How do we go about real compromise?

[AndreusMaximus]

I dont believe you really are with me, I moved over the bs of living in a non gun state.
I was worn out with never ending compromise. If you are willing to compromise I suggest you try living in say,, NJ, NY or Md where im from.

I meant that I am with you as far as what the end goal should be, which is going by the constitution, no infringements, period.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion on the steps required to get there. Simply saying that we should stop giving up ground is a noble goal, but we've had so little success so far that I think it's simply being realistic to say that we need some form of taking ground back at some point, and if that can only happen by taking a bit of ground back while giving a bit up in trade, I think that's something we need to take. We're losing ground all the time anyway, what could it hurt to try?

I mean, after all, you did move here to Indiana, didn't you? We still have some infringements here, but you didn't say, "I'm not going to accept any compromises, if Indiana won't give me my full 2A rights, then screw them I'm not moving there." Instead, you said, "hey, Indiana might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what I've got where I'm at, so I'll take it." Now I recognize that's not really a compromise in the sense I mean, since you didn't give up any rights by moving here. But suppose Indiana had some small, insignificant law that didn't really affect you, nor the majority of people, but was still an infringement on the 2A, and didn't exist in the state you lived in previously. Like say they required a background check and a parent/guardian signature if someone under 20 purchased more than 500 rounds of ammo in a single transaction. Would you have let that stop you from moving here?

Or, to use an extreme example, suppose a federal law came up that abolished the NFA, lowered the age to buy a handgun form an FFL to 18, but also included a requirement like above which required a background check and a parent/guardian signature if someone under 20 purchased more than 500 rounds of ammo in a single transaction. Would you support such a law? Because that would technically be a compromise.

Now I'm willing to listen if your argument is that something like that will never happen (it probably won't) but if you're going to tell me that we shouldn't even be willing to accept a deal like that in principle because "never compromise", I just really feel that's a little bit counter-productive.

 

[Tombs]

I have an idea for a compromise.

1.) We repeal all current gun regulations.
2.) Bar violent felons from firearm ownership until they've paid their debt to society.
3.) Keep people too dangerous to pass a background check in prison until they could pass a background check.

This is the compromise for all we've put up with for the past ~100 years.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

Slaves in the US had next to no rights, but they could (at least at first) hope for freedom if they managed to make it out of the slave states. The fugitive slave act, the 1850 compromise, and other similar compromises such as the Missouri compromise, all further eroded slaves' few rights by further expanding the places and circumstances under which they could be kept as slaves. There is no question that these laws were all compromises on the part of those who sought to abolish slavery; the fact that those were accepted for a time did not, in the end, stop slavery from being abolished completely.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Soon, there will be claims that lincoln freed slaves.

He probably deserves about as much credit for it as any president of the US has ever deserved for accomplishing anything with regards to restoring rights to the people.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Does anyone think the Dems are going to keep their stranglehold after the election?

So, instead of giving in, or "working" with them... RUN OUT THE CLOCK.

If it's true that we can count on republicans to undo damage done by the democrats if they take back congress, then yes, I would agree that my point is completely invalidated. I'm not so optimistic, however.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

To answer the OP‘s original question, “How do we go about real compromise?”

The answer is simple: We don’t. Enough is enough. I’m not about to crawl in bed with anyone who wants to take away my rights. I’m not doing anything wrong. I just wanna be left alone to live my life, raise my family and defend myself and my family as necessary if that time comes.

That is all. It is not complicated.

I'd love that to. But is that a realistic possibility?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Here's your compromise. We do exactly what the constitution says and scrap all other laws. Anything else is infringement.

That's not a compromise; that's just our side getting what we want. Which I'd be fine with, but do you see that happening any time in the foreseeable future?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I have an idea for a compromise.

1.) We repeal all current gun regulations.
2.) Bar violent felons from firearm ownership until they've paid their debt to society.
3.) Keep people too dangerous to pass a background check in prison until they could pass a background check.

This is the compromise for all we've put up with for the past ~100 years.

Again, not a compromise; that's just saying, hey, it's our turn to get what WE want.

Which sounds grand and all; but is this a realistic goal when nothing has happened at the federal level for as long as I can remember except the further erosion of our rights?

 

[Creedmoor]

I meant that I am with you as far as what the end goal should be, which is going by the constitution, no infringements, period.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion on the steps required to get there. Simply saying that we should stop giving up ground is a noble goal, but we've had so little success so far that I think it's simply being realistic to say that we need some form of taking ground back at some point, and if that can only happen by taking a bit of ground back while giving a bit up in trade, I think that's something we need to take. We're losing ground all the time anyway, what could it hurt to try?

I mean, after all, you did move here to Indiana, didn't you? We still have some infringements here, but you didn't say, "I'm not going to accept any compromises, if Indiana won't give me my full 2A rights, then screw them I'm not moving there." Instead, you said, "hey, Indiana might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what I've got where I'm at, so I'll take it." Now I recognize that's not really a compromise in the sense I mean, since you didn't give up any rights by moving here. But suppose Indiana had some small, insignificant law that didn't really affect you, nor the majority of people, but was still an infringement on the 2A, and didn't exist in the state you lived in previously. Like say they required a background check and a parent/guardian signature if someone under 20 purchased more than 500 rounds of ammo in a single transaction. Would you have let that stop you from moving here?

Or, to use an extreme example, suppose a federal law came up that abolished the NFA, lowered the age to buy a handgun form an FFL to 18, but also included a requirement like above which required a background check and a parent/guardian signature if someone under 20 purchased more than 500 rounds of ammo in a single transaction. Would you support such a law? Because that would technically be a compromise.

Now I'm willing to listen if your argument is that something like that will never happen (it probably won't) but if you're going to tell me that we shouldn't even be willing to accept a deal like that in principle because "never compromise", I just really feel that's a little bit counter-productive.

Counter Productive, Man I lived in a counter productive State for 50 years.
You should try it.

Maryland

May issue a CC license.
Seven day wait on handgun and regulated long guns since 1969
Handgun and regulated long gun State database since 1969
Handgun qualification card
No transfer of magazines greater than 10 rounds in the State
5 lbs of powder per dwelling.
One handgun purchase per month unless one fills out for Collector Status.
82+ banned firearms from transfer.
No handgun or regulated long gun private transfer.
New resident registration.
I can go on if needed.

Im not going to argue with you, I have lived with enough COMPROMISE for five lifetimes.
You are fine with making comprising laws to get to no laws with the Second Amendment. Thats some funny stuff right there.
With most things that one gives up, you never get it back.

Again if compromise is what you seek then I again suggest you move to Md and see if in the next 10 years your Rights diminish or expand.

No Infringments.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Counter Productive, Man I lived in a counter productive State for 50 years.
You should try it.

Maryland

May issue a CC license.
Seven day wait on handgun and regulated long guns since 1969
Handgun and regulated long gun State database since 1969
Handgun qualification card
No transfer of magazines greater than 10 rounds in the State
5 lbs of powder per dwelling.
One handgun purchase per month unless one fills out for Collector Status.
82+ banned firearms from transfer.
No handgun or regulated long gun private transfer.
New resident registration.
I can go on if needed.

Im not going to argue with you, I have lived with enough COMPROMISE for five lifetimes.
You are fine with making comprising laws to get to no laws with the Second Amendment. Thats some funny stuff right there.
With most things that one gives up, you never get it back.

Again if compromise is what you seek then I again suggest you move to Md and see if in the next 10 years your Rights diminish or expand.

No Infringments.

Two things.

First, none of what you listed is a compromise; it is purely your rights being taken away, and you received nothing in return. That's not compromise.

Second, even if we narrow down the conversation to actual compromise, I am not advocating for it as a good thing, but only as a something "less bad" than the alternative. On an issue where we have had nothing but straight up losses for years, instead of aiming for a goal that is unattainable right now and accepting only pure wins, which are not going to happen, we may need to accept that the best "win" we can hope for in a given situation is to at least get something back in return when the inevitable continued infringements on our rights get pushed through. If we're doing nothing but losing ground, then if we can at least manage to bring a draw out of something that would have otherwise been a straight loss, well we've at least pushed the needle in the right direction.

Also, to clarify, everything I'm arguing for doesn't really apply for us at the state level; with our legislature in Indiana there is absolutely no reason we should be settling for compromise here. I'm talking about at the federal level.

 

[Creedmoor]

Two things.

First, none of what you listed is a compromise; it is purely your rights being taken away, and you received nothing in return. That's not compromise.

Second, even if we narrow down the conversation to actual compromise, I am not advocating for it as a good thing, but only as a something "less bad" than the alternative. On an issue where we have had nothing but straight up losses for years, instead of aiming for a goal that is unattainable right now and accepting only pure wins, which are not going to happen, we may need to accept that the best "win" we can hope for in a given situation is to at least get something back in return when the inevitable continued infringements on our rights get pushed through. If we're doing nothing but losing ground, then if we can at least manage to bring a draw out of something that would have otherwise been a straight loss, well we've at least pushed the needle in the right direction.

Also, to clarify, everything I'm arguing for doesn't really apply for us at the state level; with our legislature in Indiana there is absolutely no reason we should be settling for compromise here. I'm talking about at the federal level.

I dont recall you being at the Md Statehouse to know if some or all were a Compromise or not.
Some of what Md enacted certainly had cutouts for certain individuals or businesses.
Thats Compromise in Md.
They banned 82+ firearms, it easily could have been more.. Thats Compromise in Md.

I burned many days off and vacation time to speak my opinion at the Statehouse.
You ever speak your 3 minutes?
Its all rhetorical.

Good Luck with your Compromise.

 

[KG1]

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

SAY COMPROMISE AGAIN

 

[Creedmoor]

SAY COMPROMISE AGAIN

You forgot MF.

 

[KG1]

Now tell me how the democrats are interested in "real" compromise. How can you negotiate anything with them? NO to compromising away our rights. I would rather fight than compromise.

 

[ditcherman]

Touché

Haha made me turn my phone sideways.
What keeps coming to my mind is the classic and proven “Republicans; poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”.
I’m all for finding common ground, probably to a fault, but I trust “us” compromising less than I trust a convention of states.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I dont recall you being at the Md Statehouse to know if some or all were a Compromise or not.
Some of what Md enacted certainly had cutouts for certain individuals or businesses.
Thats Compromise in Md.
They banned 82+ firearms, it easily could have been more.. Thats Compromise in Md.

I burned many days off and vacation time to speak my opinion at the Statehouse.
You ever speak your 3 minutes?
Its all rhetorical.

Good Luck with your Compromise.

I am NOT in favor any of the nonsense that leftists falsely call compromise. It sounds like you've accepted their false definition of the word, so for the purposes of this conversation, perhaps we could use a different word? Like maybe "trade-offs"? Would you accept working towards a "trade-off" where we get some of our rights back in exchange for something they're more than likely going to take from us anyway? Isn't that better than the losing game we've been playing?

And of course I never spoke in Maryland, I've never lived there. Yes, I've spoken my 3 minutes at city and county council here in Indiana more than once.

 

[Creedmoor]

I am NOT in favor any of the nonsense that leftists falsely call compromise. It sounds like you've accepted their false definition of the word, so for the purposes of this conversation, perhaps we could use a different word? Like maybe "trade-offs"? Would you accept working towards a "trade-off" where we get some of our rights back in exchange for something they're more than likely going to take from us anyway? Isn't that better than the losing game we've been playing?

Seems you think you know loads about a place you have never spent time in, and people you have never met.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Seems you think you know loads about a place you have never spent time in, and people you have never met.

I'm only going off or what you told me. You told me that in Maryland many laws were passed that infringed on gun owners' rights, but because these laws weren't as onerous as they "could have been", they counted as a compromise. This sounds to me like a false definition of compromise, as a real compromise would involve gun owners getting something out of it in return.

Did I misread you on any of this?

 

[KLB]

Now tell me how the democrats are interested in "real" compromise. How can you negotiate anything with them? NO to compromising away our rights. I would rather fight than compromise.

Come on now. That was compromise for them. They didn't say ban all guns.