How do we go about real compromise?

[AndreusMaximus]

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?

That would be the correct solution, but I fear the chasm between us and a world where that is even possible is too wide to be crossed with a single leap. So I'm suggesting smaller steps that move us in that direction.

 

[jamil]

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.

She was selling what she knows you like to hear in exchange for fame and importance. She speaks fluent conservative evangelical. Trump didn’t speak the language that well. I didn’t buy anything. You did. You know them by their fruits.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

Again, we keep getting hooked up on this false definition of compromise, and thinking it means one side giving up something, while the other side gets what they want, maybe just less of it.

For true compromise, both sides have to have some give and take, so you can't just talk to one side about it, or it's not a compromise.

And on top of that, I still do believe that a coherent voice is more important from our side right now. I'm not going to go out there and start writing my representatives with my off-the-cuff ideas; even if I personally don't feel like our strategy is the absolute most perfect strategy possible, I'd still rather add my voice to it (as far as talking to the "other side", or even to politicians on "our side" goes) rather than make our side look even more fractured and divided than it already does, because presenting a united front is more important than any particular proposal or strategy.

I was just floating the idea here to get a feel for what others would think of the idea. I think they've let me know in no uncertain terms, the main reason I keep responding it because there still appear to be more than half of the replies misunderstanding my point and thinking that I just want more of the same old false "compromise" that the other side want. But despite that, there's also been quite a few good points made, and, especially with the recent developments of this newest "gun control" bill looking more and more set to fail in the Senate, I'm happy to concede that my proposal would have most likely been unnecessary at best, and harmful, at worst, as far as stopping or at least mitigating what's happening in the Senate right now.

I'm still happy to discuss it in the hypothetical, though, if anyone wants to.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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

Man, I log in to see 83 notifications, and more than half of it is just pages of this. Why you do this to me?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

Oh crap. I didn't even see that yet; I went the whole weekend without checking news or anything online, and hadn't seen anything on that yet this morning. Well, scratch the part in my second-to-last comment about the new bill being set to fail; that was my impression on Friday, but now it sounds like it's coming through.

 

[Creedmoor]

Man, I log in to see 83 notifications, and more than half of it is just pages of this. Why you do this to me?

View attachment 206858

He was showing you "Compromise"

 

[ditcherman]

Again, we keep getting hooked up on this false definition of compromise, and thinking it means one side giving up something, while the other side gets what they want, maybe just less of it.

For true compromise, both sides have to have some give and take, so you can't just talk to one side about it, or it's not a compromise.

And on top of that, I still do believe that a coherent voice is more important from our side right now. I'm not going to go out there and start writing my representatives with my off-the-cuff ideas; even if I personally don't feel like our strategy is the absolute most perfect strategy possible, I'd still rather add my voice to it (as far as talking to the "other side", or even to politicians on "our side" goes) rather than make our side look even more fractured and divided than it already does, because presenting a united front is more important than any particular proposal or strategy.

I was just floating the idea here to get a feel for what others would think of the idea. I think they've let me know in no uncertain terms, the main reason I keep responding it because there still appear to be more than half of the replies misunderstanding my point and thinking that I just want more of the same old false "compromise" that the other side want. But despite that, there's also been quite a few good points made, and, especially with the recent developments of this newest "gun control" bill looking more and more set to fail in the Senate, I'm happy to concede that my proposal would have most likely been unnecessary at best, and harmful, at worst, as far as stopping or at least mitigating what's happening in the Senate right now.

I'm still happy to discuss it in the hypothetical, though, if anyone wants to.

I don’t think I’m seeing compromise wrongly; look at it this way - we’ve had stuff taken away from us for years, now it’s their turn to have stuff taken away for years.
Does that help you see it any differently? There is always a time factor, and you seem to be talking about “the next time” we do something (or more correctly something happens to us). Many responses on here are taking into account the past when we think about compromise, not just “the next one”.
Anyway, I don’t think people are misunderstanding compromise the way you are saying they are.

 

[AJMD429]

I think the original post was making the point that we ALREADY keep 'compromising', with the 1934 act, the 1968 act, the 1986 act, and so on forever.....the PROBLEM is that these haven't really been 'compromises' - the other side takes but never 'gives'.

There are two ways to put an end to that. Stop them from taking (which of COURSE we prefer and try to do), and MAKE THEM GIVE (which we hardly ever do). So.....if they are stampeding some of their typipcal symbolic, useless, and counterproductive 'gun control' through the legislature, then we MUST make it so that they do in fact 'give' something in the process.

All we tend to focus on is the pie-in-the-sky theory that 'gun control' is unconstitutional and useless, and we keep hoping we can convince the other side it is actually counterproductive and destabilizes society. Unfortunately, that isn't working so they keep passing stuff. Usually little stuff, but it is clear they would like to ban everything eventually.

If we were smart and strategic, we'd put language in these bills that would sabotage their attempts to create a gun registry, and invoke penalties for any transgression on their part.

 

[patience0830]

Has it ever been tried? I mean real compromise. I'm asking genuinely here; I've never heard of it happening, but that doesn't mean it hasn't; I'm happy to be corrected.

Compromise is overrated here and most anywhere gun laws are mentioned.

No more compromising away my rights.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don’t think I’m seeing compromise wrongly; look at it this way - we’ve had stuff taken away from us for years, now it’s their turn to have stuff taken away for years.
Does that help you see it any differently? There is always a time factor, and you seem to be talking about “the next time” we do something (or more correctly something happens to us). Many responses on here are taking into account the past when we think about compromise, not just “the next one”.
Anyway, I don’t think people are misunderstanding compromise the way you are saying they are.

I see what you're saying.

Yes, I think that helps me understand better.

 

[2A_Tom]

Man, I log in to see 83 notifications, and more than half of it is just pages of this. Why you do this to me?

View attachment 206858

Yes, every time you suggest that actual compromise is possible.

It is not.

There will never be a leftist that will allow a bill where they give anything back to pass. Even then there is NOTHING that we need to give up.

You have been saying we need REAL compromise over and over.

You may have noticed that the general consensus here is that what you are suggesting is not possible.


The reception runs the gamut from mild disagreement to aggregiously opposed. I do not apologize for being red-faced over your suggestion.

Only 83?

 

[2A_Tom]

I think the original post was making the point that we ALREADY keep 'compromising', with the 1934 act, the 1968 act, the 1986 act, and so on forever.....the PROBLEM is that these haven't really been 'compromises' - the other side takes but never 'gives'.

There are two ways to put an end to that. Stop them from taking (which of COURSE we prefer and try to do), and MAKE THEM GIVE (which we hardly ever do). So.....if they are stampeding some of their typipcal symbolic, useless, and counterproductive 'gun control' through the legislature, then we MUST make it so that they do in fact 'give' something in the process.

All we tend to focus on is the pie-in-the-sky theory that 'gun control' is unconstitutional and useless, and we keep hoping we can convince the other side it is actually counterproductive and destabilizes society. Unfortunately, that isn't working so they keep passing stuff. Usually little stuff, but it is clear they would like to ban everything eventually.

If we were smart and strategic, we'd put language in these bills that would sabotage their attempts to create a gun registry, and invoke penalties for any transgression on their part.

I really hope you know that you can never penalize government for anything.

They make their own rules. It is Constitutional. It will never change.

They consider themselves our betters. They want to be our nannies.

There is no way to insert our language into their bills. There are just not enough true conservatives in congress.

 

[Ingomike]

She was selling what she knows you like to hear in exchange for fame and importance. She speaks fluent conservative evangelical. Trump didn’t speak the language that well. I didn’t buy anything. You did. You know them by their fruits.

You were the sucker and you don’t even know it…

 

[Magyars]

NO COMPROMISE!

 

[jamil]

You were the sucker and you don’t even know it…

I kinda think that she’s made you the sucker. So now what?

 

[Ingomike]

I kinda think that she’s made you the sucker. So now what?

Answer #1 One of us is right, but we will never know so i guess it us a draw. LOL

Answer #2 Anyone relying on the MSM is always the loser. Louder LOL

 

[jamil]

Answer #1 One of us is right, but we will never know so i guess it us a draw. LOL

Answer #2 Anyone relying on the MSM is always the loser. Louder LOL

Corporate media lies. Independent media lies. Politicians lie. They grift. None of them are trustworthy.

 

[jamil]

Now that all that is out of the way, back to the compromise thread.

 

[2A_Tom]

I kinda think that she’s made you the sucker. So now what?

I look at their enemies.

You don't like Trump either?

 

[2A_Tom]

The compromise thread kinda ran its course by page 2.