AndreusMaximus
Master
So if you somehow haven't seen it yet, read through the illustration at the end of this post first. It's an image that I've seen posted in different threads on this forum, and I found it accurate and witty. I read it and laughed, cried, got angry, all of the above, because of how true it is.
But then I thought about it some more, and the more I think about it, the more I think those of us who value our 2A rights need to shift the conversation to how we can go about actual, real compromise. Did I just say that we should be willing to compromise on our God-given, inalienable right to keep and bear arms? Yes I did; but please hear me out.
Up until now things have worked this way: Gun grabbers say they want "compromise." As illustrated below they don't mean the actual definition of compromise, where they get something, but give something back in return; they just mean they take away our rights in bits and pieces instead of all at once, but never give us anything back. Stalwart defenders of our 2A rights will oppose them, and refuse to give an inch, which is absolutely the right thing to do in principle. But then enter the slimy, spineless "moderate" types. The ones who want to play both sides of the issue, and who will "compromise" with the anti-2A types. These types may force them to water down their infringement of our rights, and make it slightly less heinous than otherwise in order to get it through, but in the end they still get it through, and our rights just keep getting eroded away.
If we want this to ever stop happening, I contend that true defenders of the 2A are going to have no choice but to try to get in on the process, and attempt to turn things into genuine compromise. Look, I don't want to be compromising on our rights either, but this is real life, and until the blessed day comes when we are ready to rise up for real and abolish the system that gives our evil overlords in the central state their power, we're going to have to live with the fact that they will ALWAYS be seeking to take away more of our rights, and there's always going to be slimy politicians who are willing to work with them to do so. So if we ever want to have a prayer of getting anything but the same old recipe for eroding our rights, we're going to have to come up with a way of shifting the conversation to talk of genuine compromise.
What do I mean by a genuine compromise? Here's some examples:
They want to require background checks for private firearms sales? Fine, we'll stomach that if, in return, we give private citizens some ability to have the background check conducted without having to pay and FFL to do it, get rid of the federal rule forbidding handgun sales by FFL's to those under 21, AND put stronger protections in place against a national gun registry being created by saying that gun sales records will never be turned over to the government, and can be destroyed after 20 years.
They want to take away guns from those deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others? Okay, but this is an emergency measure to be used only in the most extreme circumstances, and to highlight this and protect against abuse, the person who's guns are confiscated under this law is required to have a trial by jury within 30 days, and if there is anything but a unanimous decision by the jury to convict this person of a crime that warranted their guns being confiscated (such crimes would have to include threatening to commit a mass shooting, assassinate someone, etc) then anyone who testified against this person in the original hearing to confiscate their guns will be found guilty of a felony, AND the judge who granted the order will be forbidden from granting anymore orders to confiscate someone's guns under this law for a waiting period of 5 years. With these safeguards in place we could maybe stomach a "red-flag" law, but what do we get in exchange? Well, how about we end the senseless regulation of an accessory that has been documented as a factor in ZERO crimes so far, and completely de-regulate suppressors?
Or they want to ban "forced-reset" triggers? Okay, instead of banning them just write a law that makes them count as machine guns (get rid of the outright ban on bumpstocks, and throw them in here too, while we're at it.) In exchange we get rid of the law banning manufacture of new, transferrable machine guns.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Yes, the above examples aren't thoroughly thought out and wouldn't exactly work the way I've laid them out, but I'm just trying to explain the spirit of how I think we should be thinking about things.
I know it sounds awful to talk about compromising on our inherent rights, but I just don't see any other way forward if we want to have a chance of getting any of our 2nd amendment rights back. If we can't bring things to a point where real compromise is possible, I fear we'll just see the 2nd amendment eroded away forever.
But then I thought about it some more, and the more I think about it, the more I think those of us who value our 2A rights need to shift the conversation to how we can go about actual, real compromise. Did I just say that we should be willing to compromise on our God-given, inalienable right to keep and bear arms? Yes I did; but please hear me out.
Up until now things have worked this way: Gun grabbers say they want "compromise." As illustrated below they don't mean the actual definition of compromise, where they get something, but give something back in return; they just mean they take away our rights in bits and pieces instead of all at once, but never give us anything back. Stalwart defenders of our 2A rights will oppose them, and refuse to give an inch, which is absolutely the right thing to do in principle. But then enter the slimy, spineless "moderate" types. The ones who want to play both sides of the issue, and who will "compromise" with the anti-2A types. These types may force them to water down their infringement of our rights, and make it slightly less heinous than otherwise in order to get it through, but in the end they still get it through, and our rights just keep getting eroded away.
If we want this to ever stop happening, I contend that true defenders of the 2A are going to have no choice but to try to get in on the process, and attempt to turn things into genuine compromise. Look, I don't want to be compromising on our rights either, but this is real life, and until the blessed day comes when we are ready to rise up for real and abolish the system that gives our evil overlords in the central state their power, we're going to have to live with the fact that they will ALWAYS be seeking to take away more of our rights, and there's always going to be slimy politicians who are willing to work with them to do so. So if we ever want to have a prayer of getting anything but the same old recipe for eroding our rights, we're going to have to come up with a way of shifting the conversation to talk of genuine compromise.
What do I mean by a genuine compromise? Here's some examples:
They want to require background checks for private firearms sales? Fine, we'll stomach that if, in return, we give private citizens some ability to have the background check conducted without having to pay and FFL to do it, get rid of the federal rule forbidding handgun sales by FFL's to those under 21, AND put stronger protections in place against a national gun registry being created by saying that gun sales records will never be turned over to the government, and can be destroyed after 20 years.
They want to take away guns from those deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others? Okay, but this is an emergency measure to be used only in the most extreme circumstances, and to highlight this and protect against abuse, the person who's guns are confiscated under this law is required to have a trial by jury within 30 days, and if there is anything but a unanimous decision by the jury to convict this person of a crime that warranted their guns being confiscated (such crimes would have to include threatening to commit a mass shooting, assassinate someone, etc) then anyone who testified against this person in the original hearing to confiscate their guns will be found guilty of a felony, AND the judge who granted the order will be forbidden from granting anymore orders to confiscate someone's guns under this law for a waiting period of 5 years. With these safeguards in place we could maybe stomach a "red-flag" law, but what do we get in exchange? Well, how about we end the senseless regulation of an accessory that has been documented as a factor in ZERO crimes so far, and completely de-regulate suppressors?
Or they want to ban "forced-reset" triggers? Okay, instead of banning them just write a law that makes them count as machine guns (get rid of the outright ban on bumpstocks, and throw them in here too, while we're at it.) In exchange we get rid of the law banning manufacture of new, transferrable machine guns.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Yes, the above examples aren't thoroughly thought out and wouldn't exactly work the way I've laid them out, but I'm just trying to explain the spirit of how I think we should be thinking about things.
I know it sounds awful to talk about compromising on our inherent rights, but I just don't see any other way forward if we want to have a chance of getting any of our 2nd amendment rights back. If we can't bring things to a point where real compromise is possible, I fear we'll just see the 2nd amendment eroded away forever.