How do we go about real compromise?

[actaeon277]

Just a reminder, speaking about taking certain acts against the government is vorboten by INGO.

And people have been banned.

Including people that seem to be trying to get others to try to cross the line

 

[Robert Richardson]

Just a reminder, speaking about taking certain acts against the government is vorboten by INGO.

And people have been banned.

Including people that seem to be trying to get others to try to cross the line

I wouldn't think about doing anything like that. Geez, what do they think we are rebellious American Patriots???

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I wouldn't think about doing anything like that. Geez, what do they think we are rebellious American Patriots???

No, "they" think we are domestic terrorists.

 

[actaeon277]

Just trying to prevent an accidental discharge.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Just trying to prevent an accidental discharge.

No problem here brother. Sometimes we need parental guidance.

 

[actaeon277]

No problem here brother. Sometimes we need parental guidance.

Well crap, don't look to me for that.
I just like everyone on INGO to NOT get banned.
Even if I disagree with someone, I want to hear their argument.

if I don't, I'd rather just not read their post.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

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.

Just a reminder, speaking about taking certain acts against the government is vorboten by INGO.

And people have been banned.

Including people that seem to be trying to get others to try to cross the line

Yeah, this thread glows

 

[actaeon277]

 

[smokingman]

Show me any "right" in all of history where those who compromised did not lose in the end.



Compromising on a right means you do not have it,if you did you would not need to compromise.

 

[BigRed]

Yeah, this thread glows

Looks like a pack of English cigarettes.

 

[actaeon277]

Looks like a pack of English cigarettes.

nuke submariners.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think I see what you're trying to say, and it's a defensible position, although I suspect many will not agree with it. You're saying we're getting pucks shot at us, so let's strategically demand the ability to shoot some pucks the other way, too. I get that, and it's not wrong thinking, on its face.

Taking the points individually, I think it will be hard to trade suppressors for background checks in the current environment of mass shootings. The problem is that when we bring suppressor deregulation to the table, the anti-gunners are going to suddenly have an epiphany, and admit what we've been saying all along: background checks don't stop school shooters, because school shooters usually don't have backgrounds. Even worse, they'll say, now you're going to give them the legal means to do it silently, thereby enhancing their effectiveness because the police can't run immediately toward what they can't hear. Can the moderate squishies stand up to that line of reasoning?

The other problem is Charles Schumer isn't an idiot. Once our side has signaled they'll accept BGC, packaged in some form, we've just moved the negotiating line. He will then try to split that piece off. (On immigration, for example, he already said he would put dreamer amnesty on the floor as a single issue up-or-down vote). It's the old joke of, "We've already established what sort of woman you are, madam, now we're just haggling over price."

Then there's the problem of math. How many more votes do pro-gunners provide to the compromise bill, versus the number of liberals lost?

I suspect when NRA and the progun side are doing the math, they believe they're better off keeping the coalition solidly together on no compromise, than letting individual members "off the reservation" on certain issues, based on what the package deal of the moment includes. The messaging aspects of that are probably harder to control, than simply keeping everyone together on the no compromise message.

Then there's the perceived value of what we can get. Most of what you're proposing doesn't really get us "back" any rights. It's just eliminating permit fees for licenses and $200 tax stamps. It's a "Manhattan Indians" deal, trading concrete real estate for wooden nickels.

Many will see your idea as a moral, qualitative non-starter, but that's not where I'm coming from. I'm questioning on practical grounds, what can it get us, versus what we lose. Permitless carry is already being accomplished by states. The only federal goodie being suggested here seems to be NFA deregulation, and I'm not sure that's a big enough motivator for a big enough number of gunowners. Opening the pandoras box of 2A compromise, only for avoiding a $200 stamp in return? Not sure that's worth it to me, frankly. I sold my suppressors and full autos years before ammo got outrageous, because I just didn't use them enough. I don't know that enough gunowners think that juice is worth the squeeze.

(Jamil must be working today...)

Thank you for your points; honestly they seem well thought-out, and you are most likely correct.

Like I said before, I don't have a thoroughly thought-out proposal for a compromise that might actually work in practice, so I appreciate your taking the time to critique my train-of-thought ramblings. But this is exactly where I think we need to take the conversation; the political position we find ourselves in right now may or may not be the appropriate place where a compromise is the best we can hope for to avert an unabated disaster. But if such a situation does arise, I think it behooves us to be prepared to recognize it and take what we can from it, rather than lose an opportunity to make any kind of counterattack against the forces that would take away our rights because of a stubborn refusal to admit any sort of compromise.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Show me any "right" in all of history where those who compromised did not lose in the end.



Compromising on a right means you do not have it,if you did you would not need to compromise.

How about the right of blacks to not be slaves? That was compromised on a TON before they were finally emancipated. That may not have been a good thing, but it is an example.

 

[smokingman]

How about the right of blacks to not be slaves? That was compromised on a TON before they were finally emancipated. That may not have been a good thing, but it is an example.

How do you mean? I understand the 1850 compromise,but it did nothing for existing slaves or rights not to be a slave. It kept the status quo. No one gave up any rights or compromised on existing ones.

 

[BigRed]

How do you mean? I understand the 1850 compromise,but it did nothing for existing slaves or rights not to be a slave. It kept the status quo. No one gave up any rights or compromised on existing ones.

Soon, there will be claims that lincoln freed slaves.

 

[bwframe]

Abuses of Red Flag Law?

I'm trying to carry on a 'conversation' about current, and proposed, Red Flag Laws with a friend and was asked to provide any instances of their abuse; where was law fraudulently was used to intimidate, accuse, someone. A search on the internet using words like, abuse, fraudulent, illegal, etc...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[actaeon277]

All we've done, is give ground.

I'm done.

 

[actaeon277]

Does anyone think the Dems are going to keep their stranglehold after the election?

So, instead of giving in, or "working" with them... RUN OUT THE CLOCK.

 

[cbhausen]

To answer the OP‘s original question, “How do we go about real compromise?”

The answer is simple: We don’t. Enough is enough. I’m not about to crawl in bed with anyone who wants to take away my rights. I’m not doing anything wrong. I just wanna be left alone to live my life, raise my family and defend myself and my family as necessary if that time comes.

That is all. It is not complicated.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Here's your compromise. We do exactly what the constitution says and scrap all other laws. Anything else is infringement.