Compromise on the 2nd amendment

[ThePreBanMan]

How is it a compromise to give up something and get nothing in return? That's not a compromise - that's a rail road job.

 

[MGnoob]

A Compromise suggests a trade that ends a transactions... that not what gun grabbers are proposing....regardless they'll be back for more. The slippery slope is real and now many openly admit it.

 

[Lokdog]

The anti's have their little hashtags to symbolize their movement, well I volunteer a hashtag from us to them. #GoAway.

 

[Tallen]

I was reading up on my old school - RPI - which made the top 10 schools for suppression of free speech. In fact, their security guards claims to have taken a public sidewalk by eminent domain to kick out leafleteers. One of the reasons gave by the administration is that they needed to take a hard line otherwise they could have things like students passing out NRA literature on campus happen.

I'll sure be ready the next time they call for a donation.

I hadn't heard about that. I've donated periodically to my old sports team there but never to the school directly.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I hadn't heard about that. I've donated periodically to my old sports team there but never to the school directly.

www.renewrensselaer.org and www.thefire.org for info. Also, savetheunion.xyz

RPI needs to be made great again.

 

[JNewell]

I never noticed that it was the Bill of Compromises.

I guess I’d better read it again.

Well, we could repeal the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments with the 2nd, as a sort of starter project.

 

[Shawn F]

I agree no compromise at all period it got to stop now.

 

[endus]

If we had leadership that could actually read the tone of the country and understand who we're dealing with, I think that we could probably offer essentially meaningless "compromises" in return for solidifying our rights to own MSRs, concealed carry reciprocity, etc. Remember, the fact that the left makes no effort to understand firearms, existing firearm law, actual facts about gun violence, etc. doesn't have to work against us. It can work for us as well. Let's ban, as an NPR reporter said the other day, "extended magazine clips"...because those aren't a thing that exists.

Use the left's penchant for making things, "more illegal" against them. Reinforce the obligation of government agencies to report already-required information to NICS. Spell out in the most explicit terms possible exactly what they're already required to report. Restate laws against illegal arms trafficking. Restate existing restrictions on sales in the context of "gun shows." Smoke and mirrors.

The key thing to get out of this would be weaving in language like, "In the interest of ensuring the right of law abiding citizens to own MSRs while preventing people with criminal records from..." It would be more complicated and subtle than I'm making it out to be, but you get the gist.

The problem is, we've got an incredibly onerous AWB floating around congress right now, more legislation being drafted in secret at the state level, a republican president who is obviously an anti, etc. I think the point that was made about the history of firearms law moving in one direction only throughout the 20th century is absolutely right and a good reason why accepting any further meaningful restrictions is a complete nonstarter for us. We're losing the battle by not being more tactical and aware of the situation, though. Setting a hard line and refusing to accept more restrictions is good. Appearing to set a hard line and refusing to accept more restrictions is bad.

This country is run, exclusively, by snakes and liars. We're not going to win standing on principle and rights because no one has any respect at all for those things anymore. We know it's bad that no one gives a f*** about the constitution anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that no one gives a f*** about the constitution anymore. The game has changed and we need to change with it. We need to deliver a message that's going to make sense to people. As a Libertarian, I want a country that respects principles and rights but America is no longer that country. The ship has sailed so we can either fall on our swords or try to retain our rights by whatever means necessary.

It's totally possible that things will be watered down, forgotten, swept up in election year politics, etc. but the question is whether we're willing to trust the future of the 2a to that. We have an ostensibly republican white house and congress and we're far, far closer to actual meaningful restrictions on, not just MSRs, but semiautomatic firearms in general than we ever were under Obumf***.

I agree with the people saying that being defensive is not working. We need to go on the offense. What I'm saying here, though, is that we need to go on the offense in a very tactical way that's conscious of the environment we're operating in.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I was reading up on my old school - RPI - which made the top 10 schools for suppression of free speech. In fact, their security guards claims to have taken a public sidewalk by eminent domain to kick out leafleteers. One of the reasons gave by the administration is that they needed to take a hard line otherwise they could have things like students passing out NRA literature on campus happen.

I'll sure be ready the next time they call for a donation.

Sadly I think that all the colleges use undergrads to make the solicitation calls, so our disdain never gets to any decision makers.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Sadly I think that all the colleges use undergrads to make the solicitation calls, so our disdain never gets to any decision makers.

They will notice if enough alumni report the same thing. When the RPI president had an on-campus fundraiser, a group of academic buildings was closed, classes canceled, and barrier fences put up to keep the students out of view of alumni.

 

[Whutmeworry]

I agree with the people saying that being defensive is not working. We need to go on the offense. What I'm saying here, though, is that we need to go on the offense in a very tactical way that's conscious of the environment we're operating in.

I'm with you. Now, how do we actually DO it???

 

[amm5061]

I was reading up on my old school - RPI - which made the top 10 schools for suppression of free speech. In fact, their security guards claims to have taken a public sidewalk by eminent domain to kick out leafleteers. One of the reasons gave by the administration is that they needed to take a hard line otherwise they could have things like students passing out NRA literature on campus happen.

I'll sure be ready the next time they call for a donation.

That's.... That's not how eminent domain works! That's the exact reverse of eminent domain--taking a public sidewalk and claiming private ownership.

 

[drgrant]

If we had leadership that could actually read the tone of the country and understand who we're dealing with, I think that we could probably offer essentially meaningless "compromises" in return for solidifying our rights to own MSRs, concealed carry reciprocity, etc.

Nope, not happening. That stuff gets pitched all the time but the antis aren't going to suck for that, outside of use as a face saving measure or greasing the
skids, etc. (like the gun locks thing thrown into the manufacturer immunity bill under bush) Remember the people braying on faceplant and the people working the anti gun laws, are slightly different groups of retards, etc. Shitberg et al want to actually ban stuff and take shit away, and they're not going to be conned into settling for less
than that. That might have worked 30 years ago, but not now. Gun controllers may have started out feeble, but they're way beyond that now, at least the ones
drafting the laws, etc. That stuff is likely all ghostwritten these days by Shitberg's people or some other org.

Graphic example.... that shit that JUST happened in Vermont.... do you think that happened organically? f*** no- that happened because a bunch of anti gun pols in VT probably got a "gun control success plan" Fedexed to them right from MDA/Shitberg before the bodies in parkland even got cold. That stuff got tacked onto the law in no time flat. It was engineered to pass.

You know why? Because shitberg probably pays people, likely a mixture of attorneys and others, to come up with that stuff all day, so that every time there is a "mass shooting" event or some other exploitable tragedy, he can just press the button and
whine to ban/steal more guns.

Basically there's 3 factions to this issue:

1- Gun owners (who are underrepresented in the debate for a variety of reasons, but even if we cut out the fudds/dead weight, we're like an easy quarter or fifth of the adult voting population)

2-loud whiney anti f***stick douchebags (who are waaaaaay over represented in the debate) but seem to be adept at peacocking, attention whoring, etc, and making their movement WAY bigger than it actually is by putting a magnifying glass between the eager MSM cameras and their steaming turd.

3- the rest of america, probably like 65%, that literally could give a shit less. (most people see it for what it is, a mostly fake problem).

Smart politicians pay attention to 1 and 3, but not 2. Problem is people fall for this crap all the time and antis prey on the save the orphans bullshit--- they make their cause out to be like anyone opposing them "probably also hates children and crippled folks" etc. Let me put it this way with 2 though- this isn't like the dreaded A word, where being the wrong thing, depending on geography can cause you problems. I've yet to see one single election where someone lost it because they were pro
gun. (republican or democrat). NOT EVEN ONE. I honestly think some pols only wave the anti flag around because of primaries- they want to appeal more commie to
their base than their competitor etc).

Of course one problem is that 3, because not caring, often lets 2 get away with the equivalent of murder, because they just don't care much. It's kinda like the situation
going on with that troupe of shitbirds with the fake service dogs that run around and take a big shit in the aisle at the local home depot. they're getting away with that horseshit, because nobody else cares enough to do anything.

There used to be other factions like, inner city crime whining club, etc... but that's largely beyond the pale at this point and even those people don't really have the audacity to
blame the guns anymore, or at least not in some sense that anyone would take them seriously. Like for example every time this bullshit comes up, nobody talks about
all the corpses getting generated in Chicago... because that's a political compost heap that is self-apparent. It's impossible for someone there to whine about guns and not
discuss the corrupt government there as playing some kind of a role, including secret police stations and all the rest Not to mention lots of people probably getting hooked
up on bogus paper gun crimes who may have only been guilty of trying to protect themselves.

Someones going to say "well there were WAY MORE people protesting this time!" but I figured out the logistics of this "phantasm". The appearance of large rallies, etc... is anti-trump BS at full mast. If Shitlery, Cruz, Jeb, someone else was president.... 10 people would have come out and protest, and nobody would give a shit. There would be limited braying and it'd be gone from the news cycle in 3 weeks... just like the last 16 years under Obama and Bush. Most of the protests were a co-op confab between pussy hat march leftovers and anti gunners holding hands, all unified under the generic hatred of Trump.

-Mike

 

[namedpipes]

The options (to reinstate the 2A) are passive noncompliance with any gun laws or outright rebellion.

Since we can't get > 3k people to even show up for a protest against Herr Healey, I suspect this leaves us with steadily dwindling rights until it becomes unbearable, by which time it will likely be impossible to resist.

Meanwhile, Dr. Grant's pussy hat protesters show up by the 10's of thousands.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Nope, not happening. That stuff gets pitched all the time but the antis aren't going to suck for that, outside of use as a face saving measure or greasing the
skids, etc. (like the gun locks thing thrown into the manufacturer immunity bill under bush) Remember the people braying on faceplant and the people working the anti gun laws, are slightly different groups of retards, etc. Shitberg et al want to actually ban stuff and take shit away, and they're not going to be conned into settling for less
than that. That might have worked 30 years ago, but not now. Gun controllers may have started out feeble, but they're way beyond that now, at least the ones
drafting the laws, etc. That stuff is likely all ghostwritten these days by Shitberg's people or some other org.

Graphic example.... that shit that JUST happened in Vermont.... do you think that happened organically? f*** no- that happened because a bunch of anti gun pols in VT probably got a "gun control success plan" Fedexed to them right from MDA/Shitberg before the bodies in parkland even got cold. That stuff got tacked onto the law in no time flat. It was engineered to pass.

You know why? Because shitberg probably pays people, likely a mixture of attorneys and others, to come up with that stuff all day, so that every time there is a "mass shooting" event or some other exploitable tragedy, he can just press the button and
whine to ban/steal more guns.

Basically there's 3 factions to this issue:

1- Gun owners (who are underrepresented in the debate for a variety of reasons, but even if we cut out the fudds/dead weight, we're like an easy quarter or fifth of the adult voting population)

2-loud whiney anti f***stick douchebags (who are waaaaaay over represented in the debate) but seem to be adept at peacocking, attention whoring, etc, and making their movement WAY bigger than it actually is by putting a magnifying glass between the eager MSM cameras and their steaming turd.

3- the rest of america, probably like 65%, that literally could give a shit less. (most people see it for what it is, a mostly fake problem).

Smart politicians pay attention to 1 and 3, but not 2. Problem is people fall for this crap all the time and antis prey on the save the orphans bullshit--- they make their cause out to be like anyone opposing them "probably also hates children and crippled folks" etc. Let me put it this way with 2 though- this isn't like the dreaded A word, where being the wrong thing, depending on geography can cause you problems. I've yet to see one single election where someone lost it because they were pro
gun. (republican or democrat). NOT EVEN ONE. I honestly think some pols only wave the anti flag around because of primaries- they want to appeal more commie to
their base than their competitor etc).

Of course one problem is that 3, because not caring, often lets 2 get away with the equivalent of murder, because they just don't care much. It's kinda like the situation
going on with that troupe of shitbirds with the fake service dogs that run around and take a big shit in the aisle at the local home depot. they're getting away with that horseshit, because nobody else cares enough to do anything.

There used to be other factions like, inner city crime whining club, etc... but that's largely beyond the pale at this point and even those people don't really have the audacity to
blame the guns anymore, or at least not in some sense that anyone would take them seriously. Like for example every time this bullshit comes up, nobody talks about
all the corpses getting generated in Chicago... because that's a political compost heap that is self-apparent. It's impossible for someone there to whine about guns and not
discuss the corrupt government there as playing some kind of a role, including secret police stations and all the rest Not to mention lots of people probably getting hooked
up on bogus paper gun crimes who may have only been guilty of trying to protect themselves.

Someones going to say "well there were WAY MORE people protesting this time!" but I figured out the logistics of this "phantasm". The appearance of large rallies, etc... is anti-trump BS at full mast. If Shitlery, Cruz, Jeb, someone else was president.... 10 people would have come out and protest, and nobody would give a shit. There would be limited braying and it'd be gone from the news cycle in 3 weeks... just like the last 16 years under Obama and Bush. Most of the protests were a co-op confab between pussy hat march leftovers and anti gunners holding hands, all unified under the generic hatred of Trump.

-Mike

Based on your analysis, it would seem - more than ever - that the best offense would have to be to continue to educate #3 and to also continue to educate, run and support new pro-gun political candidates, wayyy prior to primaries. As usual that means we're kinda screwed here in MA, but at the same time we've pretty much nothing to lose here.

 

[wahsben]

run and support new pro-gun political candidates

One of the big problems with this, is that not only here in Ma. but in many places throughout the country is that even those that claim to be pro 2A and that get elected end up stabbing us in the back once they get in. Sadly their words don't match their actions. Once they're in we usually here these words: " I support the second amendment BUT" and you know when you hear the word BUT that they really don't support the 2A.

 

[Whutmeworry]

I agree. That’s why I think it’s important to really take a close look at someone’s past before deciding whether or not to support their candidacy.

 

[fshalor]

Exactly .I remember when I first heard Trump was running and said "there's no way he will beat Hilary in the primaries . "

I assumed he would be an 80's style Democrat like he was in the ...80s and 90s.

When I heard he was running R, I was slightly incredulous.

Dr. Has it nailed above . It's 1 and 3 which we need to focus on. Ignore 2. Talking back at two gives then the attention which fuels their campaign.

 

[weekendracer]

No, actually in the end there will be a shooting war where tens of thousands of people are going to die on both sides of the issue.

I've said it before, your number is way low. Millions if not billions will die if the US has a redo of the Civil War. Maybe not in the US, but they will be connected to it.