Is there any possible "compromise?"

[cekim]

First, let me say that in principle, there should be no more compromise on 2A than there is on 1,3,4,5,etc...

They are not rights "granted", but rather government restrained from infringing upon them by the Constitution, so as you respond, please understand that you are preaching to the choir with me if you want to yell "Molon Labe" with spit coming out of your mouth in response to my question...

So, with the understanding of the inherent imperfection of governance, I am asking if there is a compromise that could be reached that actually strengthens our rights? A "put up or shut up" to the surprising number of democrats and RINOs who aren't "anti-gun" but certainly do not believe 2A.

Could we find a coalition between the "gun friendly Democrats", libertarians, and actual Republicans that could overcome the "anti's?" Could we find some set of laws that met the spirit of 2A? (realizing that many of you have already conceded the point that felons can be prohibited, when the constitution says nothing of the sort).

What would it look like? What would you be willing to give? What would you demand in return? I know it is painful to ask such a question - but that's life in a democracy. It's like the digestive system, it looks awful, smells worse, but as bad as it is, I defy you to come up with "less bad" way to turn food into energy...

Would you be willing to be required to perform an FBI check even for a FTF sale if the check were actually blind? If no due process right of buyer or seller were violated, and no records stored?

I personally would never sell a gun to anyone I had any doubts about - much less a felon, so it would actually be a good thing if I had a way of easily confirming that they are not a felon/wanted or otherwise liberal leaning... If I could confirm it, then I'd have no problem with the most severe penalties of failing to do so...

In return for doing so, I'd demand that there would be no restrictions on what law abiding citizens could own including full-auto. If the government can own it and I am not "prohibited", then I can own it too...

I also demand the ability to travel freely about the nation carrying and transporting whatever I like...

Now, we all know that this won't stop criminals from getting guns any more than the current laws, but it would shut up all those who clamor about "loopholes". Anyone caught selling without checking gets the chair/noose/needle - there how about that? Severe enough for you?

So, now I ask you - choke down hard, imagine yourself in a legislative committee conference room and the door will remain locked until you get a compromise bill - how do you get out? How do we phrase it so that the anti's look like the obstructionist, freedom destroying idiots that they are?

Recognize that SCOTUS has already failed even before incorporation comes before them by allowing for "reasonable restrictions" in Heller... So, this question is likely going to have to be answered whether we like it or not...

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

The founding fathers never compromised and neither do I. If that were the case, what is stopping the First Amendment from being trashed?

 

[Blitz1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jr9hPbYmBo

 

[drgrant]

One of the problems is that compromise rarely results in the desired effect- eg, the antis leaving us alone.

I don't think there is a "magic bullet" that will make the antis shut the hell up and go home. The NRA has been trying to invent these magic bullets for the better part of its existence.

We've already "agreed" to supposedly "reasonable" things like NICS, etc. I don't think there is much left that you can do without seriously compromising
someone's rights or civil liberties. For example, I can think of ways to make NICS more tamper proof (and make it false less) but it has SERIOUS civil liberties/privacy repercussions that dwarf whatever gains we would make from such a modification.

Another piece of tripe that keeps coming up is the so called "gun show loophole" crap. Even if we relent and say "OK lets force NICS on all
gun show transactions" the antis will not care. Then a year or two will pass and they'll be back with more ideas for restrictions. There is no
pacifying these people. You cannot play quid pro quo with them- they will not live up to their end of the bargain- they'll just stab us in the
back.

I think the only real way to deal with these people is to crush them. Anything less than that is going to result in a loss of our rights,
eventually. We must politically marginalize them- winning will be defined as getting antis into the same realm as homophobe pastor fred phelps or
equivalent. We will only succeed when they are punished for existing at practically every turn. If I had a magic wand there would be a lot of
buses going over cliffs and one way tickets for them on pinochet's airplane (As Max Zorin wisely quoted, "May Day will serve you with a drink." ) but
that's too good to be true. I'll settle for them being viewed as pariahs by most.


-Mike

 

[cekim]

One of the problems is that compromise rarely results in the desired effect- eg, the antis leaving us alone.

Understood, until the day we had a 5:4 (or better) SCOTUS that said 2A is absolute, the only way to keep the anti's at bay is to gather a large enough group of "the enemies of my enemy" voters together to outnumber the anti's

The stats show we nominally have that if we could get all 40%+ of households that have a gun (last I read) to vote, that's a sizeable voting block to say the least...

As far as I can tell, there are 3 groups of voters that actually vote:
1. Rabid anti-gun
2. Pro-gun democrats
3. Rabid pro-gun

We should have them outnumbered 2-to-1 if #2 can be "brought along"...

I don't think there is a "magic bullet" that will make the antis shut the hell up and go home. The NRA has been trying to invent these magic bullets for the better part of its existence.

Agreed, I think they have failed in some ways by being the instrument of disarming America with their "hunter's rights" approach...

That line of thinking is positively toxic to our cause...

There are no "right to hunt" or "sportsman's rights" in the constitution unless you are depraved enough to think of removing tyrannical governments as "hunting" or "sport"...

As I said, as far as I am concerned, the debate is closed with the signing of the Constitution and every "infringement" upon my rights without due process is just that, but we are already well down that street - we need to at least hit the brakes much less start heading in the other direction...

 

[cekim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jr9hPbYmBo

Blitz is offering free head to all anti-gun people of either gender if they will just surrender their voter registration

 

[cekim]

The founding fathers never compromised and neither do I. If that were the case, what is stopping the First Amendment from being trashed?

Right now? Nothing, nothing at all, which is why it is trashed...

We are inches away from European style "hate speech" legislation...

The Patriot Act and DHS have already started drawing up the guidelines for "wrong thinking"...

So, if you think the attack is limited to 2A, you are mistaken...

Ultimately, the big picture solution is that we need to restore the Constitutionally Limited Republic, but that will only happen either through education and generational shift in the understanding of the structure of our nation, or through revolution which restores this understanding by force...

I wouldn't wish a revolution on my worst enemy, I don't want to live through that and no one should, and I understand that the education front is going to take a LONG time... So, I'm trying to work with the system that I have as long as I can...

 

[Gammon]

No compromise. Learn from the Native Americans. They started on Manhattan and compromised their way to Alcatraz.

 

[Kalahari]

In theory, sure. But in reality compromise doesn't seem to suit either party.

 

[Lamina]

I'm with drgrant. we cannot compromise with them. we tried that, but their desire to remove from us our tools knows no bounds.

this is a battle, gentlemen. so many of us are willing to admit that, and yet we still allow the battle to be fought in the way the enemy chooses, on thier ground.

 

[gene]

The erosion of rights never subsides. A perfect example whether you smoke or not is cigaretts.

First they had the packages marked "Causes Cancer"....
Then they sued and won
Then they out lawed smoking in parts of bars
Then town by town and state by state they pushed the bans and excessive laws
Then they outlawed smoking in bars and restaraunts totally
Then they outlawed "Out Side" areas of both
Then they went after the private clubs
Then they taxed and taxed and continue to tax until smokers pay more in taxes than for the product.
Then they outlawed outside buildings and in some cases public places
Now they are pushing for X feet from the etablishment
Then they put the FDA in charge who can't even keep toxins out of the food in this country.

They never, never, never stop pushing one invasion of rights after another.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

I'm done with compromise.

They say compromise, as in:

(noun) a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

But, what we end up with is:

(verb) to cause the impairment of

 

[Spanz]

my pappy use to tell me to only do business with people that you trust! If you don't, an army of lawyers will be able to protect you.

So, how are you going to be able to every shake hand of the ultra liberal politicians and be able to trust them on any "deal" they want to make. Over and over and over again, they have shown that they have a very long range agenda, which will only end when all of our guns are confiscated!

Normally I am a compromising type, but in this case it makes no sense. Give in one one small topic. like teflon coated bullets, and 2 months later you are fighting them on something else, like microstaming or limits on how many cartridges you can buy in a month, etc.

I am now of the opinion that we have to dig in and not budge an inch.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Compromise, as defined by the other side, has always been "we'll take away less from you than you want - for now".

The only real compromise I saw was before the Brady bill where the state of WA had discretionary issue. The deal reached was our side would accept a waiting period provided it exempted CCW holders and the CCW law was changed to "shall issue". The results is "shall issue" in WA - negotiated before the Brady bill, and subsequenltly, NICS, would remove any currency our side had in the deal.

 

[jar]

Compromise, as defined by the other side, has always been "we'll take away less from you than you want - for now".

Exactly. When they other side talks of compromise, they're talking about reaching a position between the awful laws we already have, and a total ban.

Here's my idea of compromise, the antis can keep NFA '34 and about half of GCA '68. In return, Article IV Section 1 applies to CCW.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Exactly. When they other side talks of compromise, they're talking about reaching a position between the awful laws we already have, and a total ban.

Here's my idea of compromise, the antis can keep NFA '34 and about half of GCA '68. In return, Article IV Section 1 applies to CCW.

Here is my compromise:

If you don't like guns - Don't get one

Leave me alone!

 

[Snapshot]

Sure!!! We can totally compromise!!!

They agree to stop taking my guns, and I'll agree to not give them my bullets.

All bravado aside: Gun laws simply do not work for the simple reason that they focus on the guns. The guns aren't the problem. The person using them are. Make laws that focus on the user and you'll be much better off. If you harm somebody for no good reason then you go to jail. What you used to harm them should hold no meaning. Gun,knife, feather duster, extra sharp wombat, it makes no difference.... you go to jail.

There you go....that's your compromise

 

[Beansie_Time]

My compromise would be that firearm safety and handling would be taught in schools by the local police. This would eliminate the need for training courses required for licensing. And would most likely prevent a lot of accidental deaths.
We would have to word this in a way that it looks like we are agreeing with them on an education/training requirement to own a gun.
In exchange we get to carry in the entire US if we have a carry license.

 

[Martlet]

As far as I can tell, there are 3 groups of voters that actually vote:
1. Rabid anti-gun
2. Pro-gun democrats
3. Rabid pro-gun

You're missing what is likely the LARGEST voting block: "Pro 2A", but believes restrictions and limitations are necessary. That block is the largest, and most dangerous. There are a decent number of people in that block on this forum, which inarguably has a large concentration of "gun enthusiasts". Many hunters fall into this group. It's the group that's killing us, because they agree with restrictions, and allow the anti's to chip away at our freedom.

 

[FalArAk]

Comprmise will never happen,but to answer your hypothetical,we can give them what they want.Only problem is if that we do give them what they want,it won't just end.

Eliminate FTF deals nationwide.
-
To the uneducated masses,once this is done,no more criminals can get guns because they won't be able to pass the NICS check.

Problem is,when they find out that gangbangers can STILL get guns,they will come after something else.

 

[Jose]

One of the problems is that compromise rarely results in the desired effect- eg, the antis leaving us alone.

I don't think there is a "magic bullet" that will make the antis shut the hell up and go home. The NRA has been trying to invent these magic bullets for the better part of its existence.

We've already "agreed" to supposedly "reasonable" things like NICS, etc. I don't think there is much left that you can do without seriously compromising
someone's rights or civil liberties. For example, I can think of ways to make NICS more tamper proof (and make it false less) but it has SERIOUS civil liberties/privacy repercussions that dwarf whatever gains we would make from such a modification.

Another piece of tripe that keeps coming up is the so called "gun show loophole" crap. Even if we relent and say "OK lets force NICS on all
gun show transactions" the antis will not care. Then a year or two will pass and they'll be back with more ideas for restrictions. There is no
pacifying these people. You cannot play quid pro quo with them- they will not live up to their end of the bargain- they'll just stab us in the
back.

I think the only real way to deal with these people is to crush them. Anything less than that is going to result in a loss of our rights,
eventually. We must politically marginalize them- winning will be defined as getting antis into the same realm as homophobe pastor fred phelps or
equivalent. We will only succeed when they are punished for existing at practically every turn. If I had a magic wand there would be a lot of
buses going over cliffs and one way tickets for them on pinochet's airplane (As Max Zorin wisely quoted, "May Day will serve you with a drink." ) but
that's too good to be true. I'll settled for them being viewed as pariahs by most.


-Mike

Mike pretty much sumps up my position on this issue.

 

[HTRN]

I have some problems with a construct used in your post.

1. In post 1, you referred to the US as a "democracy"

What would it look like? What would you be willing to give? What would you demand in return? I know it is painful to ask such a question - but that's life in a democracy.

I'm sorry, but this is actually a huge issue with our education system. We are a representative republic.

Otherwise, the dems have already changed our structure of govt and I wasn't watching.


I know it was just an honest mistake, but please don't let it happen again.


Oh yeah, ZERO compromise.

 

[wahsben]

Compromise is both sides giving up something. Gun owners are the only ones that have given up anything therefore it is not compromise.
The anti's version of compromise is failure on the installment plan or as I have said before: Those who continue to compromise will continue to be compromised.

 

[mikem317]

No compromise.

If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

Stand your ground on 2A. Because once 2A goes away...

 

[gene]

I am willing to compromise that convicted felons should not have guns legally!

 

[Martlet]

I am willing to compromise that convicted felons should not have guns legally!

I'm not.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Facts Don't Matter - policy vs. politics

No, there is no possibility for compromised for one very obvious reason, gun control / 2A rights stopped being a public policy issue a long time ago and is now 100% a political issue. Facts and policy don't matter, politics do. Both sides are represented by well funded, well entrenched organizations that have (d)evolved (?) into a chronic zero-sum game where one can ONLY win at the expense of the other. One only has to look at the tooth-and-nail battles that are fought over what should be relatively minor administrative issues like carrying in National Parks.

Ask your self these questions: "Is there proposed or actual gun control law out there that is publicly supported by the major organizations on both sides of the 'debate'"? OR, "Is there any gun control law on the book or proposed that both sides think is unnecessary or unconstitutional"?

This, like other 'litmus' issues is entirely about politics. Politicians and the public are largely divided into three three groups. The first two are those that are fundamentally committed to one camp or the other. In politics think about Barbara Boxer, Carolyn McCarthy, Todd Tiahrt, and John Ensign.

Then you have the vast middle ground that shifts depending upon external factors - not facts. Politicians sway according to when they think will help them the most. The uncommitted general public moves back and forth based upon what sounds 'reasonable' and the time and in context of current events.

In 1994 most of Congress really thought that the AWB was either in their political interest or at least wouldn't hurt them. To them and much of non-gun owning America the pitched seemed very 'reasonable'. Most of Congress in that fluid middle thinks differently now.

The general public just doesn't seem to care all that much, and I'm not sure why. I think it's a combination of they don't care anymore and they no longer see the connection between limiting gun owners and public safety.

'Facts' still matter in court of course, but we have very few Dick Hellers out there and a lot of guys like those represented in the Storage Law review that will be done by the SJC. They are not out best spokes people. The really important court will continue to the court of public opinion. And that's why it's vitally important for us all to continue representing ourselves as normal, sane, and responsible while expanding interest in gun ownership among our friends, families etc., or at the very least showing people that lots of people own guns and aren't a threat to anyone.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Compromise? Last time I checked, we were the ones with the guns.

On a serious note, I read something recently about the food controversy du jour, foie gras. I knew about foie gras, and have had it before. I have a vague understanding of the controversy behind it, but I read a very insightfull piece about it on a restaurant's website. It appears the people trying to ban foie gras aren't really trying to ban foie gras at all. Their ultimate goal is to ban eating meat altogether, but foie gras accounts for such a small percentage of meat consumption, and the way it's produced has been a victim of some really bad press, so it's an easy target (can you say teflon coated cop killer bullets). I'd highly reccomend giving it a read. It's sounds strkingly simillar to what's happening to gun owners.

http://www.incanto.biz/letters_-_shock_and_foie.html

 

[Pilgrim]

Compromise means NEVER having the best solution. You'll always get mediocrity, at best.

 

[Raoul Duke]

There is no compromise.

To take my firearms is a criminal assault. I own firearms to prevent criminal assaults. Ipso facto,...