some compromise and get something meaningful back in return, that could be worth what we're giving up. The gun control game is incremental. They've said as much. They've behaved like that's their strategy. Whenever something like a mass shooting happens, they pull out their media points and start hurling insults, and demands, and whatnot, hoping to get something.

So let's compare my "get nothing" scenario to your "get something" scenario. Let's say we trade red flag laws for suppressors. Even if they gave us suppressors, it works the same way. They got red flag laws which, no matter how written, in the wrong hands can be used as a tool against law abiding, sane, gun owners. So what if we can now buy suppressors without NFA, but they, along with all the guns, get taken away because someone makes an accusation, and then all the people in the due process loop are anti-gun zealots? This is how something like that would work in progressive cities. It's already happened.

There is no compromise that can be made with them to get something truly meaningful in return, and still not get ****ed, because they're not as stupid as they look.

The whole reason I started this thread is because I believe that we need to start putting the conversation out there that real compromise would involve giving gun owners something in return for their concessions, such as repealing some of the endless multitude of ineffective and useless restrictions that are currently on the books. Yet people keep saying that I'm calling for the same old false version of compromise that the left peddles. I honestly don't know how I can be any more clear in saying it: I DON'T WANT any more of their false compromise, not even in the sense of seeing it as a necessary evil, like cutting off a gangrenous limb. But if we could move towards a REAL compromise, one where we receive something of more or less equal value back from the other side, then I would be willing, as an intermediate step, to accept that for the time being as a preferable alternative to the way things have inevitably been going every time up until now.

Again, I'm sorry I put that scenario like I did. I do understand that your compromise proposes something for something. I think I made a post on that earlier in the thread.

But, compromise, even getting something back, still works like I said it would, and the important part is the part after the scenario. We don't have to compromise, nor should we. If they dangle something we want, the thing they're asking for will be to onerous. That they need the compromise is indicative of that that they can't do it without compromise or they would have. Again, the only downside to not compromising is they call us mean things, which we can easily rebut.

Yes, there's also been a few people on here who understood my actual point, and they gave me some pretty convincing arguments for why, on the practical level, that is unlikely to ever work, and I can accept that. But people still come on here every day telling me that what I'm calling for is the old, false version of compromise, and I don't know how to get across that I am NOT.

Okay, sorry, rant over.

Okay, so about what we get in return, can it even be anything close to equal? Staying with Red flag laws, as an example. They are a real problem for law abiding gun owners when in the hands of authorities who are anti-gun zealots. It gives them a starting point to construct a machine of resistance to gun ownership. Look up Emily Miller and read her story about trying to get a gun in DC (I think it was DC, it's been years). That's the kind of machine they build. It's a constant fight. Every compromise, even if we get something back, is a cog they can put in the machine that resists our 2A rights. Eventually they'll have enough cogs to do some real damage to gun rights. How expensive can we make the next cog?

I'm not sure there's an equivalent value we could get in return for something like that. Maybe complete repeal of NFA? National constitutional carry maybe? repealing the EO that prohibits import of certain firearms and ammunition? I dunno. If they want for that, then you'd be assured the thing they're getting is worth it to them, which should worry us.

 

[eldirector]

Found these fitting...

"To compromise simply means that you go a tiny bit below what you know is right"
- Joyce Meyer

"All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take. "
- Gandhi

 

[AndreusMaximus]

That's fair. But in my example, I couldn't make it realistic and be your way.

Seriously though I do understand your argument. I think we all do because we've been talking about this **** since I've been on INGO. 11 years or whatever. And I'm sure it was discussed before that. You're not the first to talk about it. So it's not the case that, but for us understanding, we'd agree with you. We don't disagree because we don't understand. We disagree because it still erodes more rights than we could possibly get.

But my joke is kinda true. I can't write a scenario that is realistic, where we offer some compromise and get something meaningful back in return, that could be worth what we're giving up. The gun control game is incremental. They've said as much. They've behaved like that's their strategy. Whenever something like a mass shooting happens, they pull out their media points and start hurling insults, and demands, and whatnot, hoping to get something.

So let's compare my "get nothing" scenario to your "get something" scenario. Let's say we trade red flag laws for suppressors. Even if they gave us suppressors, it works the same way. They got red flag laws which, no matter how written, in the wrong hands can be used as a tool against law abiding, sane, gun owners. So what if we can now buy suppressors without NFA, but they, along with all the guns, get taken away because someone makes an accusation, and then all the people in the due process loop are anti-gun zealots? This is how something like that would work in progressive cities. It's already happened.

There is no compromise that can be made with them to get something truly meaningful in return, and still not get ****ed, because they're not as stupid as they look.



Again, I'm sorry I put that scenario like I did. I do understand that your compromise proposes something for something. I think I made a post on that earlier in the thread.

But, compromise, even getting something back, still works like I said it would, and the important part is the part after the scenario. We don't have to compromise, nor should we. If they dangle something we want, the thing they're asking for will be to onerous. That they need the compromise is indicative of that that they can't do it without compromise or they would have. Again, the only downside to not compromising is they call us mean things, which we can easily rebut.




Okay, so about what we get in return, can it even be anything close to equal? Staying with Red flag laws, as an example. They are a real problem for law abiding gun owners when in the hands of authorities who are anti-gun zealots. It gives them a starting point to construct a machine of resistance to gun ownership. Look up Emily Miller and read her story about trying to get a gun in DC (I think it was DC, it's been years). That's the kind of machine they build. It's a constant fight. Every compromise, even if we get something back, is a cog they can put in the machine that resists our 2A rights. Eventually they'll have enough cogs to do some real damage to gun rights. How expensive can we make the next cog?

I'm not sure there's an equivalent value we could get in return for something like that. Maybe complete repeal of NFA? National constitutional carry maybe? repealing the EO that prohibits import of certain firearms and ammunition? I dunno. If they want for that, then you'd be assured the thing they're getting is worth it to them, which should worry us.

Okay, I'm still having a bit of trouble understanding one thing; it sounds to me now like what you're saying is that you gave an example of my thinking, that you knew actually wasn't my thinking, but you used it anyways because it was the only realistic scenario you could come up with. That would seem a bit unfair, and frankly, unlike you, so maybe I'm getting lost here?

As for the practical issues, yes, I can see, and accept the argument that you're making, except for one point, that I don't think is stressed enough, which is that between the rabid anti-gun left whose only end goal is to eradicate our 2A rights and the pro-2A right who will faithfully defend them, you have a number of unprincipled politicians in the middle who don't care one way or another, just so long as they get reelected, and they think the best path to reelection is being seen as a compromising "moderate."

Your argument seem to go something like this:

There are only two possible scenarios, either, A) they can get their infringements passed without compromising or B) they can't

In case A) we won't even be having a conversation with them, because they'll just do it without needing anything from us.

In case B) there's not point in having a conversation with them either, because without votes from our side they can't do anything, so the only downside to refusing to compromise is being called mean names.



I think this argument oversimplifies things, because it ignores the fact that there are "moderates" who will say, "well, fine, I'll vote for your gun infringements, as long as I can say that I was a nice fellow, willing to be moderate and compromise with the other side." Because of this reality, the downside to always refusing compromise is that these types will always vote with the other side, and will get to keep using their false definition of compromise. There may be no helping that, and I'm willing to accept that conclusion. But people keep talking to me like I'm arguing in favor of the fake "compromise" that we've been getting this whole time, and that's just incorrect.

 

[jamil]

Okay, I'm still having a bit of trouble understanding one thing; it sounds to me now like what you're saying is that you gave an example of my thinking, that you knew actually wasn't my thinking, but you used it anyways because it was the only realistic scenario you could come up with. That would seem a bit unfair, and frankly, unlike you, so maybe I'm getting lost here?

Eh, don't take that part too seriously. The and "seriously though" were intended as indicators that was a joke. I know what you're saying, but didn't represent it as you were. And I apologized for that.

As for the practical issues, yes, I can see, and accept the argument that you're making, except for one point, that I don't think is stressed enough, which is that between the rabid anti-gun left whose only end goal is to eradicate our 2A rights and the pro-2A right who will faithfully defend them, you have a number of unprincipled politicians in the middle who don't care one way or another, just so long as they get reelected, and they think the best path to reelection is being seen as a compromising "moderate."

How is compromising to get something we want, assuming that the something is of greater value than the thing we give up and attainable, going to assuage the feigned 2A advocating, seat-protecting politician?

As an example, and this doesn't involve compromise per se, but it does involve how squishy Republicans operate, when legislation might come to a vote that increases gun rights that scare them. We've been trying to get constitutional carry in Indiana for years. Every time it gets good play on the floor, looks like it might get passed. But then the squishes behind the scenes have found a way to kill it without having tell their constituents who supported them, that they ****ed them yet again. Every year. It's exactly like you said, they're afraid of the press they'd get if it's passed. Finally, we got it anyway.

Your argument seem to go something like this:

There are only two possible scenarios, either, A) they can get their infringements passed without compromising or B) they can't

In case A) we won't even be having a conversation with them, because they'll just do it without needing anything from us.

In case B) there's not point in having a conversation with them either, because without votes from our side they can't do anything, so the only downside to refusing to compromise is being called mean names.



I think this argument oversimplifies things, because it ignores the fact that there are "moderates" who will say, "well, fine, I'll vote for your gun infringements, as long as I can say that I was a nice fellow, willing to be moderate and compromise with the other side." Because of this reality, the downside to always refusing compromise is that these types will always vote with the other side, and will get to keep using their false definition of compromise. There may be no helping that, and I'm willing to accept that conclusion. But people keep talking to me like I'm arguing in favor of the fake "compromise" that we've been getting this whole time, and that's just incorrect.

What makes you think that the "moderate" who will vote for gun infringements to appease the mob would agree to anything meaningful in return? The part of my argument you didn't account for is the part that requires something of greater value than we gave up. So an example I gave is red flag laws. A relevant example since the legislation approved contains that. Okay so what's the thing we could get in return that's as valuable as that? And whatever that is, if the squishy politicians are willing to cave for nothing in return anyway, why would they now say, we'll give you this for that?

Those Republicans think that they compromised in a meaningful way. Okay you can have this, but we want the rules around how that's implemented to be that. That had nothing for us. Zero. Okay, so let's back up. Let's say when the negotiations started, the conversation started with, we'll give you your red flag laws if you make constitutional carry a federal law.

Them: Oh no! We can't do that! How dare you! it would be just like the Wild Wild West all over again! See, you won't compromise in good faith. You have the blood of....

Squishies: Okay. How about we make reciprocity national, so every state has to accept every other state's carry license/permit?

Them: Oh no! We can't do that! How dare you! It would be just like the Wild Wild West all over again! See, you won't compromise in good faith. You have the blood of....

I think those two barter items are at least in the same magnitude with red flag laws. So now, can you picture any of those squishes who compromised for nothing in return actually bartering on our behalf for either constitutional carry or nation reciprocity? Anything that could be worth giving up something important, can't possibly be bartered for, because it's not going to fit the program of incrementally removing gun rights.

So the point with all that is that the squishes don't matter. The original statement is still true. If they can get gun control they can get it anyway without compromise. If they need the compromise, then they can't get it. Your squishes fit into the first category because they're not going to bargain for something meaningful in return anyway. They're not on our side. But even if they were, they can't get anything meaningful out of anti-gun zealots because the meaningful stuff doesn't bring them closer to their goal.

 

[KG1]

Just checking this thread to see if there is anything new to be gained. Nope.

 

[jamil]

Just checking this thread to see if there is anything new to be gained. Nope.

Hey, I'm giving it a go. AM seems to be a good sport. But I suspect we'll agree to disagree in the end.

 

[KG1]

Hey, I'm giving it a go. AM seems to be a good sport. But I suspect we'll agree to disagree in the end.

My point is has anyone's mind really been changed despite the wall of words that have been invested in this thread? Will throwing even more words at it and trying to clarify a point a thousand different times in a thousand different ways without satisfaction change anything?

In the end it's not really my call. I don't have to participate in the discussion if I don't want to. I was just curious as to when the whistle might blow indicating the point of agreeing to disagree has been reached because nothing seems to be advancing any further for anyone to grasp on to.

 

[robgott1]

We've compromised enough with the communist democrats...no more! Unjust laws should be ignored!
View attachment 205687

This I agree with!

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Hey, I'm giving it a go. AM seems to be a good sport. But I suspect we'll agree to disagree in the end.

My point is has anyone's mind really been changed despite the wall of words that have been invested in this thread? Will throwing even more words at it and trying to clarify a point a thousand different times in a thousand different ways without satisfaction change anything?

In the end it's not really my call. I don't have to participate in the discussion if I don't want to. I was just curious as to when the whistle might blow indicating the point of agreeing to disagree has been reached because nothing seems to be advancing any further for anyone to grasp on to.

Well, despite feeling like 90% of this thread has been talking past each other and not understanding what the other person was saying, I have to say I'm more at the point of being persuaded for the most part to agree with the consensus laid out by jamil, twangbanger, and a few others. Any disagreements I may still have are probably of too fine a shade to be worth attempting to dig into or explain in an online format, so I'm happy to leave the debate rest where it is.

But I have a feeling there will still be a few more people periodically jump on here to tell me how I want to give up more of our rights for nothing in return, and I'll still be happy to come back on here and correct them.

 

[KG1]

Well, despite feeling like 90% of this thread has been talking past each other and not understanding what the other person was saying, I have to say I'm more at the point of being persuaded for the most part to agree with the consensus laid out by jamil, twangbanger, and a few others. Any disagreements I may still have are probably of too fine a shade to be worth attempting to dig into or explain in an online format, so I'm happy to leave the debate rest where it is.

But I have a feeling there will still be a few more people periodically jump on here to tell me how I want to give up more of our rights for nothing in return, and I'll still be happy to come back on here and correct them.

Nothing against you or jamil for continuing to argue the issue. I was speaking for myself when I said there wasn't anything new IMO to be gained for me to follow.

 

[jamil]

Well, despite feeling like 90% of this thread has been talking past each other and not understanding what the other person was saying, I have to say I'm more at the point of being persuaded for the most part to agree with the consensus laid out by jamil, twangbanger, and a few others. Any disagreements I may still have are probably of too fine a shade to be worth attempting to dig into or explain in an online format, so I'm happy to leave the debate rest where it is.

But I have a feeling there will still be a few more people periodically jump on here to tell me how I want to give up more of our rights for nothing in return, and I'll still be happy to come back on here and correct them.

It’s the price you pay to be different.

I occasionally get people correcting me on my errant ways on posts where I have ideas that are contrary to INGO

 

[Ingomike]

It’s the price you pay to be different.

I occasionally get people correcting me on my errant ways on posts where I have ideas that are contrary to INGO

Yep, nobody likes the middle man... LOL

 

[rugertoter]

If any part of the Constitution is compromised, it Is no longer a Constitution.

....and THAT, pretty much sums it ALL up.

 

[KG1]

It’s the price you pay to be different.

I occasionally get people correcting me on my errant ways on posts where I have ideas that are contrary to INGO

Is saying that "jamil is full of himself" an example of a correction in your errant ways?