How do we go about real compromise?

[jamil]

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

The point was that it wasn’t a fair deal. No Democrat would give up so much for so little in return. So why should they expect any such compromise? I think we need to take their narrative away somehow.

 

[2A_Tom]

Two hours. Wasted.

@texk please add a FED imoji to the right of the angry imoji.

 

[2A_Tom]

The point was that it wasn’t a fair deal. No Democrat would give up so much for so little in return. So why should they expect any such compromise? I think we need to take their narrative away somehow.

I was taking a page from their playbook.

 

[jamil]

Tom, I don’t think grok what yer saying. I mean about the FED thing. I don’t get the connection.

 

[Creedmoor]

I have never believed in insults and profanity as appropriate tools for discussion. Real men resolve their differences through civil discourse, and if that fails they either go there separate ways, or if the difference is such that they cannot, they come to blows. I've never seen a situation where crude insults were appropriate or helpful in resolving the matter at hand.

Real Men, LOL... Youth.

 

[ditcherman]

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.

**** off.

 

[ditcherman]

Two hours. Wasted.

Hi, and welcome to INGO!

 

[jamil]

**** off.

Atta boy!

 

[actaeon277]

When anti-gunners say they want NICS checks to NOT proceed after time has passed... I tell them, then fix NICS.
Either increase manning, or find a problem and fix it.
The proceed is a feature, not a bug.
It is to keep the government from enacting gun control by dropping the ball on the checks.

 

[Ingomike]

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

You bought what they sold you…

 

[nprecon]

Have we? Name a single thing we've actually compromised with them on regarding 2A rights, in the real sense of the word "compromise"; meaning we give them something and they give us something back.

Do YOU ignore unjust laws in your day-to-day life? No? Me neither. So that's hardly a workable solution, is it?

Better yet, when has the federal government ever produced any truly useful legislation or programs that actually addressed and corrected the problems they claimed existed? Of late, the only major legislation they have generated has been given flowery titles (like "covid relief") but inactuality does nothing to actually improve the situation they have caused. Just more money for special intersts and more debt for present and future Americans.

 

[nprecon]

So could you please sketch out more fully how you think we can "defeat" the "slimy moderates" by compromising with them? I want to make sure I understand your idea.

You've given some examples of "these-es" that could be traded for "that-s," but no idea of the mechanics of how you actually get to agreement on those things.

I really want to understand how we open that can of worms, without losing control of the process and just getting another Brady Bill with nothing in it for us.

And more importantly - I want to make sure _you_ understand that process, and aren't totally mis-characterizing the character and intentions of people you're proposing to make the deal with.

There is no true compromise with these people on the 2nd Amendment. Their problem primarily being they oppose the 2nd Amendment. I suspect they oppose it because they fear an armed citizenry, which they should. That was the intent of the 2nd amendment. Appears to me that the 2nd Amendment is working as it was originally designed to work.

 

[jamil]

You bought what they sold you…

Or you bought what she sold you.

 

[Ingomike]

Or you bought what she sold you.

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.

What was she selling? Read what you said was allied against the likes of her, bs that you bought, but I get it. She was another like Trump that fought back against the forces you note and was demonized out of the conversation.

 

[HonkieKowboy]

So if you somehow haven't seen it yet, read through the illustration at the end of this post first. It's an image that I've seen posted in different threads on this forum, and I found it accurate and witty. I read it and laughed, cried, got angry, all of the above, because of how true it is.

But then I thought about it some more, and the more I think about it, the more I think those of us who value our 2A rights need to shift the conversation to how we can go about actual, real compromise. Did I just say that we should be willing to compromise on our God-given, inalienable right to keep and bear arms? Yes I did; but please hear me out.

Up until now things have worked this way: Gun grabbers say they want "compromise." As illustrated below they don't mean the actual definition of compromise, where they get something, but give something back in return; they just mean they take away our rights in bits and pieces instead of all at once, but never give us anything back. Stalwart defenders of our 2A rights will oppose them, and refuse to give an inch, which is absolutely the right thing to do in principle. But then enter the slimy, spineless "moderate" types. The ones who want to play both sides of the issue, and who will "compromise" with the anti-2A types. These types may force them to water down their infringement of our rights, and make it slightly less heinous than otherwise in order to get it through, but in the end they still get it through, and our rights just keep getting eroded away.

If we want this to ever stop happening, I contend that true defenders of the 2A are going to have no choice but to try to get in on the process, and attempt to turn things into genuine compromise. Look, I don't want to be compromising on our rights either, but this is real life, and until the blessed day comes when we are ready to rise up for real and abolish the system that gives our evil overlords in the central state their power, we're going to have to live with the fact that they will ALWAYS be seeking to take away more of our rights, and there's always going to be slimy politicians who are willing to work with them to do so. So if we ever want to have a prayer of getting anything but the same old recipe for eroding our rights, we're going to have to come up with a way of shifting the conversation to talk of genuine compromise.

What do I mean by a genuine compromise? Here's some examples:

They want to require background checks for private firearms sales? Fine, we'll stomach that if, in return, we give private citizens some ability to have the background check conducted without having to pay and FFL to do it, get rid of the federal rule forbidding handgun sales by FFL's to those under 21, AND put stronger protections in place against a national gun registry being created by saying that gun sales records will never be turned over to the government, and can be destroyed after 20 years.

They want to take away guns from those deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others? Okay, but this is an emergency measure to be used only in the most extreme circumstances, and to highlight this and protect against abuse, the person who's guns are confiscated under this law is required to have a trial by jury within 30 days, and if there is anything but a unanimous decision by the jury to convict this person of a crime that warranted their guns being confiscated (such crimes would have to include threatening to commit a mass shooting, assassinate someone, etc) then anyone who testified against this person in the original hearing to confiscate their guns will be found guilty of a felony, AND the judge who granted the order will be forbidden from granting anymore orders to confiscate someone's guns under this law for a waiting period of 5 years. With these safeguards in place we could maybe stomach a "red-flag" law, but what do we get in exchange? Well, how about we end the senseless regulation of an accessory that has been documented as a factor in ZERO crimes so far, and completely de-regulate suppressors?

Or they want to ban "forced-reset" triggers? Okay, instead of banning them just write a law that makes them count as machine guns (get rid of the outright ban on bumpstocks, and throw them in here too, while we're at it.) In exchange we get rid of the law banning manufacture of new, transferrable machine guns.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Yes, the above examples aren't thoroughly thought out and wouldn't exactly work the way I've laid them out, but I'm just trying to explain the spirit of how I think we should be thinking about things.

I know it sounds awful to talk about compromising on our inherent rights, but I just don't see any other way forward if we want to have a chance of getting any of our 2nd amendment rights back. If we can't bring things to a point where real compromise is possible, I fear we'll just see the 2nd amendment eroded away forever.

Dude idk but anime democrat girl in second to last panel got me questioning my loyalty to the constitution

 

[bwframe]

Here is your "compromise"...

Schumer Statement On The Announcement Of A Bipartisan Gun Safety Framework | Senate Democratic Leadership

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) today released the following...

www.democrats.senate.gov

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) today released the following statement on the announcement of a bipartisan gun-safety framework:

“Today’s announcement of a bipartisan gun-safety framework is a good first step to ending the persistent inaction to the gun violence epidemic that has plagued our country and terrorized our children for far too long. Once the text of this agreement is finalized, I will put this bill on the floor as soon as possible so that the Senate can act quickly to advance gun-safety legislation.

“As the author of the Brady-background checks bill, I am pleased that for the first time in nearly 30 years Congress is on the path to take meaningful action to address gun violence.

 

[2A_Tom]

Or you bought what she sold you.

So you believe the democrats, Saturday night live, msm, leftists &al...

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

The main thing I changed was to change "some" men to "real" men; I was trying to agree with his point, but stronger. I personally don't think having the asterisks there makes the point any stronger.

I also don't think the fact that what is considered foul language changes over time negates the value of courteous and polite speech. I recognize that some people use foul language not because they're trying to be rude, but because they think it makes their point come across stronger, but to me it seems like foul language is so ubiquitous nowadays that this facet has become almost entirely lost, and to me it doesn't sound any stronger, it just sounds crude.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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?

I think all your points here are correct. I may or may not naive, but I am not so stupid as to think that the "other side" is going to be willing to meaningfully compromise. But at this moment there are a lot if "in the middle" types who have no real principle or goal other than to be liked and to be politically successful. These types are the swing votes who hold a lot of sway when thinks are closely split between the two sides on an issues, and because the other side is always hawking on about "compromise", they have an advantage in pulling these types over to their side. My suggested strategy is not about getting the other side to give us something meaningful, which is most likely a fruitless endeavor, but more about breaking their monopoly on getting the so-called "moderate" types to give them the votes to do whatever they want.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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).

Fair point.