How do we go about real compromise?

[BigRed]

"Never open the door to a lesser evil, for other and greater ones invariably slink in after it."
― Baltasar Gracian,

 

[tude]

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.

Give it a rest.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

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.

I don't think that is the case... and it doesn't appear to be the case from what came out of the "bi-partisan" huddle... or the fact that a lot of the media instantly said, let's pass this.

IMO, this is about red and purple state Democrat Senators who "have to do something", but cannot do the party-line gun grabbing votes that will get filibustered anyhow.

They wanted AWB... nope.

They wanted to raise the age to 21 for sporting rifle purchase... nope.

They wanted universal background check... nope.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

"Never open the door to a lesser evil, for other and greater ones invariably slink in after it."
― Baltasar Gracian,

At this point evils aren't exactly slinking in, they're kicking in the door, barging in, and making themselves at home like they own the place. I'm not advocating opening the door for more of them, but if one door is about to be kicked in, maybe we can get something done if we just leave that door as a lost cause and take the pause in between to at least try and shut a different door?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Give it a rest.

Thank you for a valuable and well-though out point. You've opened my eyes to a new perspective I didn't have before.

 

[jake blue]

You can't compromise with lunatics.

You want real compromise? Here it is - every politician who votes for this forfeits their armed security detail. Why will they need security if everyone is disarmed? That's what they're demanding of law abiding citizens so let them lead by example and live and work in the gun-free zones in which they require our children to be educated. If we can't arm teachers, we can't protect ourselves in our homes and daily lives, then there's no reason they should need any more protection than the gun-free utopia they're trying to sell us.

That's the deal. Take it or leave it.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don't think that is the case... and it doesn't appear to be the case from what came out of the "bi-partisan" huddle... or the fact that a lot of the media instantly said, let's pass this.

IMO, this is about red and purple state Democrat Senators who "have to do something", but cannot do the party-line gun grabbing votes that will get filibustered anyhow.

They wanted AWB... nope.

They wanted to raise the age to 21 for sporting rifle purchase... nope.

They wanted universal background check... nope.

Well I certainly hope that your take is correct, and if so, I would concede that we definitely shouldn't be looking to compromise right now. It just seems to me like the democrats know they're screwed in the midterms regardless, and given that, it would surprise me if they don't try to ram something through, even if it's political suicide, since they likely see they don't have much left to lose.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You can't compromise with lunatics.

You want real compromise? Here it is - every politician who votes for this forfeits their armed security detail. Why will they need security if everyone is disarmed? That's what they're demanding of law abiding citizens so let them lead by example and live and work in the gun-free zones in which they require our children to be educated. If we can't arm teachers, we can't protect ourselves in our homes and daily lives, then there's no reason they should need any more protection than the gun-free utopia they're trying to sell us.

That's the deal. Take it or leave it.

Now THAT is a conversation we should definitely be working harder to have in the public eye. From obamacare to vax mandates to travel restrictions to you name it, our politicians have been exempting themselves from the laws they want to impose on us for far too long, and that's something that can't be talked about enough.

Yes, I would love it if republicans would propose a version of whatever gun control bill the democrats come up with that includes disarming security guards for all politicians who vote for it. Of course it would go nowhere, but if they could somehow force the media to talk about it, it might at least get some people thinking, and send a message.

 

[bwframe]

NRA-ILA | Take Action - U.S. House Passes Gun Control Legislation

This week, the U.S. House passed two gun control bills, largely along party lines, that threaten to turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into felons, as well as subject their lawfully-acquired firearms to government confiscation without due process.

www.nraila.org

https://act.nraila.org/campaign/40989/

 

[tude]

Thank you for a valuable and well-though out point. You've opened my eyes to a new perspective I didn't have before.

You are welcome.

 

[Creedmoor]

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

Serious question,
Is it really that difficult to understand these simple words?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.

 

[Twangbanger]

This is the exactly the part that I was hoping to generate discussion on, since I honestly don't know just a whole lot about the process. If someone says that they just don't think my idea is possible with our current batch of politicians in office, I'm willing to accept that argument. At least then we're thinking strategically and moving the conversation into real-world terms instead of pie in the sky idealizing about never ever compromising on anything.

But to try to answer the question:

I honestly don't know; but what do you think would happen if some pro-2A republicans in the senate, today, proposed a bill that, say, required all firearm purchases by someone under 21 to have a waiting period and enhanced background check (meaning that they'd check juvenile records) but the same bill de-regulated suppressors? The first part is something that's very likely to go through anyways, and left/"moderate" senators may realize that and just ignore this proposal, but if nothing else it would start to send a message of hey, you take something from us, give us something in return.

But what if they had got in early on in the process with this sort of idea? I honestly think it would have changed the way things played out for the better. We get all angry when we hear that such and such senator is "working with" democrats on crafting a gun control bill, but what if actual pro-2a republicans did just that, and used that as an opportunity to stick something we like into one of these bills? You know some people on the left would never consider voting for the bill then, and this would give us more leverage. The "moderates" in the middle would get their wish because they could go on about how they were working on a bi-partisan compromise bill. The end result may be that the whole thing just dies because the ultra-lefties would never consider giving us any of our rights back, but if that's the results, I see that as a win, too, over the alternative.

Has this sort of thing ever been tried before? Am I just dreaming here? I'm willing to listen and be corrected, but I just don't recall this sort of thing even being tried before.

I'm perfectly willing to be told that my idea would never work in practice. But please, I just don't see how we can keep pretending that we can make gains by never, ever, under any circumstances being willing to compromise.

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 most moderate legislators want the gun issue to "go away" so they can get back to what they care about, running for reelection and spending money. If our grand bargain loses more liberals than it gains conservatives, it's a non starter for the moderates.

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...)

 

[Robert Richardson]

Now THAT is a conversation we should definitely be working harder to have in the public eye. From obamacare to vax mandates to travel restrictions to you name it, our politicians have been exempting themselves from the laws they want to impose on us for far too long, and that's something that can't be talked about enough.

Yes, I would love it if republicans would propose a version of whatever gun control bill the democrats come up with that includes disarming security guards for all politicians who vote for it. Of course it would go nowhere, but if they could somehow force the media to talk about it, it might at least get some people thinking, and send a message.

You just said it all. Politicians won't go for it and you can't force the media to bring it out.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Serious question,
Is it really that difficult to understand these simple words?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.

Seriously, though, I'm with you on this one; but sadly, there are actually a lot of morons in our country who don't understand "shall not be infringed." And I'm not ready to start the shooting yet, so we're gonna have to talk in realistic terms about how we can manage to get along as best we can in a country of morons.

 

[bwframe]

Let's ask the libs how much they will "compromise" on abortion, before GIVING THEM anything at all that could be in their "gun safety" bill.

How 'bout that? Let's just see how far that goes. We'll talk after that.

To be continued then...

.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Let's ask the libs how much they will "compromise" on abortion, before GIVING THEM anything at all that could be in their "gun safety" bill.

How 'bout that? Let's just see how far that goes. We'll talk after that.

To be continued then...

.

Yes sir, after all, this gun control crap is to save the children, isn't it????

 

[BigRed]

At this point evils aren't exactly slinking in, they're kicking in the door, barging in, and making themselves at home like they own the place. I'm not advocating opening the door for more of them, but if one door is about to be kicked in, maybe we can get something done if we just leave that door as a lost cause and take the pause in between to at least try and shut a different door?

Once the curtilage is breached, the time for bargaining with the breacher is OVER.

 

[Creedmoor]

Seriously, though, I'm with you on this one; but sadly, there are actually a lot of morons in our country who don't understand "shall not be infringed." And I'm not ready to start the shooting yet, so we're gonna have to talk in realistic terms about how we can manage to get along as best we can in a country of morons.

I dont believe you really are with me, I moved over the bs of living in a non gun state.
I was worn out with never ending compromise. If you are willing to compromise I suggest you try living in say,, NJ, NY or Md where im from.

 

[KLB]

Let's ask the libs how much they will "compromise" on abortion, before GIVING THEM anything at all that could be in their "gun safety" bill.

How 'bout that? Let's just see how far that goes. We'll talk after that.

To be continued then...

.

About as much as you are I would imagine.

 

[KLB]

Seriously, though, I'm with you on this one; but sadly, there are actually a lot of morons in our country who don't understand "shall not be infringed." And I'm not ready to start the shooting yet, so we're gonna have to talk in realistic terms about how we can manage to get along as best we can in a country of morons.

The only compromise that would ever work would be getting something and giving them something they want other than more gun control.