How do we go about real compromise?

[manifest destiny]

The "compromising" never stops. First this, then that, then everything. Over and over this game gets played and the only thing that ever gets compromised is my freedom.

 

[actaeon277]

IF ONLY the thousands of previous gun laws had did what they were supposed to do.

But.. if we only compromise a bit more.. THEN it will be okay.

 

[MCgrease08]

Waiting for a politician in Washington DC to preserve our rights is a fool's errand. The only way to affect real change is by impacting the people directly in front of you. That means talking to your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, kids, and anyone who will listen about the wisdom of our founding fathers and why we have the form of government that we do.

It's also critical to take people shooting and expose them to gun safety and marksmanship. Get them to understand that they're being lied to. Help them understand the importance of the right to self defense and why the second amendment exists. Help them get active in petitioning their local representatives and show them how to demand better representation.

We deserve the government we have. Nearly all of us have allowed the erosion to take place over decades because we're too fat and happy to preserve what can so easily be taken. But compromise ain't the way. First we have to stop the bleeding and that means getting local folks in office who give a rats ass and who are willing to say "no more."

 

[Twangbanger]

I am NOT in favor any of the nonsense that leftists falsely call compromise. It sounds like you've accepted their false definition of the word, so for the purposes of this conversation, perhaps we could use a different word? Like maybe "trade-offs"? Would you accept working towards a "trade-off" where we get some of our rights back in exchange for something they're more than likely going to take from us anyway? Isn't that better than the losing game we've been playing?

And of course I never spoke in Maryland, I've never lived there. Yes, I've spoken my 3 minutes at city and county council here in Indiana more than once.

Two points:

1) The highlighted portion is the weakness of your argument. I don't need to really argue against it, because you've already done it for me. By admitting you think "they" are going to be able to take certain things from us, anyway, you've perfectly summarized why your own idea won't work, at least according to your own reasoning. Why would the "other side" voluntarily give up something, to get something which, by your own admission, they're already going to get, anyway? Do you think they're idiots? Do you think they'll abolish the NFA and allow new machine guns to flow into private hands - after they've worked tirelessly for 30 years to get semiautos banned - in order to get some kind of background check, sooner? When, by your own reasoning, they're probably going to get the background check (or whatever) anyway? You seem to think "they" will make a quick deal that gives "us" something of value. I don't think they will. I think that once we start moving rhetorically in that direction, it moves the line in the sand and makes it harder for Republicans to oppose anything similar.

2) You keep saying we're losing. What legislative losses have happened to us at the federal level, since the AWB of '94? Was there something significant I missed? I'm not talking about unforced errors like Trump's self-own on the bumpstock ban. I'm talking about situations where we engaged our full might in the fight cage of Congress since 1994, and lost? If you can't name anything, then I think you need to quit making that claim.

 

[BigRed]

First, none of what you listed is a compromise; it is purely your rights being taken away, and you received nothing in return. That's not compromise.

Up until death, natural rights are not "taken away". They are suppressed. They remain as such until exercised. They are unalienable and not negotiable.

I suspect my "upbringing" was substantially different than yours.

 

[BigRed]

No ****.

 

[BigRed]

You forgot MF.

That's mother ******.

 

[cbhausen]

Up until death, natural rights are not "taken away". They are suppressed. They remain as such until exercised. They are unalienable and not negotiable.

I suspect my "upbringing" was substantially different than yours.

As I was catching up on this thread I thought to myself “Self, the Second Amendment is REPEAL-PROOF. It doesn’t give us anything; it affirms that which we already have and always will.”

No matter what any politician says.

Basically, the same thing you said in a different way.

 

[BigRed]

As I was catching up on this thread I thought to myself “Self, the Second Amendment is REPEAL-PROOF. It doesn’t give us anything; it affirms that which we already have and always will.”

No matter what any politician says.

Basically, the same thing you said in a different way.

Damn strait.

Centralizers do not understand this...at their own risk.

 

[bwframe]

As I was catching up on this thread I thought to myself “Self, the Second Amendment is REPEAL-PROOF. It doesn’t give us anything; it affirms that which we already have and always will.”

No matter what any politician says.

Basically, the same thing you said in a different way.

There is only a Second Amendment because we have a Second Amendment.


.

 

[Tombs]

Again, not a compromise; that's just saying, hey, it's our turn to get what WE want.

Which sounds grand and all; but is this a realistic goal when nothing has happened at the federal level for as long as I can remember except the further erosion of our rights?

Stand your ground and be willing to go to the grave for your rights. (I would word that differently, but forum rules)

The only realistic goal is telling them to get bent. Otherwise they're taking it all no matter how much you compromise away.

 

[KLB]

There is only a Second Amendment because we have a Second Amendment.


.

The sad thing is that probably the only reason we can still own guns is due to the existence of the BoR. I am thankful that the founders decided to create them.

 

[patience0830]

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.

Perhaps soon it will be time, once again, to form a "more perfect union."

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The "compromising" never stops. First this, then that, then everything. Over and over this game gets played and the only thing that ever gets compromised is my freedom.

Exactly! That's why I think we need to discuss workable strategies to change how the game is played. If you think jumping straight to "no more infringement, period" is a working strategy, I'm happy to hear why you think that; but for me if we could at least move from giving up freedom and getting nothing back to instead having a bit of take in the game, that would be at least a small step in the right direction.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

IF ONLY the thousands of previous gun laws had did what they were supposed to do.

But.. if we only compromise a bit more.. THEN it will be okay.

Compromise a bit more? When have we ever had a real compromise? So far it's just been our rights being taken away and nothing being given back in return. So in my book, as far as I'm aware, there's never been a real compromise, at least not at the federal level.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Waiting for a politician in Washington DC to preserve our rights is a fool's errand. The only way to affect real change is by impacting the people directly in front of you. That means talking to your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, kids, and anyone who will listen about the wisdom of our founding fathers and why we have the form of government that we do.

It's also critical to take people shooting and expose them to gun safety and marksmanship. Get them to understand that they're being lied to. Help them understand the importance of the right to self defense and why the second amendment exists. Help them get active in petitioning their local representatives and show them how to demand better representation.

We deserve the government we have. Nearly all of us have allowed the erosion to take place over decades because we're too fat and happy to preserve what can so easily be taken. But compromise ain't the way. First we have to stop the bleeding and that means getting local folks in office who give a rats ass and who are willing to say "no more."

I understand and appreciate this perspective; until the general population is more educated and aware, trying to preserve our rights by political means will be a losing battle.

But at the moment, we still do have at least some politicians who are "on our side", at least in theory. So maybe it's worth a conversation about what we should be asking/expecting them to do to make the most of the situation? And given the state of the fight we're in, they're going to have be willing to get scrappy. Maybe it's just a waste of time, I dunno...

 

[KG1]

The sad thing is that probably the only reason we can still own guns is due to the existence of the BoR. I am thankful that the founders decided to create them.

Plenty of countries don't have anything like our American Constitution and look what's happening/happened to them. (Canada is the latest example) If it weren't for our BoR, especially the 2nd Amendment the jackals in this country would have us already in the same predicament.

Even with that they are still hell bent on destroying our Constitutional rights. That's why it is so crucial to fight them every step of the way to preserve our rights and stress to everyone why it is so important to do so in order to ensure the liberty of all free people.

Especially of utmost importance is the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the Constitution by our Founders designed to protect us from such a tyrannical take over by the Federal government like what we see happening in other countries without those rights.

Our Glorius Constitutional 2nd Amendment right is a PEOPLES right that "Shall NOT be Infringed"

The anti-Constitution jackals are the ones pushing us closer to the edge of things that cannot be openly discussed. They are the ones that are a threat to liberty. They wish our Constitutional rights did not exist so they could more easily attempt to carry out their tyrannical bidding.

I WILL NOT compromise.

 

[actaeon277]

Compromise a bit more? When have we ever had a real compromise? So far it's just been our rights being taken away and nothing being given back in return. So in my book, as far as I'm aware, there's never been a real compromise, at least not at the federal level.

And why on earth do you think it's gonna be ANY different?

There is NO COMPROMISE with them.
NONE.

So stop pretending, and dig our feet in.

 

[actaeon277]

IF ONLY the thousands of previous gun laws had did what they were supposed to do.

But.. if we only compromise a bit more.. THEN it will be okay.

Is it "did" or "done"?


I guess it doesn't matter, because they DON'T work, and there is NO compromise.

How about asking an anti-gunner what THEY are willing to compromise on.
I bet their only idea of compromise is to demand 7 things, and only get 4.
But they will NOT give up on anything.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Two points:

1) The highlighted portion is the weakness of your argument. I don't need to really argue against it, because you've already done it for me. By admitting you think "they" are going to be able to take certain things from us, anyway, you've perfectly summarized why your own idea won't work, at least according to your own reasoning. Why would the "other side" voluntarily give up something, to get something which, by your own admission, they're already going to get, anyway? Do you think they're idiots? Do you think they'll abolish the NFA and allow new machine guns to flow into private hands - after they've worked tirelessly for 30 years to get semiautos banned - in order to get some kind of background check, sooner? When, by your own reasoning, they're probably going to get the background check (or whatever) anyway? You seem to think "they" will make a quick deal that gives "us" something of value. I don't think they will. I think that once we start moving rhetorically in that direction, it moves the line in the sand and makes it harder for Republicans to oppose anything similar.

2) You keep saying we're losing. What legislative losses have happened to us at the federal level, since the AWB of '94? Was there something significant I missed? I'm not talking about unforced errors like Trump's self-own on the bumpstock ban. I'm talking about situations where we engaged our full might in the fight cage of Congress since 1994, and lost? If you can't name anything, then I think you need to quit making that claim.

1) I think I could better express my point by saying they are likely to get certain things anyways, IF the politicians on our side continue to take the "never compromise" approach, because that approach will drive the "moderates" in the middle towards the other side, because the other side keeps claiming that what they have represents "compromise", which is the gold calf for these sorts of politicians. But if our side had their own version of "compromise" to wave around and dangle in front of the monkeys in the middle, so to speak, it might give us a bit more leverage. Heck, if nothing else, it might serve as a strategy for killing anti-gun legislation. In an earlier post you said "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?" If played right, that sort of thing could be a win because if they really do admit to the above, then they're saying that the whole proposed bill is worthless both way, and we can just scrap it and start over. If nothing else, then, we've delayed things and bought ourselves more time while the midterms get closer and closer.

2) This is a fair point, and I can't really provide any counter-examples. In terms of "losing" I guess I was thinking in longer terms than since just '94. Since our country's founding we've had our 2A rights eroded by new legislation, but seldom had anything repealed; most victories seem to have come at the state level, or from court cases. I suppose, though, there's a case to be made that with no new anti-gun efforts having made it through congress in two and a half decades, now's not the time to think that compromise is our only option. I guess I was taking it as a foregone conclusion that something is going to come through from the democrats before the midterm elections; but maybe it's too early to be making that assumption.

Overall, in spite of wanting to add the above clarifications to my line of reasoning, I have to admit that your arguments are more convincing. Ultimately we'll have to wait and see what happens with what Congress is currently cooking up.

Also, if it seems like I'm moving the goalposts in my arguments, I apologize; my thinking is still evolving, and I'm not the most politically knowledgeable, and I'll admit it. I'm happy to be educated by others more knowledgeable than me, but I do think it would help if others were more willing to engage in a conversation about the viability of different strategies, recognizing that we have the same goal. So I really do appreciate your willingness to have this discussion with me. Thank you!