PDA

View Full Version : Just Curious - What Could We GAIN From a Compromise


FullMetalJacket
12-23-2012, 12:36 PM
Of course, we all should hold firm in the face of creeping violations of our rights, but let's entertain a small hypothetical here. Just to see if there's anything we could gain from the current "crisis."

Let's say, we were to offer up some kind of compromise that wouldn't hurt our position too badly (whatever that means to you). I don't want to suggest any PARTICULAR concession because people have varying notions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Let's just say it's something you wouldn't like, but could grudgingly accept without feeling that the core of your rights have been affected.

Now, the nature of compromise is to GET SOMETHING in return for GIVING SOMETHING.

So, what could we get?

Of course, machine guns, SBR/S's, and silencers aren't on the table, so please forget about that.

But what about a clause in the law that stated something like:

It is the consensus of Congress that semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, subject ONLY to the constraints of this law, are Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment.

What do you think? Other possibilities?

DannyInSoCal
12-23-2012, 12:38 PM
Don't give an inch.

They have nothing we want.

Carry on...

Moonshine
12-23-2012, 12:41 PM
We won't gain anything because the gun control lobby doesn't compromise they only take. That's part of the reason there hasn't been a ban since the fed ban expired in my opinion... They want what Feinstein puts up for vote and nothing else. When her bill fails prepare for the gun control lobby to hit the media with images from Sandy Hook NOT to negotiate for what's possible.

NoHeavyHitter
12-23-2012, 12:44 PM
They want to take our firearms away, and we want to keep them. Their idea of "compromise" is that they take them away...

As far as I'm concerned the 2nd amendment says I have a right to keep and bear arms - so the gungrabbers can all go pound sand. My idea of a compromise is they can pound sand until their rectal cavities are half-way full.

rromeo
12-23-2012, 12:56 PM
Here's my idea of a compromise, don't take my guns and I won't make you buy any.

robcoe
12-23-2012, 12:56 PM
The only compromise I would be willing to make would be on mandatory training, however even that comes with a major condition on it. That being that the mandatory firearms training is not limited to just people who do or want to own a gun, it would be more like jury duty, it is mandatory for EVERYONE who is not prohibited from owning a gun, no matter how they feel about guns. Every year or two you get a notice to schedule a time for your regular training, you show up, and like jury duty you keep showing up until you complete it, only exceptions would be for people who for health reasons literally cannot pass requirements.

FullMetalJacket
12-23-2012, 1:10 PM
I get the "don't give an inch" position. I do.

But what I'm trying to find out here is if anyone has ideas on what COULD be gained if we were in a situation where compromise was inevitable. I am *not* advocating compromise, I'm just trying to explore what we could gain if it were necessary.

Moonshine
12-23-2012, 1:12 PM
Why would they compromise when they have public opinion and socialist legislators like those from our golden state?

blakdawg
12-23-2012, 1:16 PM
I don't think Constitutional rights can be or should be compromised - and I don't think it makes sense to compromise with anti's, because they're just going to keep coming back year after year, trying to "split the difference" with us. It's not like they're ever going to agree that anything short of total helplessness is acceptable.

Having said that, it would make sense to think about provisions that could be included in legislation that would have less obvious long-term advantages. One would be, under the label of "standardization", Federal preemption of state gun laws, or state preemption of local gun laws. Another might be standardization/normalization of CCW policies/reciprocity; or elimination of the stupid import restrictions in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the "points" system.

rromeo
12-23-2012, 1:22 PM
If somebody wants to cut off your arms and legs, and convince him to only cut off your legs, that is not a compromise.

striker3
12-23-2012, 1:24 PM
The NFA of 1934 was a compromise on our part. The GCA of 1968 was a compromise on our part. The FOPA of 1986 was a compromise our part. Seems like every time we compromise, we lose rights in exchange for...nothing. We suck at the whole compromise thing, so we shouldn't even discuss it.

FullMetalJacket
12-23-2012, 1:31 PM
Guys, I'm not asking IF we should compromise.

I'm asking IF WE WERE IN A SITUATION WHERE COMPROMISE WAS INEVITABLE, what COULD we gain from it?

wecf
12-23-2012, 1:35 PM
we never "gain" anything by giving up our rights.

Ieyasu
12-23-2012, 1:35 PM
Compromise?

I've never seen one offered.

An example of a compromise, granted it'd never happen, is the repeal of the NFA ban in exchange for gun registration and no transfers without a background check. Ie., all types of firearms and supressors legal, but must be registered. That's a compromise. Not saying I'm for or against it, but that's an example of a compromise. But, again, it'll never happen. It just shows the anti's are not interested in genuine compromises.

Gryff
12-23-2012, 1:47 PM
It would be nice to see better background checks. There are people prohibited from owning firearms. I think we should do better in making sure that they are not accessing them through LGS, Internet, or gun show purchases.

Write Winger
12-23-2012, 1:52 PM
National right to concealed carry.

Capybara
12-23-2012, 2:42 PM
The antis idea of a compromise is that we are totally disarmed, that is "common sense gun control". To think otherwise is total delusion. Screw compromise, we have already been living under it in this state for the past thirty years.

scott2
12-23-2012, 3:06 PM
Reinstatement of AWB for 50 State constitutional carry.
thats the only thing I could think I could compromise on.

Rem222
12-23-2012, 3:53 PM
Nothing...

If we do not defend the AKs and ARs they will come for the "Sniper Rifles" next. AKA my deer rifle...

Mike82110
12-23-2012, 5:06 PM
No compromise!

Mike82110
12-23-2012, 5:09 PM
I will not bargain for my rights! What about the ones that fought for the rights we are blatantly wanting to compromise? How would they react to all this nonsense?

Guntech
12-23-2012, 5:10 PM
Don't give an inch.

They have nothing we want.

Carry on...

Roger that.

Guntech
12-23-2012, 5:12 PM
Compromise?

I've never seen one offered.

An example of a compromise, granted it'd never happen, is the repeal of the NFA ban in exchange for gun registration and no transfers without a background check. Ie., all types of firearms and supressors legal, but must be registered. That's a compromise. Not saying I'm for or against it, but that's an example of a compromise. But, again, it'll never happen. It just shows the anti's are not interested in genuine compromises.

The NFA of 1934 was a compromise on our part. The GCA of 1968 was a compromise on our part. The FOPA of 1986 was a compromise our part. Seems like every time we compromise, we lose rights in exchange for...nothing. We suck at the whole compromise thing, so we shouldn't even discuss it.

we never "gain" anything by giving up our rights.


THIS!

GREASY357
12-23-2012, 5:17 PM
Here's my idea of a compromise, don't take my guns and I won't make you buy any.

Sounds good to me

nrgcruizer
12-23-2012, 5:25 PM
None whatsoever. I have watched our rights in California get eroded over the years. All the antis wants to do is keep on taking and taking. I'm sure there are older members on here who long ago were able to enjoy their rights unimpeded.

wash
12-23-2012, 5:35 PM
We do compromise all the time. An example is the lawsuit we settled with the county of Sacramento.

But that compromise was "make self defense good cause for LTC or we are going to kick your butt in court".

The type of compromise where the antis say "we want to take away your rights" and we say "well we want that other right you took away from us back in exchange" doesn't really work.

We can compromise when we are winning but never when the antis want something.

hornswaggled
12-23-2012, 5:39 PM
You only compromise when both sides have something the other wants. We want nothing from the antis, so they can piss off.

billmaykafer
12-23-2012, 5:45 PM
LUKE 22:36

a1c
12-23-2012, 6:20 PM
In California? Nothing.

beenawhile
12-23-2012, 6:46 PM
You only compromise when both sides have something the other wants. We want nothing from the antis, so they can piss off.

^^^^ This !

DannyInSoCal
12-23-2012, 6:49 PM
Face it.

It's a really stupid question....

Nessal
12-23-2012, 6:52 PM
Don't give an inch.

They have nothing we want.

Carry on...



There need not be anymore response after this post.

JMP
12-23-2012, 6:56 PM
I'd say a reasonable compromise would be for all gun laws and restrictions to be eliminated. In exchange, we'll continue to be lawful, patriotic US citizens.

Nor*Cal
12-23-2012, 7:02 PM
I compromised. I accepted 10 round mag limit, 1 new handgun every 30 days, and a 10 day wait for pickup. In return I want the right to carry!

bob7122
12-23-2012, 7:03 PM
we draw the line here and no further!

we don't compromise with our inalienable rights.

compromise means we reach an agreement and both sides will allow the other to do or take certain things in exchange for others. BUt they are not giving up anything. they just want to take. no thanks...

pHredd9mm
12-23-2012, 7:13 PM
When Al Capone was shooting up banks and Feds we gave up fully automatic machine guns and sawed off shot guns and got nothing in return.

When President Kennedy was shot with a mail order rifle we gave up the ability to order firearms via mail order companies (even Sears, etc.) and got nothing in return.

When we in California gave up 10+ round magazines (NOT clips!) we got nothing in return other than not being able to buy the magazines my handguns and rifles were designed for.

We we got the 10 day waiting periods, we got nothing in return.

When we got Gun Free School Zones, we got nothing in return.

Do I need to go on? Every time we have given up something at the federal or state level, WE HAVE GOTTEN NOTHING IN RETURN. EVER. NADA.

MOA1
12-23-2012, 7:14 PM
we draw the line here and no further!

we don't compromise with our inalienable rights.

compromise means we reach an agreement and both sides will allow the other to do or take certain things in exchange for others. BUt they are not giving up anything. they just want to take. no thanks...

Exactly. Thank you.

EM2
12-23-2012, 7:54 PM
Guys, I'm not asking IF we should compromise.

I'm asking IF WE WERE IN A SITUATION WHERE COMPROMISE WAS INEVITABLE, what COULD we gain from it?



Compromise is NEVER inevitable.
It takes two to tango.

Fight till the end, make them force it upon us.
Either we will or we all lose.



And hey, let's quite it with all these compromise threads.:mad:

berto
12-23-2012, 7:58 PM
Not an inch.

Our opponents end game is our firearms. Not just the scary black ones, not just the large caliber ones, not just the magazines that hold over X rounds, not just the ones that aren't on some "safe" list, not just some bullets, but all of it. They can't get all of them all at once so they'll come for them one by one in the name of "common sense" and being "reasonable" in the form of some kind of compromise that they say respects our history, tradition, and right to hunt. Restrictions, taxes, fees, and permission slips if we want to exercise our right all for the safety of the children. When do they compromise? Hell, they don't accept Heller or McDonald, their response is to find ways around those decisions. Some compromise.

Not an inch.

Bw511
12-23-2012, 8:01 PM
They have nothing we want? I don't know about you, but I want the right to gain a CCW, and have it accepted in any state I travel to. I want the right to buy whatever damn semi-auto pistol I desire without having it SSE'd. I want responsible citizens with guns WELCOMED to participate in protecting our schools, and everywhere else. They have things I want.

When we in California gave up 10+ round magazines (NOT clips!) we got nothing in return other than not being able to buy the magazines my handguns and rifles were designed for.

We we got the 10 day waiting periods, we got nothing in return.

When we got Gun Free School Zones, we got nothing in return.

Do I need to go on? Every time we have given up something at the federal or state level, WE HAVE GOTTEN NOTHING IN RETURN. EVER. NADA.

Not one of these things did we "give". We waited until they were forced upon us. That's precisely the problem. In CA, we are and will continue to be laughed at with any kind of offer of compromise. On a national scale, we currently have the power to drive the conversation. If we wait till the rest of the country is hamstrung by the same BS we are here (hey, it works in California, right?), we have lost more than we will ever gain back.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with others that mandatory CCW training wouldn't be technically effective, but it won't truly hurt (and many actually would benefit), and it's one of those "warm and fuzzy" items that will make non-gunners sleep better, and be more receptive to citizen volunteers for things like the School Shield Program (need I mention CCW?). Same goes for the background check and the supposed "gun show loophole". Inconvenient? Hell yes, worth every hour and dollar? If it means that even 15% of the anti-gun population actually come close to TRUSTING us with our weapons, also yes.

Lets face it, we exercise our 2A privileges, largely, to protect ourselves and others. The reason the antis are anti is that they are just as afraid of us as they are the bad guys. A "trained" police officer, no matter his actual level of skill, is perceived as infinitely more capable than every single one of us in here. Attempting to change that perception could go a long way.

We can only direct the conversation by setting the table ourselves.

oriculum
12-23-2012, 8:09 PM
Allowing the Antis to put forth feel-good legislation in the name of compromise only adds to the chilling effect on the 2A. Every thorn added to the already exceedingly nasty briar patch of gun ownership discourages more and more people from owning guns. They will come to us every time they think they can use a "crisis" to guilt us into compromising a little bit more of the RKBA. Every time we give in, we shrink our numbers. It may take a really long time, but eventually, when private ownership of weapons has dwindled enough, they can actually make a move to repeal the 2A.

So in other words, we stand to gain nothing through compromise.

EDIT: To further address the OP's question: I truly don't believe the Antis would be willing to give anything back. Whether we asked for CCW, standard-capacity mags, reduced waiting periods, repeal of the CA AWB, or anything else that's on the wish list, they would take our request public while spinning it to try to make us look like insensitive selfish neanderthals who want even MORE children to die. We do better in the courts than in the legislature or at the ballot box, so let's try to keep the battle there as much as we can.

bohoki
12-23-2012, 8:21 PM
what you gain from a compromise is often compromised away later

MindBeyondAverage
12-23-2012, 8:21 PM
All of this "hypothetical" talk of compromise is really starting to make me sad. Too bad the anti gun crowd isn't the only entity we have to worry about.

MOA1
12-23-2012, 8:23 PM
Don't give an inch.

They have nothing we want.

Carry on...

This.

Bw511
12-23-2012, 8:25 PM
I guess I'm not thinking about the evil of compromise as much as marketing, and public image. The more obtuse, unyielding, and out of touch they can continue to paint us, the easier their job becomes.

Bobio
12-23-2012, 8:25 PM
I think what you are saying makes sense. I would recommend waiting until the negotiations get close and then trade stuff.

jerryballs
12-23-2012, 8:32 PM
I agree with those in the training department. Only compromise to the current situation is to have complex moral/ethic lectures mandatory along with skills class and test on deployment from holster, proper carry, manipulation... Etc

Once 4 days are completed successfully, national shall issue for all!!!

Of couse CE units annually are a requirement ;)

vincewarde
12-23-2012, 9:06 PM
What could be gained depends completely upon how long there is elevated support to gun control measures. That depends upon one thing:

****How long the MSM can keep the people from finding out that NONE of the measures being seriously talked about would have prevented or even helped in ANY of the recent, high profile incidents****

If the people begin thinking with their heads and not their hearts, enough will figure out the truth. Frankly, speaking as a pastor who has helped lots of people through the process of grieving, I think what they are doing in trying to ram their previously held agenda through is despicable. Many of these people don't care if what they are proposing would likely have not prevented these mass murders - because when they don't work, they can then call for even more gun control.

Now, if support massively drops it might be possible to make a deal with some of these people - the ones that actually have been paying attention to what has been happening in the courts. The best deal would be something where both sides give something they are at risk of loosing anyway, in exchange for something they really want - that the other side views in the same way you view your concession. The only trade that I can see the NRA and it's members going for is nationally mandated shall issue with nation wide reciprocity for background checks on private sales.

The beauty of such a deal is that, in addition to meeting the criteria above, it allows both sides to give their base something they want in a way they can spin as a victory.

Brady could say: This bill closes the gun show loophole and will make prosecution of gun traffickers much easier. By signing on to nationwide concealed carry reform, we have taken an issue away from the courts, where we would not have been able to control the outcome. We have also effectively raised the standards for issuing these permits in many states where they were lax......

The NRA could say: In exchange for this small percentage of sales being subjected to the same instant check system that all other sales have been subjected to for two decades, we have secured the right for trained and law abiding citizens in every state to carry for purposes of self defense. In addition, CCW holders will never again be faced with arrest because their permit is not valid in the state they are visiting.......

Will this happen, probably not - at least not until the other side at least thinks that SCOTUS is going to take a "clean" CCW case. The nature of this issue makes it very hard to make deals with the other side. The OP did ask what we could gain from a compromise. This is one example - and before we make it we need to remember that the divil is always in the details.

kimber_ss
12-23-2012, 9:35 PM
Their side. UN small arms treaty. Really need to prevent that type of compromise.

advocatusdiaboli
12-23-2012, 9:36 PM
Don't give an inch.

They have nothing we want.

Carry on...

Correct, Compromise to them is really just a multi-step process to achieve a total ban. They offer NOTHING at each step other than the promise of a new border with a false promise to halt the assault at that point while further encroaching on our right until, by slow incremental moves, their obliterate it. If this sounds familiar it should, remember how the Native Indians were treated by the settlers and where they live now on tiny reservations. They used to run free across this entire continent.

advocatusdiaboli
12-23-2012, 9:54 PM
Compromise to them is really just a multi-step process to achieve a total ban. They offer NOTHING at each step other than the promise of a new "guaranteed" border with a false promise to halt the assault at that point until, by slow incremental moves, their obliterate it once and for all.

If this sounds familiar it should, remember how the Native Indians were treated by the settlers and where they live now on tiny reservations. They used to run free across this entire continent.

POLICESTATE
12-23-2012, 9:55 PM
What would we gain from a compromise? The same thing we gained from all the other compromises: LESS of a right!


No compromise. Gun laws should be repealed back to pre NFA, across all states.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
12-23-2012, 9:56 PM
Guys, I'm not asking IF we should compromise.

I'm asking IF WE WERE IN A SITUATION WHERE COMPROMISE WAS INEVITABLE, what COULD we gain from it?

NOTHING. That should be clear by now to anyone with eyes to see and a brain that works.

Calgunner739
12-23-2012, 10:17 PM
What can we gain from a compromise?

Nothing we won't loose the next time we make a "compromise."

The anti-gun leaders want the gun laws in the U.S. to be just like Australia and the UK. They will not just stop. Not one inch will I fall back.

No grandfathering or any other crap compromises. I want my descendants to have the same, if not better level of access to firearms, or the equivalent of what the firearm is today if a new technology is developed.

madjack956
12-23-2012, 10:32 PM
I have a hard time with comprimising anything that is constitutionally guaranteed.

In time there will be nothing left to barter with.

No comprimise!

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

Dragunov
12-23-2012, 10:34 PM
Of course, we all should hold firm in the face of creeping violations of our rights, but let's entertain a small hypothetical here. Just to see if there's anything we could gain from the current "crisis."

Let's say, we were to offer up some kind of compromise that wouldn't hurt our position too badly (whatever that means to you). I don't want to suggest any PARTICULAR concession because people have varying notions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Let's just say it's something you wouldn't like, but could grudgingly accept without feeling that the core of your rights have been affected.

Now, the nature of compromise is to GET SOMETHING in return for GIVING SOMETHING.

So, what could we get?

Of course, machine guns, SBR/S's, and silencers aren't on the table, so please forget about that.

But what about a clause in the law that stated something like:



What do you think? Other possibilities?On this matter..... You gain NOTHING with compromise. You only lose. If you compromise, you have failed!

Cato
12-23-2012, 10:40 PM
The sad reality is that we are in no position to compromise.

The government has many times more guns and tactics than we do. It's been like that for over a century. If the government takes away all our guns there's nothing we can do. Sure you can die in a gun fight when they come knocking at your door but the only place that will get you is a pine box and a mention in the "off topic" section of Calnerfguns.. Of course you can hide your guns and in ten years after the ban, someone finds the Glock you hid in the garage and you're off to prison to learn how to eat meat sandwiches with extra mayo.

Bw511
12-23-2012, 10:41 PM
No compromise. Gun laws should be repealed back to pre NFA, across all states.

Oh hell, why didn't somebody TELL me that was one of our choices? Yeah let's do this instead.

forgiven
12-23-2012, 11:02 PM
NADDA!

CnCFunFactory
12-23-2012, 11:36 PM
Don't give an inch.

They have nothing we want.

Carry on...

THIS !!!!^^^^^^^

CBruce
12-23-2012, 11:55 PM
Of course, we all should hold firm in the face of creeping violations of our rights, but let's entertain a small hypothetical here. Just to see if there's anything we could gain from the current "crisis."

Let's say, we were to offer up some kind of compromise that wouldn't hurt our position too badly (whatever that means to you). I don't want to suggest any PARTICULAR concession because people have varying notions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Let's just say it's something you wouldn't like, but could grudgingly accept without feeling that the core of your rights have been affected.

Now, the nature of compromise is to GET SOMETHING in return for GIVING SOMETHING.

So, what could we get?

Of course, machine guns, SBR/S's, and silencers aren't on the table, so please forget about that.

But what about a clause in the law that stated something like:



What do you think? Other possibilities?

What we could gain:

Recognize that gun-rights are a civil right and that the 2nd amendment applies to every individual citizens's inalienable right to own arms for any law-abiding purpose; including--but not limited to--hunting, self-defense, national defense, and revolution against a tyrannical and corrupt government.
Repeal of NFA.
De-criminilize citizen militias.
Abandon witch-hunt of "assault weapons". Classify all non-automatic firearms that use cartridges as equal.
National "shall issue" for concealed carry permit.
Waive cooling-off/waiting periods for anyone who:


already owns a firearm.
has been certified to carry a concealed firearm.
demonstrate an immediate and dire need for purposes of self-defense.


Strict regulation of state or local laws. Don't allow states to pass more strict regulations than the fed.
Allow certified/licensed CCW to carry in any "gun free zone" that does not have adequate, armed security.
No mandatory registration for any firearm.
Nationwide right to carry open and unloaded firearms.
No safe rosters.
Incorporate basic firearm safety as part of our public education system.
Deport Piers Morgan.


Things I would give up:

Universal background check for all firearm sales, including gun shows and private party transfers. Provided the system is instant, free, and could not be used to construct a database of firearm owners. Yes, I know this will do jack-****, but the anti-gun people believe it's the end-all, be-all of keeping guns away from dangerous people. This would also include updating laws pertaining to straw-buys to decriminalize proxy buys with proper background checks.
Much more severe penalties for anyone who knowingly provides a firearm to a prohibited person, including giving/selling a firearm to a person without a background check.
Much more severe penalties for anyone who commits a violent crime using a firearm.
Regulation of citizen militias

IVC
12-24-2012, 12:07 AM
For a compromise, antis would have to offer something that we cannot get in court. Otherwise we will get it whether they offer it or not. Similarly, they will take anything that we cannot protect.

There really isn't any room for compromise since antis are on a taking mission, not a giving mission.

FoxTrot87
12-24-2012, 12:17 AM
There comes a time when you realize that they are not looking to have a conversation nor a reasonable solution to the real problem. We've had to learn this the hard way over and over again... If we continue to let it go, they will continue to take these little pieces, until there is nothing left to take.

I would say a majority of gun owners are willing to compromise one aspect for the assurance of another. The other side isn't trying to limit our 2a; they're really trying to remove the individual from its definition.

I think we all need to realize how serious this is getting.

uhlan1
12-24-2012, 12:31 AM
I compromised. I accepted 10 round mag limit, 1 new handgun every 30 days, and a 10 day wait for pickup. In return I want the right to carry!

Yes, they have already taken much and given nothing. Like an insatiable beast they demand more. And after that, more. And if you play with them, in time you will have nothing.
All this defensive thinking. Email your reps and the governor. Particularly you dems and union members. Every single politician starts thinking about re-election the second they take office, and the next cycle is not long off in the life of a politician. Let them know on this issue, you will be a one issue voter.
I have, and I will be.

jcwatchdog
12-24-2012, 12:42 AM
It would be nice to be able to work together with them, if for anything but for them to leave us the hell alone. But they just won't stop. Once you give something up (even a decent amount), do you think the Brady guys will just close up shop and be happy? They'll continue. Those guys aren't stupid. They can't and won't attack at the core of the 2nd amendment (they failed with this before in the 80s). They will chip around the edges first. That's what really will happen in California. They can't ban all guns outright, so they'll start with the bullet button, magazines, ammunition purchases, and an AWB. Then when they get those in place, they'll continue over and over again until it's all gone before we know it. And if we lose the wrong Supreme Court justice, forget about everything.

If theoretically we could give something up, and then 100% guarantee we wouldn't be attacked anymore, most people would like a CCW in all states (no gun free zones if you legally have a CCW), no limits on ammuntion, and no lists with banned guns, all guns that LE could buy, any citizen could buy (minus the AW). Concessions could be a permanent AWB and no high cap magazines. But I wouldn't trust ANY of them even if everyone agreed on something like this.



Of course, we all should hold firm in the face of creeping violations of our rights, but let's entertain a small hypothetical here. Just to see if there's anything we could gain from the current "crisis."

Let's say, we were to offer up some kind of compromise that wouldn't hurt our position too badly (whatever that means to you). I don't want to suggest any PARTICULAR concession because people have varying notions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Let's just say it's something you wouldn't like, but could grudgingly accept without feeling that the core of your rights have been affected.

Now, the nature of compromise is to GET SOMETHING in return for GIVING SOMETHING.

So, what could we get?

Of course, machine guns, SBR/S's, and silencers aren't on the table, so please forget about that.

But what about a clause in the law that stated something like:



What do you think? Other possibilities?

johnthomas
12-24-2012, 1:03 AM
Not an inch, not a foot, not a mile.As a matter of fact, we want all of our freedoms given back to us that the constitution spelled out.

1 2 many
12-24-2012, 1:21 AM
All give up my ten rounders:eek:

ClarenceBoddicker
12-24-2012, 1:32 AM
The eventual path of all political compromises:

ZfL4xKQeSfo

A compromise only works when both parties exhibit good faith & are bound by contract. The Gun Grabbers do not make any deals in good faith & anti-gun "compromise" laws only bind lawful firearms owners.

Don't worry, I'm sure the NRA is busy working "behind the scenes" trying to work out a deal with the Gun Grabbers on "common sense & reasonable restrictions" that they can "sponsor" like they did with Brady & NICS. Sometimes it seems like the NRA's public image is more important than defending the 2A.

kimber_ss
12-24-2012, 2:57 AM
If the antis(vampires) sink their fangs into the second amendment, they will become accustomed to feeding on the constitutions most important right.

They will become accustomed to eroding it's guarantees, which provide freedom for every citizen of this country.

Ford8N
12-24-2012, 5:59 AM
To me, compromise means both sides get less of what they wanted. But gun owners are starting from a position of having lost so much through previous "compromises". The people who want to ban all firearms have steadily GAINED toward their goal. So either we start gaining BACK more freedom from a "compromise" or I would tell those who want to take ALL firearms away, FOAD! But in California, the majority of sheep want our guns melted down. So it looks like we will "compromise" in California.

advocatusdiaboli
12-24-2012, 9:30 AM
I guess I'm not thinking about the evil of compromise as much as marketing, and public image. The more obtuse, unyielding, and out of touch they can continue to paint us, the easier their job becomes.

They'll vilify and demonize us even if we remain silent by speaking for us. If we do speak, they will express outrage at their misquote of what we say. They are as remorseless as any religious zealot who believes his deity is urging him to do his work. They will not stop their crusade until they have total victory. We should instead engage the general public with reason and analysis after the emotion has been all but rung out of the incident.

tackdriver
12-24-2012, 9:56 AM
A win/win solution is always ideal. I have no problem with instant background checks at gunshows (et a)l. Other than being fun to shoot, I think hi-cap mags are a waste of ammo. The problem with compromise in firearm cases is once you give in on an area being pursued by the antis, such as high cap mags, it frees them up to go after other items on their agenda (you know, the deadly flash suppressors). Keep them occupied one one issue as long as possible.

gruntinhusaybah
12-24-2012, 10:58 AM
Sen. Fienstien after the 94 AWB passed "if I could've gotten more votes, it would be Mr. And Mrs. America, turn them in." or something along those lines, I can't find the actual quote.

The examples of the lefts idea of "compromise" are all around us. It's anything but compromise, it's only "take".

Do not even discuss compromise anymore. It is our right, not something to be bargained with.

Write every elected official and tell them as much, and remind them that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, write them every day, multiple times a day. Write your Sheriff, congressman, senators, everyone. Get your friends and family to do the same. Talk to people on the fence who don't know any better in a calm and rational manner. And get them to write or call.

And tackdriver: they are not high capacity, they're standard. The Glock 17 ships and is designed for a 17 rd magazine. AR15s are shipped and designed for a 30rd magazine. By allowing them to limit magazine capacity, you open the door to letting them limit it to single shot only weapons.

gruntinhusaybah
12-24-2012, 10:58 AM
Sen. Fienstien after the 94 AWB passed "if I could've gotten more votes, it would be Mr. And Mrs. America, turn them in." or something along those lines, I can't find the actual quote.

The examples of the lefts idea of "compromise" are all around us. It's anything but compromise, it's only "take".

Do not even discuss compromise anymore. It is our right, not something to be bargained with.

Write every elected official and tell them as much, and remind them that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, write them every day, multiple times a day. Write your Sheriff, congressman, senators, everyone. Get your friends and family to do the same. Talk to people on the fence who don't know any better in a calm and rational manner. And get them to write or call.

And tackdriver: they are not high capacity, they're standard. The Glock 17 ships and is designed for a 17 rd magazine. AR15s are shipped and designed for a 30rd magazine. By allowing them to limit magazine capacity, you open the door to letting them limit it to single shot only weapons.

Dantedamean
12-24-2012, 11:25 AM
There is no chance of compromise, they just want to take everything away and leave us with single action revolvers and bolt action rifles, all of which are required to be locked at all times and separated from the ammo.


However, I'll buy into your idea. Let's say the antis aren't so extreme. I would be okay with an assault weapon act similar to the NFA as long as the feds have preemption on the NFA and AWA (assault weapon act) and every person in every state can have the weapons that fall under these acts.

therealnickb
12-24-2012, 12:02 PM
I get the "don't give an inch" position. I do.

But what I'm trying to find out here is if anyone has ideas on what COULD be gained if we were in a situation where compromise was inevitable. I am *not* advocating compromise, I'm just trying to explore what we could gain if it were necessary.

You don't "need" firearms. (the anti position)

Therefor IMO, there is nothing to compromise. I've yet to hear them concede anything except "hunting".

vincewarde
12-24-2012, 1:04 PM
A compromise only works when both parties exhibit good faith & are bound by contract. The Gun Grabbers do not make any deals in good faith & anti-gun "compromise" laws only bind lawful firearms owners.

Basically correct. As I pointed out above, these people use the tactic of waiting until there is a time of national grief, when many people's judgement is compromised, to push their agenda. Win or loose, it will happen again - because their measures are ineffective at stopping these horrible incidents - and then they can push for more. On the other hand, when people are thinking clearly, many more tend to see the wisdom of our position. Either way, there is little incentive for either side to work for compromise.

It is clear that gun rights opponents are concerned about increased support for gun rights, because they have included specific "protections" for gun owners. I find this interesting, because it reveals that they think support is a lot weaker than the media and their polls are portraying it as.

Don't worry, I'm sure the NRA is busy working "behind the scenes" trying to work out a deal with the Gun Grabbers on "common sense & reasonable restrictions" that they can "sponsor" like they did with Brady & NICS. Sometimes it seems like the NRA's public image is more important than defending the 2A.

I want the NRA working behind the scenes - but I want them to publicly push for other measures (as they are doing). I especially think we need to make the case that these killings only happen where lawfully carried firearms are forbidden. We need to present both school guards and citizen concealed carry as measures that are more direct and effective than the anti-gun proposals. We have data on both and that data is clear. We also have some compelling stories we can tell where both school shootings and mass shootings in other locations have been cut short by armed citizens. We need to tell these stories. If we are wise, we may be able to get a shall issue mandate and a standard set by the feds for nation wide reciprocity.

My primary point is this: We need to play offense, not just defense. Make the other side look unreasonable, as unwilling to consider any position other than their own (this should be easy, since it's true). We also need to push for the "neutral" issue of a total overhaul of our broken mental health system. Above all, we must do all we can, consistent with our goals and values, to appear to be reasonable - so that the other side appears unreasonable.

There is one problem we face, that we must overcome: To people not knowledgeable about these issues, the other side's arguments sound reasonable. Our first and most effective response is the truth that none of these measures would have stopped any of these incidents, or lessened the death toll. We also should make the case that a ban on so called assault weapons is likely unconstitutional. Even so, we may have a hard time preventing the loss of the private sale exemption for NICS checks - but if we offer that in exchange for something with wide spread public support that we want, we may be able to prevent this from happening, or get something we really want in return. Like it or not, this is often how politics works.

Remember that the word politics is formed from two roots: "poly", meaning many - and "tics" referring to a plague of blood sucking insects. :)

postal
12-24-2012, 1:25 PM
National right to concealed carry.


This!!!!!!!

We give them the 'gunshow loophole'- sorry C&R people.....

We get NATIONAL ****SHALL ISSUE**** with ONLY truly sensitive places restricted, such as court houses, and airports.

I could live with that "compromise" but a lot of the C&R people would be smacking me upside the head.

IVC
12-24-2012, 1:29 PM
We give them the 'gunshow loophole'- sorry C&R people.....

Can't do that. Private in-state transfers of legal items is regulated by states, not feds. They can regulate FFL-s through commerce clause, but that's about it. Each state would have to agree to limit PPT...

Diablohtr
12-24-2012, 1:32 PM
I would be okay with the closing of the "gun show loophole". In exchange I want the Feds to streamline national gun laws (same stuff legal everywhere & preemption of state law). Would be a big win here in California, and a small loss in others.

FoxTrot87
12-24-2012, 1:37 PM
I'd be for holding people in favor of new laws responsible to bear all associated fees. If 51% want to repeal it then that 51% will have to pay for it and not the 49%. The 49% percent would then vote on any conditions. This is how all laws should be formed no matter the difficulties. Would you support a law that cost you $100 per paycheck for x amount of years?

Feasible? not really... would it make people really stop and think about wtf they're doing? It would most certainly do so and that is the most serious problem our country faces.

postal
12-24-2012, 1:41 PM
Can't do that. Private in-state transfers of legal items is regulated by states, not feds. They can regulate FFL-s through commerce clause, but that's about it. Each state would have to agree to limit PPT...

Ah well..... I tried to think of 'something' I could compromise.... that was *IT*... The ONLY thing I would compromise... and you say it cant be done on a national level...

....So like most everyone else already said....

Not one INCH!

OleCuss
12-24-2012, 1:43 PM
I don't remember the details, but a number of decades ago one of our presidents decided that they could deal with the Soviets on arms control.

So our diplomat went to them and said something like, "Look, you give up X and we'll give up Y and we'll have a beneficial agreement." The Soviet response was along the lines of, "Excellent! We are glad that you have seen the light and have agreed to give up Y. Now we can have productive negotiations!"

It'd be much the same with the anti-liberty folk in this country. If you even suggest you might concede on some point, and it will amount to having given up your position. Any agreement which the anti-liberty folks sign onto will certainly be broken as soon as they think they can get away with it.

The upshot is that, in the end, any compromise made would be solely on our side. There would be nothing reciprocal.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-24-2012, 1:45 PM
Guys, I'm not asking IF we should compromise.

I'm asking IF WE WERE IN A SITUATION WHERE COMPROMISE WAS INEVITABLE, what COULD we gain from it?

Asked and answered... Not a F***ing thing COULD we gain.
You don't gain by giving in and giving up freedom. Just because the other side of this argument uses the phrase "common sense" doesn't mean they actually have any.

sreiter
12-25-2012, 2:06 AM
Here's a compromise i could live with... For any citizen who wishes to take the same psych eval, and same firearms training and quals as cops, they get to have the exact same immunities, and privileges with respect to weapons and ammo

Bw511
12-25-2012, 8:33 AM
Here's a compromise i could live with... For any citizen who wishes to take the same psych eval, and same firearms training and quals as cops, they get to have the exact same immunities, and privileges with respect to weapons and ammo

Where do I sign?

Dantedamean
12-25-2012, 8:37 AM
Here's a compromise i could live with... For any citizen who wishes to take the same psych eval, and same firearms training and quals as cops, they get to have the exact same immunities, and privileges with respect to weapons and ammo

You realize the free states allow access to weapons your average officer can't get his hands on?

Ford8N
12-25-2012, 9:30 AM
You realize the free states allow access to weapons your average California officer can't get his hands on?

Yes. ;)

billmaykafer
12-25-2012, 9:39 AM
we have given since 1947 and have nothing in return except a turn to socialism from a constitutional republic.

billmaykafer
12-25-2012, 9:42 AM
Where do I sign?

you take your test and stick it up your A**. i took an oath 5 times to defend the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

GW
12-25-2012, 9:43 AM
Just Curious - What Could We GAIN From a Compromise

We will gain NOTHING A compromise only means we lose more rights. The anti's have never made any give with their give and take. At best the anti's "compromise" is:
"We won't take all of your rights this time."

Screw 'em!:mad:

sreiter
12-25-2012, 9:43 AM
You realize the free states allow access to weapons your average officer can't get his hands on?

Such as? On duty cops don't use full auto ? What doesnt SWAT have access to?

billmaykafer
12-25-2012, 9:44 AM
Here's a compromise i could live with... For any citizen who wishes to take the same psych eval, and same firearms training and quals as cops, they get to have the exact same immunities, and privileges with respect to weapons and ammo

you live with it while i defend the constitution againt enemies foreign and domestic.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-25-2012, 9:45 AM
Here's a compromise i could live with... For any citizen who wishes to take the same psych eval, and same firearms training and quals as cops, they get to have the exact same immunities, and privileges with respect to weapons and ammo

No way I would go for that.
The police and our government derive their privledges from us; they work for us. They can not be granted a privledge that we the people do not possess. What has gotten us to the point we are at now is we have given up some our rights and privledges for a little perceived security. That isn't working out so well, is it?

Merovign
12-25-2012, 10:15 AM
If Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, what's "compromise?"

A sheep with two legs?

Basically we're nearly absolute opposites here. Everything we'd want "in exchange" is just another item on their list - that they will continue to push for regardless of any past "deal."

Nothing is permanent, not even the sky. Freedom isn't a document or an agreement, it's a process. We will have to fight for it *forever*. I know that sounds exhausting, but it's what we have.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 10:26 AM
Of course, we all should hold firm in the face of creeping violations of our rights, but let's entertain a small hypothetical here. Just to see if there's anything we could gain from the current "crisis."

Let's say, we were to offer up some kind of compromise that wouldn't hurt our position too badly (whatever that means to you). I don't want to suggest any PARTICULAR concession because people have varying notions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Let's just say it's something you wouldn't like, but could grudgingly accept without feeling that the core of your rights have been affected.

Now, the nature of compromise is to GET SOMETHING in return for GIVING SOMETHING.

So, what could we get?

Of course, machine guns, SBR/S's, and silencers aren't on the table, so please forget about that.
But what about a clause in the law that stated something like:



What do you think? Other possibilities?


I think you are a mole.:troll:

sreiter
12-25-2012, 10:35 AM
No way I would go for that.
The police and our government derive their privledges from us; they work for us. They can not be granted a privledge that we the people do not possess. What has gotten us to the point we are at now is we have given up some our rights and privledges for a little perceived security. That isn't working out so well, is it?

Yeah, WE gave them the right to arm themselves to the teeth, while leaving us defenseless. I'm willing to show aptitude, if thats what it takes to get my rights back...

Hows you're fight for NFA weapons working out for you? My idea gets me way more then I'm giving up (no more then what i need to do to buy a hand gun now)

Dantedamean
12-25-2012, 10:35 AM
Such as? On duty cops don't use full auto ? What doesnt SWAT have access to?

Average being the key word there. I don't see SWAT patrolling the streets. Hell its right in their name, special weapons.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 10:36 AM
I get the "don't give an inch" position. I do.

But what I'm trying to find out here is if anyone has ideas on what COULD be gained:troll: if we were in a situation where compromise was inevitable. I am *not* advocating compromise, I'm just trying to explore what we could gain if it were necessary.

No, you are trying to feel out what your side could sucker us into.

Never let a crisis go to waste!

12voltguy
12-25-2012, 10:38 AM
we gain nothing
I would give up bolt actions for mg's suppressors and tanks

Meplat
12-25-2012, 10:48 AM
Guys, I'm not asking IF we should compromise.

I'm asking IF WE WERE IN A SITUATION WHERE COMPROMISE WAS INEVITABLE, what COULD we gain from it?

You Bradys just don’t comprehend.

This is the hill I am willing to die on!
DO you?

liberallyloaded
12-25-2012, 11:03 AM
Compromise means both sides get something towards their goal. As was previously mentioned, they have nothing to offer.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 11:07 AM
I think what you are saying makes sense. I would recommend waiting until the negotiations get close and then trade stuff.

Confirmed mole:troll: read some of his past posts.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 11:18 AM
I agree with those in the training department. Only compromise to the current situation is to have complex moral/ethic lectures mandatory along with skills class and test on deployment from holster, proper carry, manipulation... Etc

Once 4 days are completed successfully, national shall issue for all!!!

Of couse CE units annually are a requirement ;)


So I, who have been shooting handguns sense I was 5yo, should have to jump through hoops, meet prerequisite requirements designed to discourage or deny, pay fees designed to prevent the less than wealthy from participating, and do this on a yearly bases? The biannual CE classes I take now to maintain my CCW are a joke!

Non-starter, sorry.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-25-2012, 11:28 AM
Yeah, WE gave them the right to arm themselves to the teeth, while leaving us defenseless. I'm willing to show aptitude, if thats what it takes to get my rights back...

Hows you're fight for NFA weapons working out for you? My idea gets me way more then I'm giving up (no more then what i need to do to buy a hand gun now)

And what happens when aptitude is not longer enough? What happens when you must join the group in order to enjoy that superior set of rights? What happens when you no longer meet the qualifications? At some point, you won't, I hope you realize.

The insidious part about compromise, whether it's your rights or your principals, is that it's almost impossible to get them back once they have been given up.

sreiter
12-25-2012, 11:37 AM
Average being the key word there. I don't see SWAT patrolling the streets. Hell its right in their name, special weapons.

I never said average, or patrol.... btw - metro patrols, and for all intents and purposes are a swat unit

Meplat
12-25-2012, 11:43 AM
I would be okay with the closing of the "gun show loophole". In exchange I want the Feds to streamline national gun laws (same stuff legal everywhere & preemption of state law). Would be a big win here in California, and a small loss in others.

Here we have a very big fish, just waiting to be realed in!:facepalm:

sreiter
12-25-2012, 11:43 AM
And what happens when aptitude is not longer enough? What happens when you must join the group in order to enjoy that superior set of rights? What happens when you no longer meet the qualifications? At some point, you won't, I hope you realize.



You can play "what if all day" ... thats not the thread. The general population right now wanting a AWB have no problems with police or military using the weapons because "they're trained".... fine... the deal is i'll train the same, and give me the same weapons, ect.


The insidious part about compromise, whether it's your rights or your principals, is that it's almost impossible to get them back once they have been given up.

the things i'm talking about gaining, you dont have now anyway

sreiter
12-25-2012, 11:46 AM
you live with it while i defend the constitution againt enemies foreign and domestic.

Are you ready, right now, to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike?

because unless you would SERIOUSLY join and fight in open rebellion, RIGHT NOW, your taking point is nothing but lip service

Meplat
12-25-2012, 12:05 PM
So, so far the OM (original mole) has succeeded in feeling out what the antis can take that would meet with the least resistance. Expressly; the non-existent “gun show loophole”. Congratulations guys for helping the Bradys hone their strategy.:facepalm:

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-25-2012, 12:05 PM
You can play "what if all day" ... thats not the thread. The general population right now wanting a AWB have no problems with police or military using the weapons because "they're trained".... fine... the deal is i'll train the same, and give me the same weapons, ect.



the things i'm talking about gaining, you dont have now anyway

Good luck with that.

OleCuss
12-25-2012, 12:06 PM
Here's a compromise i could live with... For any citizen who wishes to take the same psych eval, and same firearms training and quals as cops, they get to have the exact same immunities, and privileges with respect to weapons and ammo

I understand where this comes from but I disagree.

How about the cops and such get to carry the guns I trained with and had to carry as part of my duties in a combat zone when they have the training and education I have?

No offense to my friends the LEOs, but there are darned few with my education, and extremely few who have my education and have also been required by the government to live with a firearm 24/7 in a combat zone.

I qualified to standard with multiple firearms and utilized others (not my duty firearms and didn't bother to qual).

There are tons of us who are better trained with firearms and operated under more challenging ROEs than are/did the vast majority of LEOs.

What we were not, is trained in law-enforcement specific stuff about state law and how to do the civilian interrogations.

Maybe LEOs should have to meet our training standard?

Some of my friends have multiple years of combat zone experience and have qualified on many different firearms. Perhaps LEOs should have to match their training and experience?

Thing is, if the government wants the citizens who can carry firearms by right to be properly trained, then they own the schools to accomplish that task.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 12:11 PM
Thing is, if the government wants the citizens who can carry firearms by right to be properly trained, then they own the schools to accomplish that task.

^^This!

sreiter
12-25-2012, 12:31 PM
I understand where this comes from but I disagree.



No offense to my friends the LEOs, but there are darned few with my education, and extremely few who have my education and have also been required by the government to live with a firearm 24/7 in a combat zone.
.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/ray-kelly-nypd-gunfire-appropriate-empire-state-building-shooting_n_1834238.html

Empire State Building Shooting: Ray Kelly Says NYPD Gunfire That Injured 9 Bystanders Was Appropriate

The police shooting near the Empire State Building last week is a testament to how quickly officers can fire off 16 rounds to take down an armed suspect.

But the nine wounded bystanders attest to another truth: Officers often miss.

Kelly called it "unfortunate" that innocent people were hurt. But, he added, "Thank God, everybody is going to be all right."

Experts said the number of bullets fired by the two officers wasn't surprising, nor was the fact that some of them missed their intended target.

rexbo47
12-25-2012, 1:27 PM
No compromise. To compromise with the left is to move to the left. I for one have been moved in that direction far enough.

+ 1

Johnnykck
12-25-2012, 1:49 PM
The compromise that I would be willing to agree on is this. If the left/anti gun crowd/government gives me back my second amendment rights 100% with no restrictions I will be willing to carry a firearm every where I go and use it to defend the life of innocent people/children if I ever get into a situation where this would be necessary.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 1:58 PM
Are you ready, right now, to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike?

because unless you would SERIOUSLY join and fight in open rebellion, RIGHT NOW, your taking point is nothing but lip service

That depends entirely on the details. If they are coming to put your family in a reeducation camp, would you?

Meplat
12-25-2012, 2:07 PM
Are you ready, right now, to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike?

because unless you would SERIOUSLY join and fight in open rebellion, RIGHT NOW, your taking point is nothing but lip service

Questions like this unless left unanswered serve only to inform the oppressor. So please stop assuaging your own cowardly guilt by flinging these half disguised insults at your betters.

Bhobbs
12-25-2012, 2:46 PM
There is no compromise. If anything we would be bargaining some of our 2A for other parts. We have everything to lose and they have everything to gain.

sreiter
12-25-2012, 4:25 PM
Questions like this unless left unanswered serve only to inform the oppressor. So please stop assuaging your own cowardly guilt by flinging these half disguised insults at your betters.

When i run across "my betters", I'll let you know.

Don't know your definition of coward, but mine is someone talk big from behind the anonymity of a screen name, and keyboard

Merkava_4
12-25-2012, 4:32 PM
Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. DON'T compromise on anything.

OleCuss
12-25-2012, 7:32 PM
Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. DON'T compromise on anything.

I tend to agree with this, but you made me think and I'm not sure I precisely agree.

Call it nitpicking or something similar, but I think there is a philosophical point we maybe should consider.

Is there anyway to compromise without effectively agreeing that we don't have a right to self-defense?

I mean, if I say that I don't have a right to have a 30 round magazine, I'm saying that I really don't have a right to self-defense - I have a privilege granted to me by the government to defend myself as the government wishes.

To concede anything is to agree that self-defense is not an inherent right but a granted privilege. Once we agree that it is a privilege the government will trample on our rights however it sees fit.

I acknowledge the fact that I will never see my full rights recognized - but I will never accept that fact as righteous or "acceptable".

Getting back around to the point of disagreement? They won't be so much taking a mile as we'll think we're giving an inch and we'll actually be giving them everything they want. The effect is pretty much the same, but we need to understand that if we agree to compromise we're actually simply bowing before tyranny.

therealnickb
12-25-2012, 8:16 PM
Is there anyway to compromise without effectively agreeing that we don't have a right to self-defense?

I mean, if I say that I don't have a right to have a 30 round magazine, I'm saying that I really don't have a right to self-defense - I have a privilege granted to me by the government to defend myself as the government wishes.

To concede anything is to agree that self-defense is not an inherent right but a granted privilege. Once we agree that it is a privilege the government will trample on our rights however it sees fit.
.

This post, exactly as written should be a sticky. It should also precede most in vogue 2A arguments.

Olecuss gets it! Nice work!

Meplat
12-25-2012, 8:27 PM
When i run across "my betters", I'll let you know.

Don't know your definition of coward, but mine is someone talk big from behind the anonymity of a screen name, and keyboard

You can start your search with folks that know ‘better’ than to advertise what they are willing to do even with the anonymity of a net handle. Most of the folks here know who I am and I would be happy to pm you my name if you really care, but I suspect that is just another way for you to disparage others just because they won’t do something stupid. There are many and better reasons for remaining nominally anonymous on a forum like this, that have nothing to do with arguing with you.

dunndeal
12-25-2012, 8:37 PM
Of course, we all should hold firm in the face of creeping violations of our rights, but let's entertain a small hypothetical here. Just to see if there's anything we could gain from the current "crisis."

Let's say, we were to offer up some kind of compromise that wouldn't hurt our position too badly (whatever that means to you). I don't want to suggest any PARTICULAR concession because people have varying notions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Let's just say it's something you wouldn't like, but could grudgingly accept without feeling that the core of your rights have been affected.

Now, the nature of compromise is to GET SOMETHING in return for GIVING SOMETHING.

So, what could we get?

Of course, machine guns, SBR/S's, and silencers aren't on the table, so please forget about that.

But what about a clause in the law that stated something like:



What do you think? Other possibilities?


The "other possibility" I'm wondering is "Are you a Brady plant?"

sreiter
12-25-2012, 9:26 PM
You can start your search with folks that know ‘better’ than to advertise what they are willing to do even with the anonymity of a net handle. Most of the folks here know who I am and I would be happy to pm you my name if you really care, but I suspect that is just another way for you to disparage others just because they won’t do something stupid. There are many and better reasons for remaining nominally anonymous on a forum like this, that have nothing to do with arguing with you.

The disparaging remarks came from you and billmaykafer who kept spouting off about protecting this country from threats both foreign and domestic, which were actually non sequiturs.

If you're so brilliant, how did you ever possibly miss a rhetorical question? Do you really think i'd expect anyone one a public forum to openly admit they would seek to violently overthrow the government? But its pretty funny, because that is certainly the impression Che'... errr billmaykafer was giving.

Sure, please PM me you're name so I know who to bow down before, being you're my superior :rolleyes:

Fellblade
12-25-2012, 9:32 PM
I'm in favor of a compromise. We agree to stop filing lawsuits that cost the state and country a lot of money if they repeal the unconstitutional laws at the heart of those lawsuits and cease and desist from passing new ones. Seems fair to me.

CDFingers
12-26-2012, 5:30 AM
Since recent mass shootings featured rifles stolen from their rightful owners, one "compromise" I would accept is a gun safe purchase law of some kind--American made safes, that is.

Now, since it is cost prohibitive sometimes, it's possible that there should be a sliding scale, a .gov-supported subsidy for poor folks. We have reading and writing programs subsidized for poor folks. We have cell phone programs for them, food programs, health programs. Why not a gun safe subsidy on a sliding scale coupled to a requirement to buy a safe?

Zero infringement, yet unauthorized people are prohibited from accessing the weapon because they don't know the combination. California has a law requiring a safe if children under 18 live in the house. California leads yet again...

CDFingers

nicki
12-26-2012, 9:44 AM
The British and Australian gun owners treated their gun ownership as a hobby and they compromised their hobby pretty much out of existence.

We have a right to bear arms because we have a duty to maintain our country as a free country and our duty to bear arms is so that is we elect the wrong people to office and they turn on the people, that we can remove them from office.

The rest of the bill of rights has been shredded to pieces and we are at this point a defacto police state.

We shouldn't even talk compromise till our government does the following first to reduce gun violence.

1. End the drug war.
2. Cut govt red tape on all levels to allow our economy to grow.
3. Reform our criminal justice system and prison system to reduce creation of violent offenders.
4. Reform our mental health system.

And then the media needs to also change as well as our entertainment industry. For starters violent movies and shows should be rated R or even NC 17.



Nicki

tritonx
12-26-2012, 11:27 AM
I suspect that the coming legislation will offer no gains for gun owners. However, one possible benefit for Californians is that the coming restrictions end up instituting California-like feature restrictions, leading all firearms to become "California compliant" and thus easier for us to acquire inter-state.

FullMetalJacket
12-26-2012, 9:33 PM
Geez, a guy can't start a HYPOTHETICAL discussion without being branded a mole.

For the record, I am not a mole. I have almost 300 posts here going back to 2008 and I'm sure a cursory review of a few of my prior posts would clearly demonstrate my true leanings. I am an NRA Life Member and proud owner of 3 RAWS as well as some bullet-buttoned goodies and a good deal more "non-controversial" arms. I like 30 round magazines in my AR and wish I could get a few of those 60 round SureFire ones. I want to own one of those silly Slide-Fire stocks simply because I'm told I CAN'T have one. I am as big a supporter of a real, viable 2nd Amendment as anyone, and I look forward to the day I can get my very own CCW in Alameda County.

I guess because I predicated my initial question on the idea of a compromise, most people responded...unconstructively.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating compromise or asking what you would consider compromising--I tried to make that clear by saying it would only be something YOU could LIVE WITH in the premise. I explicitly wanted to avoid talking about what things could or should or might be compromised, simply because that WOULD give potentially valuable info to the other side.

I was asking if there was ANYTHING we could gain if it came down to some horse trading. I get the "no compromises, ever" thing, I really do, and I hope we can hold to that. And if you don't want to discuss it because you're afraid it will give the Bradys, Bloomberg, Biden, etc. bad ideas, then I understand that, too. But I wanted to brainstorm what we could get that might make future fights easier.

I frequently read the expression "chess, not checkers" around here, in reference to the legal minds' strategies for unwinding pernicious gun regulation. I'm trying to generate some ideas that might contribute to that strategy. And, hey, if the best answer is NOTHING, then so be it. At least we'll have explored it.

Some ideas that were floated (and I'll forgo any critique at this point):

50 state Constitutional carry
Recognize that gun-rights are a civil right and that the 2nd amendment applies to every individual citizens's inalienable right to own arms for any law-abiding purpose; including--but not limited to--hunting, self-defense, national defense, and revolution against a tyrannical and corrupt government.
Repeal of NFA.
De-criminilize citizen militias.
Abandon witch-hunt of "assault weapons". Classify all non-automatic firearms that use cartridges as equal.
National "shall issue" for concealed carry permit.
Waive cooling-off/waiting periods for anyone who:
already owns a firearm.
has been certified to carry a concealed firearm.
demonstrate an immediate and dire need for purposes of self-defense.
Strict regulation of state or local laws. Don't allow states to pass more strict regulations than the fed.
Allow certified/licensed CCW to carry in any "gun free zone" that does not have adequate, armed security.
No mandatory registration for any firearm.
Nationwide right to carry open and unloaded firearms.
No safe rosters.
Incorporate basic firearm safety as part of our public education system.
Deport Piers Morgan.
National SHALL ISSUE.

Eastbayguy
12-26-2012, 9:56 PM
Why people are so big on "Waive cooling-off/waiting periods"?

Springfield45
12-26-2012, 9:57 PM
There is no compromising. The debate was over july 15, 1791 when the Constitution was ratified by the states.

therealnickb
12-26-2012, 11:44 PM
Why people are so big on "Waive cooling-off/waiting periods"?

The Compton riots come to mind.

therealnickb
12-26-2012, 11:49 PM
Geez, a guy can't start a HYPOTHETICAL discussion without being branded a mole.

For the record, I am not a mole. I have almost 300 posts here going back to 2008 and I'm sure a cursory review of a few of my prior posts would clearly demonstrate my true leanings. I am an NRA Life Member and proud owner of 3 RAWS as well as some bullet-buttoned goodies and a good deal more "non-controversial" arms. I like 30 round magazines in my AR and wish I could get a few of those 60 round SureFire ones. I want to own one of those silly Slide-Fire stocks simply because I'm told I CAN'T have one. I am as big a supporter of a real, viable 2nd Amendment as anyone, and I look forward to the day I can get my very own CCW in Alameda County.

I guess because I predicated my initial question on the idea of a compromise, most people responded...unconstructively.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating compromise or asking what you would consider compromising--I tried to make that clear by saying it would only be something YOU could LIVE WITH in the premise. I explicitly wanted to avoid talking about what things could or should or might be compromised, simply because that WOULD give potentially valuable info to the other side.

I was asking if there was ANYTHING we could gain if it came down to some horse trading. I get the "no compromises, ever" thing, I really do, and I hope we can hold to that. And if you don't want to discuss it because you're afraid it will give the Bradys, Bloomberg, Biden, etc. bad ideas, then I understand that, too. But I wanted to brainstorm what we could get that might make future fights easier.

I frequently read the expression "chess, not checkers" around here, in reference to the legal minds' strategies for unwinding pernicious gun regulation. I'm trying to generate some ideas that might contribute to that strategy. And, hey, if the best answer is NOTHING, then so be it. At least we'll have explored it.

Some ideas that were floated (and I'll forgo any critique at this point):

50 state Constitutional carry
Recognize that gun-rights are a civil right and that the 2nd amendment applies to every individual citizens's inalienable right to own arms for any law-abiding purpose; including--but not limited to--hunting, self-defense, national defense, and revolution against a tyrannical and corrupt government.
Repeal of NFA.
De-criminilize citizen militias.
Abandon witch-hunt of "assault weapons". Classify all non-automatic firearms that use cartridges as equal.
National "shall issue" for concealed carry permit.
Waive cooling-off/waiting periods for anyone who:
already owns a firearm.
has been certified to carry a concealed firearm.
demonstrate an immediate and dire need for purposes of self-defense.
Strict regulation of state or local laws. Don't allow states to pass more strict regulations than the fed.
Allow certified/licensed CCW to carry in any "gun free zone" that does not have adequate, armed security.
No mandatory registration for any firearm.
Nationwide right to carry open and unloaded firearms.
No safe rosters.
Incorporate basic firearm safety as part of our public education system.
Deport Piers Morgan.
National SHALL ISSUE.


You've written lots of stuff. But you are not getting the main point.

Nothing but our rights will be compromised.

We can't compromise and get more of something.

berto
12-27-2012, 1:13 AM
Geez, a guy can't start a HYPOTHETICAL discussion without being branded a mole.

For the record, I am not a mole. I have almost 300 posts here going back to 2008 and I'm sure a cursory review of a few of my prior posts would clearly demonstrate my true leanings. I am an NRA Life Member and proud owner of 3 RAWS as well as some bullet-buttoned goodies and a good deal more "non-controversial" arms. I like 30 round magazines in my AR and wish I could get a few of those 60 round SureFire ones. I want to own one of those silly Slide-Fire stocks simply because I'm told I CAN'T have one. I am as big a supporter of a real, viable 2nd Amendment as anyone, and I look forward to the day I can get my very own CCW in Alameda County.

I guess because I predicated my initial question on the idea of a compromise, most people responded...unconstructively.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating compromise or asking what you would consider compromising--I tried to make that clear by saying it would only be something YOU could LIVE WITH in the premise. I explicitly wanted to avoid talking about what things could or should or might be compromised, simply because that WOULD give potentially valuable info to the other side.

I was asking if there was ANYTHING we could gain if it came down to some horse trading. I get the "no compromises, ever" thing, I really do, and I hope we can hold to that. And if you don't want to discuss it because you're afraid it will give the Bradys, Bloomberg, Biden, etc. bad ideas, then I understand that, too. But I wanted to brainstorm what we could get that might make future fights easier.

I frequently read the expression "chess, not checkers" around here, in reference to the legal minds' strategies for unwinding pernicious gun regulation. I'm trying to generate some ideas that might contribute to that strategy. And, hey, if the best answer is NOTHING, then so be it. At least we'll have explored it.

Some ideas that were floated (and I'll forgo any critique at this point):

50 state Constitutional carry
Recognize that gun-rights are a civil right and that the 2nd amendment applies to every individual citizens's inalienable right to own arms for any law-abiding purpose; including--but not limited to--hunting, self-defense, national defense, and revolution against a tyrannical and corrupt government.
Repeal of NFA.
De-criminilize citizen militias.
Abandon witch-hunt of "assault weapons". Classify all non-automatic firearms that use cartridges as equal.
National "shall issue" for concealed carry permit.
Waive cooling-off/waiting periods for anyone who:
already owns a firearm.
has been certified to carry a concealed firearm.
demonstrate an immediate and dire need for purposes of self-defense.
Strict regulation of state or local laws. Don't allow states to pass more strict regulations than the fed.
Allow certified/licensed CCW to carry in any "gun free zone" that does not have adequate, armed security.
No mandatory registration for any firearm.
Nationwide right to carry open and unloaded firearms.
No safe rosters.
Incorporate basic firearm safety as part of our public education system.
Deport Piers Morgan.
National SHALL ISSUE.



You view compromise as "give a little to get a little" and suggest that we can give up on a minor issue or two in exchange for gains in other areas. We're not in the kind of fight where that's an option as our enemy isn't going to yield anything. Their end game isn't a less restrictive 2A, it's no 2A. There's no good faith negotiating here. Their idea of compromise is restricting 2A as much as possible now and coming for the rest later. What in the history of anti-gun legislation leads you to believe that the other side will yield on anything? They don't think we should be allowed to own handguns at all but somehow they're going to trade background checks on every firearms transfer for LTC reciprocity or nationwide constitutional carry? Get real. The other side will take as much as they can get, we need to fight them every step of the way. Not one inch.

berto
12-27-2012, 1:27 AM
Geez, a guy can't start a HYPOTHETICAL discussion without being branded a mole.

For the record, I am not a mole. I have almost 300 posts here going back to 2008 and I'm sure a cursory review of a few of my prior posts would clearly demonstrate my true leanings. I am an NRA Life Member and proud owner of 3 RAWS as well as some bullet-buttoned goodies and a good deal more "non-controversial" arms. I like 30 round magazines in my AR and wish I could get a few of those 60 round SureFire ones. I want to own one of those silly Slide-Fire stocks simply because I'm told I CAN'T have one. I am as big a supporter of a real, viable 2nd Amendment as anyone, and I look forward to the day I can get my very own CCW in Alameda County.

I guess because I predicated my initial question on the idea of a compromise, most people responded...unconstructively.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating compromise or asking what you would consider compromising--I tried to make that clear by saying it would only be something YOU could LIVE WITH in the premise. I explicitly wanted to avoid talking about what things could or should or might be compromised, simply because that WOULD give potentially valuable info to the other side.

I was asking if there was ANYTHING we could gain if it came down to some horse trading. I get the "no compromises, ever" thing, I really do, and I hope we can hold to that. And if you don't want to discuss it because you're afraid it will give the Bradys, Bloomberg, Biden, etc. bad ideas, then I understand that, too. But I wanted to brainstorm what we could get that might make future fights easier.

I frequently read the expression "chess, not checkers" around here, in reference to the legal minds' strategies for unwinding pernicious gun regulation. I'm trying to generate some ideas that might contribute to that strategy. And, hey, if the best answer is NOTHING, then so be it. At least we'll have explored it.

Some ideas that were floated (and I'll forgo any critique at this point):

50 state Constitutional carry
Recognize that gun-rights are a civil right and that the 2nd amendment applies to every individual citizens's inalienable right to own arms for any law-abiding purpose; including--but not limited to--hunting, self-defense, national defense, and revolution against a tyrannical and corrupt government.
Repeal of NFA.
De-criminilize citizen militias.
Abandon witch-hunt of "assault weapons". Classify all non-automatic firearms that use cartridges as equal.
National "shall issue" for concealed carry permit.
Waive cooling-off/waiting periods for anyone who:
already owns a firearm.
has been certified to carry a concealed firearm.
demonstrate an immediate and dire need for purposes of self-defense.
Strict regulation of state or local laws. Don't allow states to pass more strict regulations than the fed.
Allow certified/licensed CCW to carry in any "gun free zone" that does not have adequate, armed security.
No mandatory registration for any firearm.
Nationwide right to carry open and unloaded firearms.
No safe rosters.
Incorporate basic firearm safety as part of our public education system.
Deport Piers Morgan.
National SHALL ISSUE.



You view compromise as "give a little to get a little" and suggest that we can give up on a minor issue or two in exchange for gains in other areas. We're not in the kind of fight where that's an option as our enemy isn't going to yield anything. Their end game isn't a less restrictive 2A, it's no 2A. There's no good faith negotiating here. Their idea of compromise is restricting 2A as much as possible now and coming for the rest later. What in the history of anti-gun legislation leads you to believe that the other side will yield on anything? They don't think we should be allowed to own handguns at all but somehow they're going to trade background checks on every firearms transfer for LTC reciprocity or nationwide constitutional carry? Get real.

TeddyBallgame
12-27-2012, 2:26 AM
I won't compromise the blood of our Founding Fathers

I see it in one way and ONLY one way...guns and emotionally disturbed people are two DIFFERENT things...there is absolutely NO connection between a firearm and an unstable person

The day they can tell me there is a link between the two, I'll be a better listener...until that day comes, I will respect the lives of the people, and the blood that was shed, to ensure I would have that freedom today

Kharn
12-27-2012, 2:54 AM
The only things I want from the federal government are nationwide reciprocity, revoked import restrictions and a reopened MG registry (or elimination of the registry). I really doubt many Democrats would be willing to consider those, so I'm not willing to consider their plans.

Not. One. Inch.

1859sharps
12-27-2012, 7:14 AM
If compromise was actually possible and a realistic option, we could actually gain more than people think. while loosing little if anything.

The problem is, despite the claim otherwise, the gun control leaders aren't willing to actually and truly have a discussion and compromise. they don't want compromise, they don't want gun control, they want gun ban.

Timbob55
12-27-2012, 8:36 AM
Nothing. They won't stop there.

Meplat
12-27-2012, 8:37 AM
Why people are so big on "Waive cooling-off/waiting periods"?

Because it is restraint of trade; it has a chilling effect on the free flow of commerce. Ask any marketing expert what a ten day wait to take delivery would do to trade in any other product. Plus it is a PITA. It is also counterproductive