An interesting proposal

[jamil]

I agree with all of that. I just don't think it is going to play out like that.

I just went back and reread what prompted the back/forth between you and rvb. And I just have no comment on that. But then this hit me and I'd like to comment on this.

How do you think this will play out? What game do you think we're playing? I mean, I'm not trivializing this to say it's just a game. Just that it is a suitable metaphor for how we go about achieving goals. How we exploit rules and apply strategy to win. So if we're playing the "free society" game, and they're playing the "utopian society" game, how is that going to play out, and what strategies should we use to win?

Does saying "no" to their demands favor them? One might say it depends who controls the narrative to an extent that reaches the most undecided people. But if they can control the narrative anyway, it's only a matter of time before they win the game.

A stance against any further gun control may appear to be pejoratively uncompromising to moderates if they only ever hear their side. If they get to control the narrative, it's lost anyway, so I think our best shot at tamping the gun control frenzy is saying no and articulating a well reasoned "why" as publicly as we can. Social media gives us more of a voice than we had in the past. We need to use it before the left takes that away.

 

[rob63]

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 .......

Answer in bold, from previous post:

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.

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?

Answer in bold, from previous post:

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.

BTW: I gave real-world non-ideological arguments against UBCs above.

Answer in bold, from previous post:

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.

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

I'm pretty clear on the fact that you won't compromise. Please note that I did not say that you need to voluntarily give up certain rights or that you are compromising by following the NFA. What I said was something similar to this:

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.

 

[rob63]

I just went back and reread what prompted the back/forth between you and rvb. And I just have no comment on that. But then this hit me and I'd like to comment on this.

How do you think this will play out? What game do you think we're playing? I mean, I'm not trivializing this to say it's just a game. Just that it is a suitable metaphor for how we go about achieving goals. How we exploit rules and apply strategy to win. So if we're playing the "free society" game, and they're playing the "utopian society" game, how is that going to play out, and what strategies should we use to win?

Does saying "no" to their demands favor them? One might say it depends who controls the narrative to an extent that reaches the most undecided people. But if they can control the narrative anyway, it's only a matter of time before they win the game.

A stance against any further gun control may appear to be pejoratively uncompromising to moderates if they only ever hear their side. If they get to control the narrative, it's lost anyway, so I think our best shot at tamping the gun control frenzy is saying no and articulating a well reasoned "why" as publicly as we can. Social media gives us more of a voice than we had in the past. We need to use it before the left takes that away.

That is a really good question, and I really don't think there is a way to know the answer since they have such a dominate control of the narrative.

It could be that a Republican passed compromise would satisfy enough voters that the whole issue loses momentum. It could be just the opposite, a victory only serves to give them momentum. You may well be right that the best shot is saying no in the short term because they are going to win anyway. I am really undecided.

They have all of the momentum, both with the issue, and with recent election success. We are totally, totally screwed if they succeed in winning control of Congress with a narrative that gun-control was responsible for the win. If they win without anything changing from the way it is now then that will be a plausible narrative. We either need to win the election, or make the narrative implausible. I don't think we can win the narrative battle, so that leaves the election.

Here's the rub: do we stand a better chance of winning middle-ground voters with some sort of compromise bill that takes the issue off the table, or does that only alienate the base. Given the results of this thread I'm pretty open to the idea that it would alienate the base. I think that was what prompted me to get involved in this discussion, the fear that if a compromise does happen it would alienate the base and screw us in the long run. My hope was that if there was a proposal in which we actually got something in return as part of the compromise, then that wouldn't alienate everyone. Unfortunately, I no longer have any doubts about that possibly working.

It may well be that the elections are a referendum on Trump and none of this really matters, we're either just screwed or we might be totally surprised again. Your guess is as good as mine as to what we should do, but it's pretty obvious that compromise isn't a popular position.

The thing I really fear is that the corporate entities seem to be on board with all of this now. It was difficult enough when we were only fighting the media, but the corporate people usually get what they want. I find it surreal that we are arguing over whether a Swiss-style UBC would be an acceptable compromise if we got something in return. I will be dancing a jig if the only thing that happens is a UBC and nothing in return.

p.s. I don't blame you for not wanting to comment on my mess with rvb, I want out of it too.

 

[rvb]

Like I said, I get your point but just disagree. You seem to think compliance = endorsement, or least it appears that way enough to render my arguments invalid. I endorse NFA no more than I endorse GCA and having to use FFLs. Yet I comply with both.

I would make a counter argument.... The NFA process demonstrates how far the anti-gunners and government are willing to go yet still not consider the regulations to be rights violations....... we endure months of time and great expense for a right that "shall not be infringed." It's not like we're happy about it. What if a UBC took 9 months to get a Glock because of a backlog? What if it required Local LEO signature and they wouldn't sign? What if there is a fee on it, and where do we draw that line? When someone says they are ok with UBC, NFA is exactly what I picture. It's very existence *IS* an argument against UBCs. Feinstein's last AWB proposal required all ARs to be NFA items.... What if liberal speak for UBC = NFA? People are willing to "compromise" away their rights when the terms haven't even been defined yet.

Today, a UBC might mean that every transaction has to go through an FFL, just like in Maryland and other states. Ok, a year from now another shooting happens, then maybe they "improve" the law and require a local check in addition to the federal one (just like NFA used to require). Then another shooting happens and they decide, no, we need fingerprints and that'll take a few weeks.... Tie that in with the "mental health" thing people like to scream, and suddenly w/o due process you can't get through a BG check because someone who doesn't like you reports you as unstable.

But hey, if we get national reciprocity that makes it all ok, right???

I gave other reasons in previous posts besides "I won't compromise" why I think UBCs are no good, those were ignored. Of course, I get it, my opinion doesn't matter because I once bought a silencer, so I must subconsciously be ok with it ...

-rvb

 

[Bill of Rights]

If I may enter a thought, following NFA rules/laws and still saying,”not one more inch”, sounds a lot like the old Popeye cartoons. To wit: “That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more!”

Long form: “I’ve played your game thus far, and I’ve let you have your fun. The gloves are off now, and I’m done playing.”

It’s not yet to the point where someone is locked and loaded, but people are beginning to feel that that is not far off.

At least that’s how I’m reading the message.

(Bonus points if you read that in Popeye’s voice)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GIJEW]

The premise of the article just strikes me as naive.


"The other side isn’t powerful enough to pass their laws, but they are powerful enough to stop you from passing yours. So if we accept the truth, that we will never agree, we have to ask a new question: how can we move forward even while everybody still disagrees? How can we write a law that neither side wants to block? The answer is going to test whether you’re honestly willing to do what it takes to fix this stalemate."

Move forward? Move forward to what? Agreement? Is that all this is about? Agreement for the sake of agreeing on something? Well, the disagreement is fundamental. One side believes in the right to keep and bear arms. The other side believes that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to have weapons. There's really no common ground there. So no. There will never be agreement between the two sides on that.

How can we write a law that neither side wants to block? Not agreeing with your proposed compromises does not mean we're being dishonest about being willing to fix the stalemate. If a stalemate prevents the further erosion of law abiding citizens' rights, I'm fine with the stalemate. There's nothing dishonest about that.

But I get it. Moderation is sensible in most things, and it seems like some copious moderation should apply here, right? Well, we could solve some of the problems causing these mass shootings if we could just talk about it honestly. Maybe you could call that moderation. Compromising to get both sides to agree to get something in return isn't going to stop the mass shootings. Banning bump stocks isn't going to stop them. Banning "Assault Rifles" isn't going to stop them. Nothing is going to stop mass killings like this. People have been lashing out at "humanity" long before there were guns.

The only thing that will stop mass shootings is to find the cause and eliminate it. And it's probably not something we can actually eliminate altogether. But we can't even have a real conversation about actual causes, because of the crisis we can't waste. So we can't talk about mental health. We can't talk about doing things to promote sanity. We can't talk about anything but gun control.

The whole article basically suggests getting some compromises on gun control. As if that's the problem. And that's what tells me the author is naive about the issue. What does the stalemate on gun control have to do with solving this problem of mass killings?

I think the real litmus test for who is sincere about solving the mass killings, is: Who is willing to talk about the real problem? The real problem is the people who've gone to the dark place and have decided that killing people is the answer to whatever harshness life has throne at them. THATS the problem. If you say guns are the problem, you're not sincere about solving mass shootings. You're only interested in solving the problem of citizens owning firearms. Guns are only involved to the extent that they're the easiest way to achieve the goal. There's a next easiest way, and a next, and a next after that too. You don't solve the real problem, you still get mass killings.

Well, except for one thing that sort of makes guns tangentially responsible, and that's actually the media's fault. These shooters seem to want the world to see what they did, and especially see that they are the ones who did it. Can't do that without wall-to-wall coverage. We get wall-to-wall coverage on CNN and everywhere because there's always going to be a gun debate afterwards.

Kill 15 people with a car, the story stays around for a day or two. Kill 3 or more random people with a gun in a very public place, and because crises can't go to waste, they're still reporting it a month later. So yeah. Any killer who wants to be talked about for weeks, or months, or years, will pick the gun as the tool of choice for his murderous tirade against humaity.

Rep police say I already gave too much to you. Excellent post

 

[CPT Nervous]

(Bonus points if you read that in Popeye’s voice)

I read everything in Popeye's voice.