How do we go about real compromise?

[KG1]

But what are we supposed to actually do, then?

Yes, there are many, many people on the left who have absolutely no interest in compromise; they want to us turned into disarmed, obedient sheep who go along with their new world order without question, and nothing will rid them of their relentless pursuit towards that goal.

But the fact is that there are also a large number of people in this country who don't know, don't understand, and don't care about our 2nd amendment rights one way or another. And many of them just want to be told that their representative worked across the aisle to compromise and get things done, yada yada. And when the left comes to these people with a bill that they claim is a "compromise" that doesn't take away 2A rights, but just puts "common sense" limits on them, these people, and more importantly the representatives they elected, go for it.

When you have near-equal numbers of people who actually care split on both sides of an issue, then this is how you end up. The ones in the middle who are ignorant and don't care are the swing votes that make the difference, and the reason the left has been so successful is because they know just how to play the twisted game of getting these people to go along. As much as we hate to do it, I honestly think we're going to have to learn to play the game sooner or later, because I just don't see a majority of Americans coming to appreciate and value our 2A rights any time soon.

Ok. I've heard where you stand on this ad nauseum. You won't be convinced otherwise, and neither will I. The only thing I concede to is the word count, so I'll be concise and stand by my post #37.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Ok. I've heard where you stand on this ad nauseum. You won't be convinced otherwise, and neither will I. The only thing I concede to is the word count, so I'll be concise and stand by my post #37.

The answer is to stiffen the spine and not get all wobbly by engaging in excessive hand wringing. "I'm afraid of this, I'm afraid of that"

Having a stiff spine is great, but if our spines weren't also flexible, we'd have a hard time surviving as a species.

 

[edporch]

The only "compromise" I would consider is to simply enforce the laws we already have.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

OP's location checks out...

 

[BigRed]

 

[AndreusMaximus]

OP's location checks out...

Touché

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I love the spirit, but are you sure this attitude is actually going to make things better for us?

 

[BigRed]

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.

As you ponder "compromise" with these tyrannical worthless pieces of ****, perhaps you should reflect on why the Second Amendment is there to begin with.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

As you ponder "compromise" with these tyrannical worthless pieces of ****, perhaps you should reflect on why the Second Amendment is there to begin with.

If we're ready to go there I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be talking about it here.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I say no to compromising on 2A rights.

I also say no to "doing nothing".

I say yes to doing those things that for a long time we have been preaching will make a difference, using existing laws, but the Dems have blocked because they only want to take away 2A rights.

For example, prosecuting violent felons with guns. Another is prosecuting straw purchasers for violent felons with guns. Another is prosecuting prohibited persons who attempt to purchase firearms at dealers. (i.e. "sensible gun control", flip their own script)

It has been a prosecutorial discretion issue and the US AGs of big cities just haven't done it and Garland has shown zero indications that he would prioritize prosecuting actual criminals breaking the actual gun laws already on the books.

Slice a big chunk of DOJ budget for specifically these investigations and prosecutions... don't do it and you loose budget/funding... hit the bureaucracy where it lives.

Or, alternativiely, propose new DOJ funding earmarked for these specific crimes. Then Garland either does it or has to explain why he's continuing to let "bad guys" get or try to get guns.

 

[BE Mike]

This if my fear, too, but I'm not ready to give up the battle yet. That's what they want.

I'm a contributor to gun rights associations. I'm far from surrendering, but I have to be realistic about it. Something is coming. I just hope it is something we can live with.

 

[BigRed]

I recall an earlier time when Patrick Henry was being encouraged to "compromise" with tyrants.

His speech is well worth reading.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

View the original text of history's most important documents, including Patrick Henry's 'Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death' Speech

www.ushistory.org

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I say no to compromising on 2A rights.

I also say no to "doing nothing".

I say yes to doing those things that for a long time we have been preaching will make a difference, using existing laws, but the Dems have blocked because they only want to take away 2A rights.

For example, prosecuting violent felons with guns. Another is prosecuting straw purchasers for violent felons with guns. Another is prosecuting prohibited persons who attempt to purchase firearms at dealers. (i.e. "sensible gun control", flip their own script)

It has been a prosecutorial discretion issue and the US AGs of big cities just haven't done it and Garland has shown zero indications that he would prioritize prosecuting actual criminals breaking the actual gun laws already on the books.

Slice a big chunk of DOJ budget for specifically these investigations and prosecutions... don't do it and you loose budget/funding... hit the bureaucracy where it lives.

Or, alternativiely, propose new DOJ funding earmarked for these specific crimes. Then Garland either does it or has to explain why he's continuing to let "bad guys" get or try to get guns.

These are all great ideas, and I sure hope that republicans start to push for them if/when they get a fighting chance in Congress.

For the moment, though, democrats have the upper hand, and we need to talk about how to fight from behind.

Maybe, though, if these ideas were pitched right they could even be accomplished with a democrat majority in Congress. I'd be all for that.

 

[bwframe]

With all due respect, I don't know why this issue keeps getting posted about?

All discussion of this does is give the anti-gunners talking points and and information about the things we gun owners believe to be the "most" important. Where do you think the anti's come up with that quoted statistic used in every anti-gun statement? "90% of gun owners, (NRA members, etc.) want universal background checks." We all know that ******** came from out of context "surveys", and is a flat out lie in actuality, yet it's used every time. No mention at all of it being firearms registration and eventually confiscation.

You folks are all aware that the anti's do frequent gun forums to find the fuel for their fire correct?

All the answers to any questions were settled with the founders...

...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...


.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'm a contributor to gun rights associations. I'm far from surrendering, but I have to be realistic about it. Something is coming. I just hope it is something we can live with.

Me too! That's the whole point I'm trying to make; something is coming down the pike, we can't avoid that reality. Isn't it more worthwhile if our representatives can at least delay it, or somehow put something good into it? Isn't that better than an empty show of "never compromising"?

 

[Jaybird1980]

With all due respect, I don't know why this issue keeps getting posted about?

All discussion of this does is give the anti-gunners talking points and and information about the things we gun owners believe to be the "most" important. Where do you think the anti's come up with that quoted statistic used in every anti-gun statement? "90% of gun owners, (NRA members, etc.) want universal background checks." We all know that ******** came from out of context "surveys", and is a flat out lie in actuality, yet it's used every time. No mention at all of being the registration and eventually confiscation.

You folks are all aware that the anti's do frequent gun forums to find the fuel for their fire correct?

All the answers to any questions were settled with the founders...

...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...


.

This ^^^^^^^^^^

We've been there and done that.

Magazine limits, waiting periods they did nothing good.
We are lucky that we got the stuff back, we won't be lucky again.

Stop it, put the blame where it belongs and stop giving away your rights. Period.

 

[actaeon277]

I love the spirit, but are you sure this attitude is actually going to make things better for us?

The same can be said about compromise.

Sooner or later, you have to stand, not bend.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I recall an earlier time when Patrick Henry was being encouraged to "compromise" with tyrants.

His speech is well worth reading.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

View the original text of history's most important documents, including Patrick Henry's 'Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death' Speech

www.ushistory.org

Patrick Henry was not the slightest bit shy about his belief that armed resistance was the only recourse left against the British. If you mean by quoting his speech that political action at this point is vain, and that armed resistance to our government is the only path left for us, then please say so. Otherwise, I'm not sure what application his speech has to this topic. If we think we can continue living peacefully in a country where the majority do not share our beliefs regarding our rights, then compromise is not going to be optional.

 

[bwframe]

Let's just ask George Washington and Paul Revere about compromise.

Thank God they didn't cave to the waffling crowd of that day.

We'd all be speaking German and Japanese had that been the case. And today, learning Russian and Chinese, maybe some Arabic?


.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Let's just ask George Washington and Paul Revere about compromise.


.

Thing is, they did compromise, and for a time they did seek peace. When they judged that the time had come when compromise and peace-seeking was no longer possible, they took up arms and fought.

What they did not do is go around publicly proclaiming that there was no more time for compromise, and that they weren't going to accept anything less that the full recognition of their rights, but then turn around and meekly submit to the laws of the British empire when the British army showed up at their door.

I take it as a given that we're not ready to resist with arms at this point. So shouldn't we talking about how we can at least make the infringements on our rights less onerous than otherwise? Because you and I both know that whatever law gets passed by Congress this time, we're all going to be living with it, and we don't have a modern day George Washington or Paul Revere to lead us in throwing off the yoke of tyranny.