I wouldn't think about doing anything like that. Geez, what do they think we are rebellious American Patriots???Just a reminder, speaking about taking certain acts against the government is vorboten by INGO.
And people have been banned.
Including people that seem to be trying to get others to try to cross the line
No, "they" think we are domestic terrorists.I wouldn't think about doing anything like that. Geez, what do they think we are rebellious American Patriots???
No problem here brother. Sometimes we need parental guidance.Just trying to prevent an accidental discharge.
No problem here brother. Sometimes we need parental guidance.
If you mean by quoting his speech that political action at this point is vain, and that armed resistance to our government is the only path left for us, then please say so.
Just a reminder, speaking about taking certain acts against the government is vorboten by INGO.
And people have been banned.
Including people that seem to be trying to get others to try to cross the line
Yeah, this thread glows
Looks like a pack of English cigarettes.
Thank you for your points; honestly they seem well thought-out, and you are most likely correct.I think I see what you're trying to say, and it's a defensible position, although I suspect many will not agree with it. You're saying we're getting pucks shot at us, so let's strategically demand the ability to shoot some pucks the other way, too. I get that, and it's not wrong thinking, on its face.
Taking the points individually, I think it will be hard to trade suppressors for background checks in the current environment of mass shootings. The problem is that when we bring suppressor deregulation to the table, the anti-gunners are going to suddenly have an epiphany, and admit what we've been saying all along: background checks don't stop school shooters, because school shooters usually don't have backgrounds. Even worse, they'll say, now you're going to give them the legal means to do it silently, thereby enhancing their effectiveness because the police can't run immediately toward what they can't hear. Can the moderate squishies stand up to that line of reasoning?
The other problem is Charles Schumer isn't an idiot. Once our side has signaled they'll accept BGC, packaged in some form, we've just moved the negotiating line. He will then try to split that piece off. (On immigration, for example, he already said he would put dreamer amnesty on the floor as a single issue up-or-down vote). It's the old joke of, "We've already established what sort of woman you are, madam, now we're just haggling over price."
Then there's the problem of math. How many more votes do pro-gunners provide to the compromise bill, versus the number of liberals lost?
I suspect when NRA and the progun side are doing the math, they believe they're better off keeping the coalition solidly together on no compromise, than letting individual members "off the reservation" on certain issues, based on what the package deal of the moment includes. The messaging aspects of that are probably harder to control, than simply keeping everyone together on the no compromise message.
Then there's the perceived value of what we can get. Most of what you're proposing doesn't really get us "back" any rights. It's just eliminating permit fees for licenses and $200 tax stamps. It's a "Manhattan Indians" deal, trading concrete real estate for wooden nickels.
Many will see your idea as a moral, qualitative non-starter, but that's not where I'm coming from. I'm questioning on practical grounds, what can it get us, versus what we lose. Permitless carry is already being accomplished by states. The only federal goodie being suggested here seems to be NFA deregulation, and I'm not sure that's a big enough motivator for a big enough number of gunowners. Opening the pandoras box of 2A compromise, only for avoiding a $200 stamp in return? Not sure that's worth it to me, frankly. I sold my suppressors and full autos years before ammo got outrageous, because I just didn't use them enough. I don't know that enough gunowners think that juice is worth the squeeze.
(Jamil must be working today...)
How about the right of blacks to not be slaves? That was compromised on a TON before they were finally emancipated. That may not have been a good thing, but it is an example.Show me any "right" in all of history where those who compromised did not lose in the end.
Compromising on a right means you do not have it,if you did you would not need to compromise.
How do you mean? I understand the 1850 compromise,but it did nothing for existing slaves or rights not to be a slave. It kept the status quo. No one gave up any rights or compromised on existing ones.How about the right of blacks to not be slaves? That was compromised on a TON before they were finally emancipated. That may not have been a good thing, but it is an example.
How do you mean? I understand the 1850 compromise,but it did nothing for existing slaves or rights not to be a slave. It kept the status quo. No one gave up any rights or compromised on existing ones.