Is there any possible "compromise?"

This has been a VERY good thread! Not so much false bravado... and a lot of well-thought-out discussion! Kudos (and reps) to each of you!

I too have some real fears about our future... I was once part of the "reasonable restrictions" crowd, even once I became a Soldier. But I have realized that our government has extended its reach into EVERYTHING! It's using the "commerce clause" to regulate anything that it possibly can be tortured into controlling; it's twisting the Clean Waters Act into regulating even bogs and marshlands when those are clearly not "navigable waters"; and it's using its bullying power of the threat to withhold monies to control all other things that it can't torture those existing laws into regulating, such as threatening to withhold highway money to force states to a DUI standard of .08, or using Federal education money threats to force No Child Left Behind down our throats...

And we have allowed special interest groups to twist the arms of our politicians to allow such a convoluted mess of laws that no one even understands them! We applaud the ones that we like (to our shame), and decry the ones that we don't like, without ever realizing that they are both exhibitions of the same disease! Our Government has become an octapus... or the Medusa!

... So with all this in mind, we come to the 2A discussion... and we begin to realize that our backs are really against the wall... "First they came for the *****'s, but I wasn't *******, so I paid no mind. Then they came for the ....."

So, yes, my back is up against the wall, Molon Labe, and "from my cold, dead hands," and "not another inch," and all the rest of it. I'll stand with those who will stand with me.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"

RichM
 
Last edited:
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

+1

Screw compromise. Change enough minds, and we won't have to compromise.

Nothing changes minds better than letting them shoot your guns. Invite those on the other side along, and let them shoot your guns.

And keep violent offenders in jail for a loooonnnngggggg time.
 
The founding fathers never compromised and neither do I.

I agree with the sentiment, but you are factually incorrect. The constitution itself was a massive compromise.

That being said, I don't think a compromise with the antis is even possible. We can persuade some of them to drop their attitudes, but willful ignorance can't be reasoned with.

We just need to continue to be active in our communities and with co-workers, neighbors etc. to educate them to the facts about firearms. Even if they never come to be "pro-gun," They'll at least have the information to know when the antis are throwing out blatant falsehoods.

This is the long fight, not a short one. And you never win the long fight from the top down, you win it from the bottom up. Every time you take a new shooter to the range and they have fun, you've scored another voter who won't automatically vote for anti-gun fear tactics.

We've been conditioned to be far too paranoid and far too shy about "outting" ourselves as gun owners. The more people know, the more people see what good citizens we are, the less fear they will have of firearms.
 
We (the NRA), "compromised" (with Carolyn McCarthy of all people), on the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007".

I'll admit that I was against any compromise then as I am now; however, on the NICs bill, we actually came out ahead and lost very little.

Anyhow... were the antis satisfied with the agreement?

Nope... it still wasn't good enough for them...

National Gun Violence Prevention Groups Voice Concern About Dangerous Components of Bill to Improve Gun Background Check System

Joint Release From Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Violence Policy Center, and Legal Community Against Violence

Washington, D.C. - Leading gun violence prevention organizations today expressed their strong concerns about little-noted additions to the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007." Originally introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on January 5, 2007, the bill seeks to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by providing states with grants to submit disqualifying records to the database. The current version of the bill was negotiated with the assistance of Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who worked with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to secure their support for the legislation. The NRA was permitted to make last-minute changes to the bill just hours before it passed in the House on June 13, 2007, with little debate. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is now prepared to offer companion language as part of his "School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007," which is scheduled for mark-up by the committee tomorrow, July 26.

While the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), Violence Policy Center (VPC) and Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) strongly support the bill's goal of improving the mechanism by which mental health and other records are added to the NICS, they are concerned that components of the bill would create new loopholes for potentially dangerous individuals to possess firearms. In expressing their concerns, the groups cited three key changes that were made to the original bill, including:

(more at link... too much to copy and paste).

http://www.vpc.org/press/0707csgv.htm

The same deal happened when the NRA "compromised" on the AP ammo ban.

The original bill as written based on ballistics and performance would have banned nearly every rifle/hunting caliber out there.

The NRA came along to suggest a "compromise" where AP ammo would have been defined by materials and composition. The antis went along with it, but did it put and end to the "cop killer" ammo outcry?

Not a chance... they still kept submitting legislation that would have followed the wording and definition of their earlier bill that would have banned most (if not all), rifle/hunting calibers.

So, screw'em. Compromise will never be satisfactory with them.
 
I try daily not to resign myself to the fact that our rights will be bled away one drop at a time, as they have been. We are on the losing side. To even suggest one ounce of compromise is crazy because our rights are already being stripped away on a daily basis, we can't even maintain the status quo.

In less than 2 generations from now, the 2A will be a quaint anachronism unless we not only fight with every ounce of energy that we have to oppose EVERY SINGLE existing and proposed gun law in any and every state. And just as important, we need to introduce a new shooter, preferably more than one, for every one of us- we need a replacement rate of > 1. We need to encourage kids to have FUN with firearms, like most of us did growing up. How many kids these days know the joy of plinking cans? They should. Passing on firearms traditions to kids is as important as opposing a new AWB.
 
When is the last time a piece of legislation has been created to GIVE us more rights? Screw you, i'm holding on to what little rights I have left by any means neccessary.
 
1. In post 1, you referred to the US as a "democracy"
I'm sorry, but this is actually a huge issue with our education system. We are a representative republic.
See the reset of my paragraph and my other posts - preaching to the choir brother... Much like the founding fathers, I recognize that we are a Republic, but we use Democratic principles within the limits of the Constitution. So, it is easy though sloppy to use the word "Democracy" for those portions within the bounds of the Constitutional limits on the Republic...

The founding fathers never compromised and neither do I. If that were the case, what is stopping the First Amendment from being trashed?
Well, I am afraid history is not on your side - read some of the drafts of the Constitution and you will see a great deal of hard-won compromise between the states and the individual founders. There were some that wanted to see less religion in the state, some more. Some wanted to end slavery right there, obviously many were opposed. Some wanted a clearer statement of the right to bear arms and rebel, others wanted to soften this statement...

Even in a Constitutionally Limited Republic functioning as designed, we all have to compromise because we will NEVER agree... Even amongst ourselves we obviously don't agree 100%. So, seems to me that we should find what we can agree on, even if it hurts a little...

BTW - someone mentioned a group that I missed in my "3 groups of voters". I was lumping the group that says they believe in 2A but supports regulations as "pro-gun Democrats and RINOs". So, they are part of the #2 group that like or not, we will need to find a way to live with if we want to defeat the fascist anti's...
 
When is the last time a piece of legislation has been created to GIVE us more rights? Screw you, i'm holding on to what little rights I have left by any means neccessary.
It has happened, but it requires a near uprising...

Say, like a million man march on Washington? Mass incumbent election losses... Incorporation of the first, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, the miranda decision, FOPA, it does happen, but not without a fight...

Again, I fully understand and share your disgust at the electoral process - frankly, so did the founders. If you read many of their conversations amongst each other, if they had latex gloves when discussing the realistic operation of government, they would be wearing them. They didn't like it any more than we do, but they recognize that like capitalism, it is the "least bad" solution...

Diversity of opinion reflected in argumentative compromise is the best way to keep power from being concentrated amongst "the few"...
 
Let's not forget that the anti's agenda is fueled by private and corporate money and perhaps even public funds. As long a this minority is getting paid to keep fighting rights, they will continue to do so. Once their funds dry up, their cause becomes exactly what it is. Junk Theory and Bad Information with no place to reside but in the minds of the people that do not have the common sense to evaluate facts and make an educated personal decision.
 
2nd

any one computer literate enuf to find when felons were band from owning guns.I am not.all of you have never been free of the gun control and it is contaminating you. I have lived in better times.no checks, no age,pistol permit in north was to prevent opposition party from stopping the thugs from beating the voters.in the south to stop blacks.nowhere was there a law to stop felons.if you hold a raffle and dont get a permit you will be a felon.even a charity cant hold a raffle.I know because our gun club held a rafle to raise money and the law went in to effect,you had to pay a tax on income and the winner had to pay on the prize.if you got an MG you went to IRS and registered it and payed the $200.at $14 a week pay that was a lot.[crying]
 
Back
Top Bottom