An interesting proposal

[rvb]

I didn't say anything about boycotting anything, that is purely a straw man. I merely think we should be able to discuss the issues without pretending that some of us are pure, anyone willing to discuss a compromise isn't, and that is the end of the discussion.

You sure implied it, or at least that's how I read it. I can't have an ideological position if I'm also willing to jump through the NFA hoops? I have to choose one or the other or I'm somehow "virtue signaling?" Sounds to me you're saying if I want to have a no-compromise opinion, I have to Boycott NFA items.

Must I be willing to compromise our current position because I tolerate the "compromises" set in place decades before my birth? (That you would even call the NFA a "compromise" speaks volumes about how out of sync we are in this conversation...)

If that's not what you were saying, then what?

And frankly, the idea IS laughable that if we do this we won't have to fear any more future gun legislation....
man, that's some rainbows and unicorn stuff right there...
sure. until UBCs or whatever fails to stop the next shooter, and they want to start "compromising" again...

And lastly, I agree, it won't play out like I said in my last paragraph, because everyone is so fixated on the guns. No one even wants to really talk about the other stuff...

-rvb

 

[actaeon277]

Here's my proposal.
We get rid of every single gun law. Every one on the books. And every proposed ones.
Criminals get to carry a gun after they've served their time.
They commit another crime, then they either never get out, or we take them out back and remove them from the gene pool.


Anything less than that would then be "compromise".
We'll let the anti-gunners then have to deal with "compromise".

 

[worddoer]

The willingness to at least discuss compromises is a necessary part of appearing reasonable to the middle, at the very least we should be able to discuss them among ourselves.

Definition Time.....Compromise - a settlement of differences by mutual concessions.


Here is the problem. Pro gun and Anti gun folk have a fundamental disagreement on what compromise is. That is why the article and its suggestion will not be taken seriously by either side...as it should not be.


The Anti gun folk believe they are compromising when they are not fully and entirely removing all our firearms rights. Allowing private citizens to have any type of firearm IS compromise to them.


The Pro gun folk have tried compromise 6 times in history, and it has never worked. Please see this post..... https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...51655-interesting-proposal-4.html#post7474740


In history, what concessions have the anti-gun folk made? Please list 3 concessions that anti-gun folk have made that were not simply a reduction in the removal of our rights.


A reduction in how much someone is taking away from you is not compromise. That is blackmail. Yet again another definition.....Blackmail - extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution. They have threatened us that "give us this part of your gun freedom, or we will take it all. And if you keep any of those things we are banning, you will all go to jail." We pay our extortion fee by giving some of our rights away while the other side has given nothing else.


And then we have come full circle and done the same thing we have done 6 other times in history.


To continue to offer compromise is insanity. Another definition.....Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. He was one smart dude and I think he had some insight on that one.


Mr. Einstein would also agree that to do the same thing for the 7th time, while expecting different results is truly insane. Most gun owners recognize that now and have decided that enough is enough. 6 times we compromised, 6 times we gave away more of our freedom, and yet the other side is calling us killers and murders for not gladly giving over more of our freedom. NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH!!!

 

[rvb]

Definition Time.....Compromise - a settlement of differences by mutual concessions.

....
In history, what concessions have the anti-gun folk made? Please list 3 concessions that anti-gun folk have made that were not simply a reduction in the removal of our rights.

yes, that's how I use "compromise" also.

The only "compromise" that has come to my mind is the Hughes/FOPA. More of a back-stab than a compromise, but both sides got/gave some ground ....

-rvb

 

[Dead Duck]

Letting the government trample our freedoms is NOT a compromise. It's Treason.
Just because it was allowed to happen in the past does not mean it should ever happen again............ ever.

This is NOT NEGOTIABLE.

 

[OakRiver]

This is concerning; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.1abf93038d83

20% of our fellow citizens want to repeal the Second Amendment.

 

[CraigAPS]

This is concerning; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.1abf93038d83

20% of our fellow citizens want to repeal the Second Amendment.

Disconcerting? Yes. However, I doubt they could get 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 38 states to agree. Does that mean I believe we should stop standing up for our rights? No. I'm just hesitant to worry about this right now. I don't think that this type of feeling is new. It's just being focused on because all of the anti-gun sentiment going around currently.

 

[jamil]

This is concerning; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.1abf93038d83

20% of our fellow citizens want to repeal the Second Amendment.

1 in 5 Americans is a blooming idiot. No. Seriously. The number of people who want to repeal the 2A probably isn't 20%; like the article said, many of those don't even know what the 2A is.

But whatever the true number of Americans that oppose the 2A, that number is likely increasing, and will continue to increase as long as anti-gun progressives get to control the terms.

Because nearly all the mainstream media is anti-gun, they get to say stupid **** like "full semi-automatice", and frame AR's as military grade weapons. Which is really a term they use to make them sound like they're the same weapons issued to our military. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it were true, but they're made to sound as scary and dangerous as possible. Unless we can effectively communicate reality, which is really hard when the people we're trying to reach really don't know anything about guns and they don't really want to know more.

When the anti-gun media makes straw monsters of the things they want to ban, it's obvious they just want more "yes" votes for whatever they want to ban.

 

[jamil]

About definitions of "compromise" I think people are using the same definition. For some "Compromise" is a dirty word. Sometimes it is, such as when all the real concessions come from one side. It's not a dirty word when the sides are close enough where true compromise is possible. We're not there.

 

[NyleRN]

Here's my proposal.
We get rid of every single gun law. Every one on the books. And every proposed ones.
Criminals get to carry a gun after they've served their time.
They commit another crime, then they either never get out, or we take them out back and remove them from the gene pool.


Anything less than that would then be "compromise".
We'll let the anti-gunners then have to deal with "compromise".

Here's my proposal: have about 1/3(several million) of all gun owners pick a day and go to Washington with slung AKs and ARs. Get on the bullhorn and tell them our compromise. Give back our rights and we won't physically remove you from office. We get our rights and they can keep their jobs for now. That's compromise

 

[rob63]

You sure implied it, or at least that's how I read it.

That part is correct.

I can't have an ideological position if I'm also willing to jump through the NFA hoops? I have to choose one or the other or I'm somehow "virtue signaling?" Sounds to me you're saying if I want to have a no-compromise opinion, I have to Boycott NFA items.

I'm actually sorry I used those words. I was hoping to make a point, but it probably just produced anger without any productive result.

It is perfectly ok with me if you follow the laws and own NFA items while believing those laws shouldn't exist in the first place. It is certainly rational to not wish to go to jail, and it also makes sense to include your ideological positions in your arguments. My point is that it just doesn't make a compelling argument to people that don't hold those same ideological positions when your actions are not consistent with those positions. I don't believe the people in the middle hold those ideological positions in the first place, so I don't think using arguments that rely on them will persuade them.

Must I be willing to compromise our current position because I tolerate the "compromises" set in place decades before my birth? (That you would even call the NFA a "compromise" speaks volumes about how out of sync we are in this conversation...)

No, previous compromises do not require you to do anything now. The question is whether you would consider compromises that would actually get you something in return now or do you prefer to take your chances on waiting until the election results are in? I honestly don't know which is better, it's hard to predict political momentum. I sure don't think it looks good right now though. Alabama and Pennsylvania are not exactly traditional blue states.

If that's not what you were saying, then what?

Post #27:

I also fully understand the frustration with the idea of compromising anything at all, and know full well that the anti-gun side will always demand more. However, I think our goal should be to win the voters in the middle. Refusal to make any compromises at all only serves to leave them with the choice between the two extremes and I think that is a battle we will inevitably lose because the other extreme has full control of the media. The anti-gun items in the article are not nearly as bad as what will be rammed down our throats if the other side gains control of Congress with the momentum of having won the elections on this issue.

And frankly, the idea IS laughable that if we do this we won't have to fear any more future gun legislation....
man, that's some rainbows and unicorn stuff right there...
sure. until UBCs or whatever fails to stop the next shooter, and they want to start "compromising" again...

See above.

And lastly, I agree, it won't play out like I said in my last paragraph, because everyone is so fixated on the guns. No one even wants to really talk about the other stuff...



-rvb

So, you agree that we are going to lose on the current trajectory, but aren't willing to consider any other path? That's what it sounds to me like you are saying.

 

[seedubs1]

Delete

 

[jamil]

Delete

You have to hold ctrl+alt.

 

[rvb]

it just doesn't make a compelling argument to people that don't hold those same ideological positions when your actions are not consistent with those positions. I don't believe the people in the middle hold those ideological positions in the first place, so I don't think using arguments that rely on them will persuade them.

I don't see where I'm being inconsistent. I also say the NFA should be repealed. Is that not enough, do I have to break the law also? I only pass that purity test when surrounded by HRT and my wife/kids/dog are shot? You suggested I should refuse to participate (eg the boycott mentioned above) and not buy NFA items... voluntarily give up what rights haven't been taken as some purity test?

I'm not relying on ideological arguments anyway. I can make reasoned arguments against anything being proposed. I have real reasons for not wanting UBC. This kid in FL bought guns w/ NICS checks, so did the guy in vegas. The sandy hook kid I don't recall if he bought from FFLs, but I know he had some guns personally, then killed his mother and took more. UBC would have accomplished NOTHING. conversely, I work with a young man who has passed numerous work-related BG checks, has an IN carry permit, but has been going through the appeals process for OVER 2 YEARS because of some SNAFU and he cannot buy a gun! It's a joke and we are being extorted into accepting it as a real solution. The next time that fails to stop a shooter, the grabbers WILL come back for more.

The question is whether you would consider compromises that would actually get you something in return now or do you prefer to take your chances on waiting until the election results are in? I honestly don't know which is better, it's hard to predict political momentum. I sure don't think it looks good right now though.

I am vary wary of sneaky politics. Bills get amended last minute, stuff added, stuff removed. I would be shocked if a series of compromises makes it to a vote the way we might want it to. We need to use the left's methods against them. Include repeal of the Hughes and HPA and whatever else as last-minute poison pills just as they've done to us. Make them gut check how bad they really want feckless restrictions.

-rvb

 

[Bapak2ja]

I would consider Swiss-style universal background checks if they also included Swiss-style required firearm training for ALL citizens.

I would also consider some of the other provisions if adherence to the Constitution is included and all "infringes" on the Constitution are removed.

However, I do remember that even Dodge City, Abilene, and Tombstone banned guns in the confines of their city at times in their history. These cities did not want drunks, thieves, gamblers, and wanderers walking about shooting up the town, mocking basic laws of decency, scaring the mothers, and endangering the children.

I recall a C&W song (Beer for Their Horses, or something similar) with a line of reasoning that when justice was enforced, and evil doers hanged and sent to their Maker, then the bad boys would settle down. I also recall that San Francisco was out of control until local leaders established a vigilante committee to enforce law and dispense justice. From what I have read, the bad boys really did settle down when the ropes came out.

My conclusion is that we do not need more laws. We do not need more background checks. We do not need more compromise. All we need is the enforcement of existing law and a return of the subjects of US history and basic morality into the educational system, and economic change so that fathers remain with their wives and children to provide for the family and train their children to be good citizens.

Regrettably, the OP's point is established here, though. The likelihood of those changes being instituted are as likely as gun-controllers accepting the facts about the impact of expanding concealed carry. Neither side can win, and neither will yield.

My prediction is that when the Millennials assume responsibility for the nation (as when the first Baby Boomer entered the White House), the Second Amendment will be repealed. The indoctrination the youth will have reached the point that no one will oppose it. By that time, of course, there will be no open Christians left in the country and Islam will be the dominant religion. Pederasty, polygamy, and beastiality will be normative as they are in most Moslem countries. Welcome to the brave new world.

I know, I am a prophet of doom. However, anyone with a basic education, some acquaintance with the history of western civilization, and access to the history and literature of the West can see where this is going unless there is a major, cataclysmic event that changes the direction of history. The only question that remains is will we be speaking Chinese or Arabic.

 

[rob63]

I don't see where I'm being inconsistent. I also say the NFA should be repealed. Is that not enough, do I have to break the law also? I only pass that purity test when surrounded by HRT and my wife/kids/dog are shot? You suggested I should refuse to participate (eg the boycott mentioned above) and not buy NFA items... voluntarily give up what rights haven't been taken as some purity test?

-rvb

I'm sorry, if you are going to continue to insist that I said things that I simply did not say, no matter how many times that I specifically tell you that I did not say them, then we are done. You win, I have no desire to try to participate in the imaginary arguments in your head.

 

[rvb]

Then I truly do not understand what you are saying when you keep making these statements calling me inconsistent. Those are your words, that's your "point" below.

Notice all those question marks in the part you quoted. I was trying to figure out what you thought would make the arguments consistent. I have 3 options, 1) go through the NFA process legally, 2) violate the NFA, or 3) refuse to buy NFA items. What makes me consistent?

I too give up.

-rvb

My point is that it just doesn't make a compelling argument to people that don't hold those same ideological positions when your actions are not consistent with those positions.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[rob63]

Then I truly do not understand what you are saying when you keep making these statements calling me inconsistent. Those are your words, that's your "point" below.

Notice all those question marks in the part you quoted. I was trying to figure out what you thought would make the arguments consistent. I have 3 options, 1) go through the NFA process legally, 2) violate the NFA, or 3) refuse to buy NFA items. What makes me consistent?

I too give up.

-rvb

OK, I will try one last time. Here is my original statement that has gotten you so worked up:

I would just like to get past all of the arguments that are nothing more than our version of virtue signaling. "I believe in my absolute God-given rights that can't be infringed and I will never compromise on anything, ever, but I sure wish they would hurry up with that tax-stamp approval because I want to get a suppressor"; that kind of stuff. We have an entire sub-forum dedicated to the compromises of the past that everyone accepts as normal.
.

My point is that it is not a compelling argument for you to base your arguments on the premise that you will never compromise on anything because it is your God-given right that can't be infringed, but then you turn around and obey the NFA law. People will simply dismiss your argument as so much hot air. Your rights have already been infringed and you go along with it, consequently, in doing so you undermine the basis of your own argument.

Whether or not any of that applies to you is your call. I have no idea what arguments you usually make or what ideological positions you hold and at no point have I stated or implied that you do. You are the one who has taken this as a personal slight upon you and keeps insisting that it applies to you. None of this states or implies that you are somehow required to boycott the NFA to be consistent with whatever ideological positions you hold, nor am I stating or implying that past infringements on your rights are ok.

I am simply commenting upon the effectiveness of basing your arguments on absolute ideological positions while not actually being absolute in your actions. I just don't think it is a winning argument. The average person is not going to be persuaded that a UBC to buy a gun is an unacceptable infringement upon your rights when you already underwent a background check and paid a $200 tax to buy a suppressor. Your arguments need to be based upon something other than your unwillingness to compromise your rights, such as the ineffectiveness of the proposals or whatever. Again, I have no idea which arguments you usually make and am not saying this applies to you.

I really don't know how to make it any plainer than that, if you wish to continue to believe that I have told you that you have to boycott the NFA then fine, go with it.

 

[rvb]

I don't take it personally. My feathers are not ruffled. But I do disagree with your premise, now that [I think] I understand it.

All people who go through NFA process who also do not want UBCs have their argument eroded because they obey the restrictions NFA puts in place. Don't agree, but fine, that's -your- point.

I still don't get how I (we) get around that "inconsistency." You've made it impossible to have an ideological argument. If option 1 of following the law isn't acceptable, then it's either option 2 of civil disobedience or option 3 of boycott the process. If it's neither of those, then you tell me how I can make an argument against UBCs .......

Actually, forget the NFA, let's move on to GCA. Let's apply the same thought process to buying from an FFL.... If I buy a gun from an FFL and go through a NICS, Is my argument against UBCs eroded? The gun store was PACKED this past Sat, but now none of those people can make an argument against UBCs w/o being inconsistent? So is all that's left is buying non-NFA items through private transfers.... only then I'm morally pure enough to make the argument that UBCs shouldn't exist?

BTW: I gave real-world non-ideological arguments against UBCs above. The ideology and practicality seldom conflict.

NFA was not a compromise. Words matter. Saying "I won't compromise" means I'm saying "I won't voluntarily give up certain rights." Once a restriction goes into place, I'm not compromising by following it. I didn't voluntarily give anything up. I compromise nothing by buying a gun through an FFL or registering a silencer. In fact, I look at registering a silencer as a big "FU I wont be intimidated through taxes and paperwork into voluntarily giving up my rights."

-rvb