How do we go about real compromise?

[KLB]

Sorry if I missed something as I read the OP and the last page here…

I’ve long complained where are our zealots in the House and Senate? Where are our “nuts” that after a mass murder event will call for the immediate end to the “gun free” school zone law(s)? Where are our guys/gals that year end and year out call for a ”national conversation” about ending the Hughes Amendment or phasing out the NFA?

Our guys only know compromise. They will brag about their NRA A+ ratings but will seldomly do anything bold. Oh, they’ll fritter around the edges sometimes. They’ll “hold tough” on the democrats’ gun control bills and only give up the minimum…because it could have been much worse.

No more compromise. We must insist a more offensive posture.

You'd be hard pressed to find many congress critters that would be in favor of making autos easier to get.

Short barrels and suppressors should be easy though

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You'd be hard pressed to find many congress critters that would be in favor of making autos easier to get.

Short barrels and suppressors should be easy though

No doubt in my mind. My point being though, if we had “crazies” on our side pushing the envelope like the democrats do, we’d have at least a handful. I’m not sure we have enough to even start a fight.

 

[KLB]

No doubt in my mind. My point being though, if we had our “crazies” on our side, pushing the envelope, like the democrats do, we’d have a handful. I’m not sure we have enough to even start a fight.

True dat. There are a couple in the house, but that is all I can think of

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Sorry if I missed something as I read the OP and the last page here…

I’ve long complained where are our zealots in the House and Senate? Where are our “nuts” that after a mass murder event will call for the immediate end to the “gun free” school zone law(s)? Where are our guys/gals that year end and year out call for a ”national conversation” about ending the Hughes Amendment or phasing out the NFA?

Our guys only know compromise. They will brag about their NRA A+ ratings but will seldomly do anything bold. Oh, they’ll fritter around the edges sometimes. They’ll “hold tough” on the democrats’ gun control bills and only give up the minimum…because it could have been much worse.

No more compromise. We must insist a more offensive posture.

This is kind of the whole problem that I'm trying to brainstorm on how do we solve it. I like the "never compromise" mentality, but I just feel like it has some problems. First problem is that we're falling into the trap of using their language. Giving up our rights and getting nothing back isn't compromise; that's just them winning.

Secondly, I feel like we've become too entrenched in the "hold the line" mentality, and it seems like it's become the case that "victory" for us always mean just stopping whatever new effort is being pushed to infringe further on our rights. We're so far off the mark right now that we hardly ever even talk or think in serious terms about rolling back any of the already existing infringements (yes, we've had some wins at the state level, like constitutional carry just being passed here, but for this conversation I'm talking strictly about the federal level.) When was the last time we saw a federal law that infringed on gun rights rolled back, except by a court ruling, or else one that had an expiration date built in? And no matter how hard we push against new "gun control" measures, it seems like something or other is always going to slip through, and there's never any serious talk of rolling it back once "our side" gets voted back in. How did we get to the point where the closest thing to victory that we can hope for is "our side" not actively helping the other side win? And how do we get our politicians to even consider the possibility of overturning existing infringements?

My only thought was that, given the seeming inevitability of more restrictions happening at some point or other, we could at least start to get our side to have a feel for what the fight should really be by proposing that instead of "compromise" meaning that other side just gets half of what they want, we should insist that any real compromise means that we get something back in return. It's a baby step in the right direction, and if it could ever be done, it would at least show that "gun control" laws are not invincible, set in stone to never be overturned, which you'd think they were up until now.

Someone just mentioned in this thread that they thought suppressors and SBR's should be an easy thing to start with. I don't know about surpressors, but it seems like it should be an easy case to make that the old definition of short-barreled rifle vs pistol is a completely meaningless framework to be using with the modularity of modern firearms. What if "our side" proposed a bill that gave the other side something they're pushing for, like closing the "boyfriend loophole" (I mean IF we're going to apply a punishment to domestic abusers, why should that punishment be based on their relationship, or lack thereof, to their victim?) but also abolished the antiquated regulation of "short barreled rifles" under the NFA? Okay, in practical terms that might not go anywhere right now, but if it did, would that be such a horrible thing? At least it would start to set the table for our side to at least be talking about tackling the behemoth that is the mountain of useless "gun control" laws in our country, and it might even sway some of the squishy "moderate" RINO's closer to our side if they thought they could sell such a thing as a "compromise"

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Can this horse possibly be beat on anymore?

WYM? We're not even close to 500 posts yet. This thread can go a lot further. If you ain't in for the long haul you'd better just unwatch right now.

 

[phylodog]

We've compromised ourselves into what is rapidly becoming a socialist ********. Compromising on the last obstacle standing between freedom and slavery is not an option.

**** em

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

What would actual gun control compromise look like? - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

 

[AndreusMaximus]

What would actual gun control compromise look like? - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

Lol. In case anyone thought INGO was rough. They really have no filter over there...

 

[DadSmith]

 

[BigRed]

Let's all be honest here. The United States of America will never get to no infringements on gun rights.

Perhaps.

As I have may have noted before, Secession is very much underappreciated

 

[BigRed]

Can this horse possibly be beat on anymore?

It will be beaten until it is a bloody pulp....It is the way of centralizers and control freaks.

 

[BigRed]

Lol. In case anyone thought INGO was rough. They really have no filter over there...

Why in Hell should they?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Why in Hell should they?

I have never believed in insults and profanity as appropriate tools for discussion. Real men resolve their differences through civil discourse, and if that fails they either go there separate ways, or if the difference is such that they cannot, they come to blows. I've never seen a situation where crude insults were appropriate or helpful in resolving the matter at hand.

"...do not scold like a kitchen girl. No warrior scolds. Courteous words or else hard knocks are his only language." - C.S. Lewis

 

[BigRed]

I have never believed in insults and profanity as appropriate tools for discussion. Real men resolve their differences through civil discourse, and if that fails they either go there separate ways, or if the difference is such that they cannot, they come to blows. I've never seen a situation where crude insults were appropriate or helpful in resolving the matter at hand.

And some men just want to be left alone without ******* "do gooders" trying to infringe upon their natural rights.

 

[actaeon277]

I have never believed in insults and profanity as appropriate tools for discussion. Real men resolve their differences through civil discourse, and if that fails they either go there separate ways, or if the difference is such that they cannot, they come to blows. I've never seen a situation where crude insults were appropriate or helpful in resolving the matter at hand.

"...do not scold like a kitchen girl. No warrior scolds. Courteous words or else hard knocks are his only language." - C.S. Lewis

I've met more than a few "warriors" and I'll have to disagree with Mr. Lewis.

 

[KLB]

Perhaps.

As I have may have noted before, Secession is very much underappreciated

Which would not be the United States of America.

 

[BigRed]

Which would not be the United States of America.

Yep..back to States!

 

[AndreusMaximus]

And some real men just want to be left alone without "do gooders" trying to infringe upon their natural rights.

FIFY

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I've met more than a few "warriors" and I'll have to disagree with Mr. Lewis.

I expect the vast majority of people nowadays, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, would disagree with Lewis, and myself, on this point. Nevertheless, it is a belief I stand by.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Which would not be the United States of America.

Does the United States of America really exist anymore? Certainly not as it was originally intended.