How do we go about real compromise?

[jamil]

Sorry if I missed something as I read the OP and the last page here…

I’ve long complained where are our zealots in the House and Senate? Where are our “nuts” that after a mass murder event will call for the immediate end to the “gun free” school zone law(s)? Where are our guys/gals that year end and year out call for a ”national conversation” about ending the Hughes Amendment or phasing out the NFA?

Our guys only know compromise. They will brag about their NRA A+ ratings but will seldomly do anything bold. Oh, they’ll fritter around the edges sometimes. They’ll “hold tough” on the democrats’ gun control bills and only give up the minimum…because it could have been much worse.

No more compromise. We must insist a more offensive posture.

If there are such zealots they don't have the political courage. It's not hard to be a zealot on the other side. The media backs them. Hollywood backs them. Academia backs them. It's not socially stigmatizing to be anti-gun. That's just considered to be the default sensible position by all the major institutions.

Even if such noble zealots exist and had the courage to be vocal, those institutions would just demonize them such that the affect is not much more than preaching to the choir. I think we have to fix that first. I think we have to work to take the anti-gun narrative away from dominance.

 

[jamil]

I've met more than a few "warriors" and I'll have to disagree with Mr. Lewis.

Obviously those you've met aren't real Scotsmen.

 

[jamil]

FIFY

The point isn't made any better without the asterisks. It's just language. The idea of "foul" language is a social construct. If more of it were admitted to polite conversation it would lose its foulness and just mean what it means.

I mean I could call Joe Biden a daughter ****er, and merely calling him a pedophile just doesn't convey the same thing with the same gusto.

 

[jamil]

Does the United States of America really exist anymore? Certainly not as it was originally intended.

It's going to evolve. The founders thought enough that it would evolve that they made it possible to change the constitution to evolve with the country. The problem is that the rule of men was more powerful than the rule of law. And so it evolved without the constitution into this. It's a mess.

I think one problem was their insistence on a public school. Not that it couldn't work. A free society must be an educated society. I think they should have done more to protect schools from zealots. The hand that rocks the cradle doesn't rule the world after teachers have had their turn with the kid.

 

[KLB]

It's going to evolve. The founders thought enough that it would evolve that they made it possible to change the constitution to evolve with the country. The problem is that the rule of men was more powerful than the rule of law. And so it evolved without the constitution into this. It's a mess.

I think one problem was their insistence on a public school. Not that it couldn't work. A free society must be an educated society. I think they should have done more to protect schools from zealots. The hand that rocks the cradle doesn't rule the world after teachers have had their turn with the kid.

How could they have foreseen what it has become? The school system was not a part of the Federal .gov then. It was actually run by the local where the school was located. Today there are a number of layers of .gov controlling it and enabling the crap that goes on.

 

[jamil]

But anyway, I just got around to reading this thread and all I'll say is this. While I'm not opposed to the idea of compromise, I'm not slave to the necessity of it either. In a true compromise, both sides sacrifice something to gain something they value more. On their side, they don't tend to sacrifice anything. And if they do it's something trivial.

There's not much more to say about their side than other than they don't have to compromise. They control the narrative. All they have to do is keep saying that the blood of little children are on the hands of those racist, sexist, homophobic, transfobic gun owners who hate people of color and marginalized peoploe.

So on our side, why do WE compromise? What do we get out of it? Mostly, it's nothing. The negotiations go something like this.

Them: you have the blood of children on your hands because you won't compromise on gun control laws common sense gun safety measures. We want to ban "assault rifles".

Us: Okay, if you stop calling us mean things and promise not to pursue bans on "assault rifles" we'll give you universal background checks.

What kind of compromise is that? If you agree not to take as much as you want, we'll give you something else that you want? That's how this has historically worked. They're not going to agree to universal background checks, or whatever, in exchange for suppressors. They're not going to give up ground that they've already won.

The problem is both sides have completely different worldviews in which neither side can live in the world proposed by the other. Their side says that if we could just stop the legal ownership of firearms we wouldn't have school shootings. Our side says, if the press would stop immortalizing these ***** ass freaks 24/7 for weeks after, if more good people were allowed to protect themselves and others with firearms, and on and on...

Point is, one side is using the outcome to achieve a political goal of disarming society, that existed long before school shootings became a thing, and the other side is trying to find a solution to this problem while protecting their 2A rights. The objectives aren't compatible. There is no compromise that can be had where we don't lose, even incrementally.

What are they gonna do to us if we refuse to capitulate in this pretense of a compromise? Call us mean things?

 

[jamil]

How could they have foreseen what it has become? The school system was not a part of the Federal .gov then. It was actually run by the local where the school was located. Today there are a number of layers of .gov controlling it and enabling the crap that goes on.

I wasn't saying it's in the constitution. But it's in the literature of the time. It's why every state had a provision for state funded education. I don't think they could have foreseen that education would have become the tool of the undoing if the nation. I just wish they would have.

 

[jamil]

Tell you what. Let's compromise with this. We'll agree to increase the time NICS has to return an answer on a background check from 36 hours to 40. In return, you agree to end federal mandates on gun free zones, including schools, and federal buildings, lower the age for purchasing handguns to 18, and remove suppressors from NFA, and repeal the executive order on bump stocks. Fair deal?

 

[BJHay]

There are a few things that we might agree on, such as including a juvenile's criminal record in a NICS check, but I'm hesitant to see anything go through the legislative processes because I have zero trust that it will be accurately passed (e.g. the Hughes Amendment) or not reinterpreted by a regulator to say something it doesn't (e.g. bump stock ban).

 

[MRockwell]

How it works in the real world.

 

[KG1]

Anti-gun proponents have no rights at stake in any "compromise" whereas they want pro-gun proponents to give up part of their rights to "compromise" with them.

We as lawful gun owners are the ones that have to water down our rights as a part of any "compromise"

Howbout they work with us to try and come up with solutions that do not pose a threat to our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms instead of trying to restrict them?

 

[ditcherman]

The point isn't made any better without the asterisks. It's just language. The idea of "foul" language is a social construct. If more of it were admitted to polite conversation it would lose its foulness and just mean what it means.

I mean I could call Joe Biden a daughter ****er, and merely calling him a pedophile just doesn't convey the same thing with the same gusto.

I think that there are generally better adjectives to choose from. The point is, those words don’t really mean anything, and mean less the more you use them.
When people around me hear me say certain words, it’s really meaningful to them because I generally don’t use them. It’s kind of like the less you say the more you’re heard.

 

[ditcherman]

OP I think it’s safe to say the general consensus is that you need to go talk to “them” about compromise, not “us”. We’ve had our belly full of it and are not interested. Your ideas are good and noble, but it’s them that needs to do the compromising, not us.

 

[Ingomike]

Even if such noble zealots exist and had the courage to be vocal, those institutions would just demonize them

And are they ever effective at that demonization. Oh my, how in love and lust Palin burst on the scene, they successfully ruined her ascension and made a third of conservatives dislike her. Some will say she did it to herself but truth is she was demonized. The list is long of this in practice…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think that there are generally better adjectives to choose from.

 

[jamil]

Anti-gun proponents have no rights at stake in any "compromise" whereas they want pro-gun proponents to give up part of their rights to "compromise" with them.

We as lawful gun owners are the ones that have to water down our rights as a part of any "compromise"

Howbout they work with us to try and come up with solutions that do not pose a threat to our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms instead of trying to restrict them?

Work with us on solutions without gun control? I mean that’s the whole game. It’s not the solutions they want. It’s the gun control. If it weren’t just about gun control they would talk about all the factors, and not just that one.

 

[KG1]

Work with us on solutions without gun control? I mean that’s the whole game. It’s not the solutions they want. It’s the gun control. If it weren’t just about gun control they would talk about all the factors, and not just that one.

Yep. They are not seeking to become mutual parners in trying to come up with solutions. They want us to just roll over and succumb to their gun control offensives.

I for one SHALL NOT.

 

[jamil]

I think that there are generally better adjectives to choose from. The point is, those words don’t really mean anything, and mean less the more you use them.
When people around me hear me say certain words, it’s really meaningful to them because I generally don’t use them. It’s kind of like the less you say the more you’re heard.

These words have a lot of meaning. My use of those words has not decreased the meaning. But I agree that if society brought those words into common use the meaning of using those words would cause them to lose the extra nuance they carry. Not exactly meaningless, but less meaningful. So I guess if you want them to stop being used you should participate in using them more. Be the change you want.

 

[jamil]

And are they ever effective at that demonization. Oh my, how in love and lust Palin burst on the scene, they successfully ruined her ascension and made a third of conservatives dislike her. Some will say she did it to herself but truth is she was demonized. The list is long of this in practice…

She helped. I do not think highly of that woman. She’s a grifter.

 

[2A_Tom]

Tell you what. Let's compromise with this. We'll agree to increase the time NICS has to return an answer on a background check from 36 hours to 40. In return, you agree to end federal mandates on gun free zones, including schools, and federal buildings, lower the age for purchasing handguns to 18, and remove suppressors from NFA, and repeal the executive order on bump stocks. Fair deal?

As long as we come back next year with a proposal to make NICS checks instant.