TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I generally dislike making generalizations, but here I go...

After 24 years in the Military (both Marines and Army) I have not yet changed my opinion that the majority of Career Officers (Field Grade and above) are very liberal. The General is simply another example of that. They are simply a part of the overall elitist attitude that the unwashed masses are not worthy of the same "privileges" that they enjoy.

I am sure that there are exceptions, but I never came across them.

This.

stroo wrote:Wasn't this the general who dishonored himself by insulting and belittling the President to a reporter from Rolling Stone? He also stopped giving our troops in Afghanistan artillery and air support unless they could verify that no civilians or civilian structures were going to be harmed, thereby endangering the lives of our troops.

Given these bad judgements, and apart from my general cynicism towards generals, I don't think I would trust his opinions on anything.

Is this the "Bite-Me/Biden" general?

SQLGeek wrote:So Jim what do you propose? We find a different way to engage or learn to live with more restrictions on gun ownership? Something else perhaps?

I was afraid someone would pop up and ask me this.

I think we first need to change our attitude to one of being reasonable. The attitude, in general, of this forum has been a mirror of that of the NRA, and that is no accident. This forum is generally a mouthpiece of the NRA. Combative aggressiveness, not even tipping its hat to the general public's perceived good. Win or lose; there is no compromise. "Compromise is a loss."

In my opinon compromise is what keeps a democratic constitutional republic functioning. A successful compromise results in both opposing parties ending up equally dissatisfied. Witness the temporary resolution of the "fiscal cliff." Liberal Democrat extremists are screaming, "the Dems gave away the farm!" Conservative Republican extremists are screaming, "the Reps gave away the farm!" As hard as it may be to believe, if one is one of the above, the temporary fix appears to be an acceptable compromise to the majority of the public for the time being.

Don't get me wrong. Compromise is not available in all cases. One may think this is one of them. I certainly could not convince him otherwise.

I will, uninvited, give an example of what I consider the wrong approach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... _ref=media" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "no compromise" folks can be expected to come back with "But the 2nd Amendment is clear. There are no exceptions permitted."

This is just not true. The Second Amendment means just exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States says it means, at the time and in the final analysis, and it could not be more clear than that it has recognized exceptions.

The "no compromise" folks have only one reply left: "Then insurrection or revolution so as to change the government, part of which is the Supreme Court, by force is the only alternative." This is really well-calculated to convince certain elements of our government to relent in attempting to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, along with well-regulating our "militia." This could have elements of humor here if it we not so true.

The same folks will criticize the Yankee media which printed, sourced in public records, the locations of persons with handgun permits, blind to the fact that they are arguing that there should be an exception made to our otherwise constitutionally enshrined freedom of the press, that is, there may be exceptions to the broad language of the First Amendment, but not to the broad language of the Second Amendment.

Taking bizarre positions like this on our Constitution and its amendments, Geek, has caused the generation of a class known by many as "gun nuts."

I plead with you and others to recognize the truth; recognize that there may be a difference between what one thinks the law is, what one would like the law to be, and what, in reality, the law is. Until we start talking to each other, rather than over each other's heads, there will be no resolution of this issue making both sides equally unhappy.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:So Jim what do you propose? We find a different way to engage or learn to live with more restrictions on gun ownership? Something else perhaps?

I was afraid someone would pop up and ask me this.

I think we first need to change our attitude to one of being reasonable. The attitude, in general, of this forum has been a mirror of that of the NRA, and that is no accident. This forum is generally a mouthpiece of the NRA. Combative aggressiveness, not even tipping its hat to the general public's perceived good. Win or lose; there is no compromise. "Compromise is a loss."

In my opinon compromise is what keeps a democratic constitutional republic functioning. A successful compromise results in both opposing parties ending up equally dissatisfied. Witness the temporary resolution of the "fiscal cliff." Liberal Democrat extremists are screaming, "the Dems gave away the farm!" Conservative Republican extremists are screaming, "the Reps gave away the farm!" As hard as it may be to believe, if one is one of the above, the temporary fix appears to be an acceptable compromise to the majority of the public for the time being.

Don't get me wrong. Compromise is not available in all cases. One may think this is one of them. I certainly could not convince him otherwise.

I will, uninvited, give an example of what I consider the wrong approach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... _ref=media" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "no compromise" folks can be expected to come back with "But the 2nd Amendment is clear. There are no exceptions permitted."

This is just not true. The Second Amendment means just exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States says it means, at the time and in the final analysis, and it could not be more clear than that it has recognized exceptions.

The "no compromise" folks have only one reply left: "Then insurrection or revolution so as to change the government, part of which is the Supreme Court, by force is the only alternative." This is really well-calculated to convince certain elements of our government to relent in attempting to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, along with well-regulating our "militia." This could have elements of humor here if it we not so true.

The same folks will criticize the Yankee media which printed, sourced in public records, the locations of persons with handgun permits, blind to the fact that they are arguing that there should be an exception made to our otherwise constitutionally enshrined freedom of the press, that is, there may be exceptions to the broad language of the First Amendment, but not to the broad language of the Second Amendment.

Taking bizarre positions like this on our Constitution and its amendments, Geek, has caused the generation of a class known by many as "gun nuts."

I plead with you and others to recognize the truth; recognize that there may be a difference between what one thinks the law is, what one would like the law to be, and what, in reality, the law is. Until we start talking to each other, rather than over each other's heads, there will be no resolution of this issue making both sides equally unhappy.

Jim

Okay, so if WE, those that own semi-automatic firearms, etc., are expected to GIVE SOMETHING UP, then what exactly is the OTHER SIDE giving up? No rhetoric, please, just concrete items.

57Coastie wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:So Jim what do you propose? We find a different way to engage or learn to live with more restrictions on gun ownership? Something else perhaps?

I was afraid someone would pop up and ask me this.

I think we first need to change our attitude to one of being reasonable. The attitude, in general, of this forum has been a mirror of that of the NRA, and that is no accident. This forum is generally a mouthpiece of the NRA. Combative aggressiveness, not even tipping its hat to the general public's perceived good. Win or lose; there is no compromise. "Compromise is a loss."

In my opinon compromise is what keeps a democratic constitutional republic functioning. A successful compromise results in both opposing parties ending up equally dissatisfied. Witness the temporary resolution of the "fiscal cliff." Liberal Democrat extremists are screaming, "the Dems gave away the farm!" Conservative Republican extremists are screaming, "the Reps gave away the farm!" As hard as it may be to believe, if one is one of the above, the temporary fix appears to be an acceptable compromise to the majority of the public for the time being.

Don't get me wrong. Compromise is not available in all cases. One may think this is one of them. I certainly could not convince him otherwise.

I will, uninvited, give an example of what I consider the wrong approach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... _ref=media" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "no compromise" folks can be expected to come back with "But the 2nd Amendment is clear. There are no exceptions permitted."

This is just not true. The Second Amendment means just exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States says it means, at the time and in the final analysis, and it could not be more clear than that it has recognized exceptions.

The "no compromise" folks have only one reply left: "Then insurrection or revolution so as to change the government, part of which is the Supreme Court, by force is the only alternative." This is really well-calculated to convince certain elements of our government to relent in attempting to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, along with well-regulating our "militia." This could have elements of humor here if it we not so true.

The same folks will criticize the Yankee media which printed, sourced in public records, the locations of persons with handgun permits, blind to the fact that they are arguing that there should be an exception made to our otherwise constitutionally enshrined freedom of the press, that is, there may be exceptions to the broad language of the First Amendment, but not to the broad language of the Second Amendment.

Taking bizarre positions like this on our Constitution and its amendments, Geek, has caused the generation of a class known by many as "gun nuts."

I plead with you and others to recognize the truth; recognize that there may be a difference between what one thinks the law is, what one would like the law to be, and what, in reality, the law is. Until we start talking to each other, rather than over each other's heads, there will be no resolution of this issue making both sides equally unhappy.

Jim

OK. What does compromise look like to you in this case?

"I think we first need to change our attitude to one of being reasonable."

Sigh...of course you do.

The National Anthem of the progressive/collective - "You, you there, gun advocate, be reasonable"

If only you'd "re-think" your flawed perspective all would be well in our land.

Reasonable as defined by those who know what's best for all of us, of course...

Only they can distinguish the difference between unreasonable and reasonable.

If pro-gun people have a say in what's reasonable, well, they'll get it all wrong.

Their disagreeable stand and logic should not enter into the definition of reasonable.

Right, Jim?

Heartland Patriot wrote: Okay, so if WE, those that own semi-automatic firearms, etc., are expected to GIVE SOMETHING UP, then what exactly is the OTHER SIDE giving up? No rhetoric, please, just concrete items.

They will give up their vitriolic rhetoric that has been directed toward those they hate (only temporarily, of course) and say they appreciate and welcome the cooperation to find a common sense solution to address the panic they've framed.

That's about it...its not a zero-sum game to them.

57Coastie wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:So Jim what do you propose? We find a different way to engage or learn to live with more restrictions on gun ownership? Something else perhaps?

I was afraid someone would pop up and ask me this.

I think we first need to change our attitude to one of being reasonable. The attitude, in general, of this forum has been a mirror of that of the NRA, and that is no accident. This forum is generally a mouthpiece of the NRA. Combative aggressiveness, not even tipping its hat to the general public's perceived good. Win or lose; there is no compromise. "Compromise is a loss."
Jim

And there we have it. The public's perceived good - as defined by a group who are self-avoided confiscationists.

Tell me, how do you negotiate with a grizzly bear? The answer is you don't. You either figure out a way to defend yourself by killing or wounding it, you persuade it to break off the attack or you get eaten. There are not other choices.

How does Israel negotiate with Iran? It is pretty much the same scenario. Iran's stated policy, over and over again, is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. A good "compromise" might be that Israel does have the right to exist.

As has been pointed out in other recent threads, gun confiscation has been on the fringes of politics for over 100 years, perhaps longer than that. If I have to "own" the excesses of Ted Nugent or Alex Jones, how about the other side owning those who are out in the media preaching confiscation in Iowa? Doesn't he speak for those who are seeking "compromise" as much as Alex Jones speaks for me? I think Jones is a jerk and I'll say it in public. Where are the voices decrying Rep. Muhlbauer? ..........cricketts.......

Take confiscation off the table, then we'll talk about compromise.

So, they want compromise? OK, let's give them a compromise. They want to eliminate the "Gun Show Loophole"? OK, I'll give it to them. All transfers to be made through a FFL. Here's what I want in return...

1) I want an absolute guarantee that all records are destroyed upon passing the check. Since this is as it is supposed to be anyway, I get this one "for free". I absolutely don't want the background check to be used as a backdoor registry.

2) I want both the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed. That's right, I want access to full-auto military weaponry. Shouldn't be a problem since everybody is background checked anyway, right?

What do 'y'all think? A fair compromise?

sjfcontrol wrote:So, they want compromise? OK, let's give them a compromise. They want to eliminate the "Gun Show Loophole"? OK, I'll give it to them. All transfers to be made through a FFL. Here's what I want in return...

1) I want an absolute guarantee that all records are destroyed upon passing the check. Since this is as it is supposed to be anyway, I get this one "for free". I absolutely don't want the background check to be used as a backdoor registry.

2) I want both the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed. That's right, I want access to full-auto military weaponry. Shouldn't be a problem since everybody is background checked anyway, right?

What do 'y'all think? A fair compromise?

Seems like you read my mind on #2 there...sounds quite REASONABLE to me.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Okay, so if WE, those that own semi-automatic firearms, etc., are expected to GIVE SOMETHING UP, then what exactly is the OTHER SIDE giving up? No rhetoric, please, just concrete items.

The answer is obvious, HP. In return for "your side" being reasonable in its demands, the "other side" would give up doing its best to take away all your firearms. If your question assumes that "we" will have to give up all our semiautomatic firearms in order to attain a compromise, you are also assuming that there is no basis for a negotiation -- or 'discussion," if you prefer.

Both parties to such negotiations can be expected to open with an extreme position, and for the negotiations to succeed they must mutually meet somewhere in between those extreme positions. "Somewhere" is not always easy to find, and sometimes it just cannot be found.

I am suggesting that both sides sit down in private and have a nonpublic discussion if only to test the waters -- to see if there is a realistic chance of a reasonable compromise. If that means Wayne LaPierre sits down with Senator Feinstein, so be it. Otherwise there will never be a chance of a compromise, and those who continue to talk about resisting our own government by force of arms will keep doing so, louder and louder, and possibly, even more frightening, quieter and quieter, until, in my opinion, something very bad might happen. One of those bad things might be an armed revolt in certain areas by certain deluded persons or organizations. Another might be that our government read, as I have recommended our members do, Title 18, Chapter 115 of the U. S. Code, and move preemptively to prevent the armed insurrection which has been threatened explicitly here and elsewhere. I must remind you, and others, HP, hopefully for the last time, of the provisions of 18 U. S. Code, Sections 2384 and 2385. Just advocating such can be a federal criminal offense. In response to this statement I would expect to hear "but that is unconstitutional." WRONG. Not yet it isn't, and it just may continue to be approved by both the people and the judiciary. This is perhaps another example of where the literal reading of the Bill of Rights is a faulty reading. The 2nd Amendment is not alone in that respect.

I hasten to add that I have never heard the slightest threat from any quarter of our government, publicly or privately, to use an iron hand to end this danger to our society. But surely someone in Washington must realize that this last resort exists. Is not this a duty of our government, to defend us from enemies both at home and abroad? We all know that "ignorance of the law is not an excuse," and I mention this unused authority of our government with respect to this issue so that persons not get themselves into a jam by joining the chorus they hear, whether in places like this forum, out in the woods with their cammys and black guns, or elsewhere. But, on the other hand, those reading this are certainly no longer "ignorant of the law."

Those provisions I have cited here and elsewhere have led to successful prosecutions, convictions and sentencing. It may be surprising to you, HP, to learn that those successful prosecutions have been, to the best of my very poor recollection, limited to members of the left wing. It is not without the realm of realistic possibility that our government, regardless of political party, decides that it has had enough of this, and people are starting to take this macho talk seriously, creating a clear and present danger to our nation.

Would I like to see that happen? Certainly not. I would not want to see either of my imaginary horribles eventuate because one side or both never made a bona fide effort at compromise. Just saying "NO" is not a negotiation.

There's a start for you, HP. In a prior life, both while still in uniform, and then as a civilian, under both Republican and Democrat administrations, I had occasion to negotiate for years, for example, with the Soviet Union, before the fall of The Wall. A very frustrating effort that was. A failure by one or both governments to even try to negotiate the multitude of critical issues between them could have led to the end of the world as we know it. But we tried. The issues I had to deal with were very small in comparison with the many other issues we then had with the Soviets, but this process went on continuously, for years and years. And our world, while still pehaps in danger, still exists.

Jim

I have found in my personal dealings with my liberal friends that acknowledging their concerns (not AGREEING, just ACKNOWLEDGING) and approaching the discussion in a calm reasonable fashion works wonders. I had a conversation with a friend who started out rabidly anti-gun and ended up moving my way quite a bit to where they said an AWB makes no sense. All I had to do was lay out a calm reasonable case that showed movement his direction.

This is just my view, but I believe "stricter gun laws" are ok as long as they are the right laws. MY guiding principle is that there are people that we can agree are NOT a danger and people we agree ARE a danger. Let's focus our efforts on keeping guns out of criminal hands, but keep them in the hands of the good guys. If we can do that then the color of the gun, the number of rounds, etc.. doesn't matter. A 30-round mag in MY hands won't be involved in a crime. By that point, they're nodding and agreeing with me. So, how do we come together to make things safer in ways that really work, while still allowing me to have whatever I feel I need/want to have to defend myself or hunt or do 3-gun or have for whatever other lawful purpose I have in my head? If you want to improve NICS to improve the odds of someone with a disqualifying mental condition being denied, I can support that. If you want to talk about ways to "close the gun show loophole" , then lets talk about the ideas and see if we can find one that you feel makes people "safer" and I feel keeps my rights intact. Maybe there isn't one, but we don't know until we talk about it calmly. After that is when I add in things like what a handguard is and why an adjustable shoulder stock does not make my AR-15 into a death ray.

But I don't go in expecting either of us to feel 100% happy. For example: I wish I could own a noise reduction attachment for my guns. I want it to be easy. They want it to be impossible. We compromise and make it a mountain of paperwork and more expensive. This makes it harder from my perspective and safer from theirs. But you know what, if trading a mountain of paperwork gets me the ability to own them *AT ALL* then that's a compromise I can take. Neither side got what they wanted, but both sides can live with the outcome. If the issues are *process* issues, then there's some room to negotiate.

I can not support confiscation because I believe it's unconstitutional and immoral. I can not support blaming a mag size or black paint for the world's evils because it fails the test of logic at all. There's a lot of things that I can't support at all for various reasons. But if there are things I can accept without giving up my fundamental rights, then yes, I'm open to compromise.

57Coastie wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Okay, so if WE, those that own semi-automatic firearms, etc., are expected to GIVE SOMETHING UP, then what exactly is the OTHER SIDE giving up? No rhetoric, please, just concrete items.

The answer is obvious, HP. In return for "your side" being reasonable in its demands, the "other side" would give up doing its best to take away all your firearms. If your question assumes that "we" will have to give up all our semiautomatic firearms in order to attain a compromise, you are also assuming that there is no basis for a negotiation -- or 'discussion," if you prefer.

Both parties to such negotiations can be expected to open with an extreme position, and for the negotiations to succeed they must mutually meet somewhere in between those extreme positions. "Somewhere" is not always easy to find, and sometimes it just cannot be found.

I am suggesting that both sides sit down in private and have a nonpublic discussion if only to test the waters -- to see if there is a realistic chance of a reasonable compromise. If that means Wayne LaPierre sits down with Senator Feinstein, so be it. Otherwise there will never be a chance of a compromise, and those who continue to talk about resisting our own government by force of arms will keep doing so, louder and louder, and possibly, even more frightening, quieter and quieter, until, in my opinion, something very bad might happen. One of those bad things might be an armed revolt in certain areas by certain deluded persons or organizations. Another might be that our government read, as I have recommended our members do, Title 18, Chapter 115 of the U. S. Code, and move preemptively to prevent the armed insurrection which has been threatened explicitly here and elsewhere. I must remind you, and others, HP, hopefully for the last time, of the provisions of 18 U. S. Code, Sections 2384 and 2385. Just advocating such can be a federal criminal offense. In response to this statement I would expect to hear "but that is unconstitutional." WRONG. Not yet it isn't, and it just may continue to be approved by both the people and the judiciary. This is perhaps another example of where the literal reading of the Bill of Rights is a faulty reading. The 2nd Amendment is not alone in that respect.

I hasten to add that I have never heard the slightest threat from any quarter of our government, publicly or privately, to use an iron hand to end this danger to our society. But surely someone in Washington must realize that this last resort exists. Is not this a duty of our government, to defend us from enemies both at home and abroad? We all know that "ignorance of the law is not an excuse," and I mention this unused authority of our government with respect to this issue so that persons not get themselves into a jam by joining the chorus they hear, whether in places like this forum, out in the woods with their cammys and black guns, or elsewhere. But, on the other hand, those reading this are certainly no longer "ignorant of the law."

Those provisions I have cited here and elsewhere have led to successful prosecutions, convictions and sentencing. It may be surprising to you, HP, to learn that those successful prosecutions have been, to the best of my very poor recollection, limited to members of the left wing. It is not without the realm of realistic possibility that our government, regardless of political party, decides that it has had enough of this, and people are starting to take this macho talk seriously, creating a clear and present danger to our nation.

Would I like to see that happen? Certainly not. I would not want to see either of my imaginary horribles eventuate because one side or both never made a bona fide effort at compromise. Just saying "NO" is not a negotiation.

There's a start for you, HP. In a prior life, both while still in uniform, and then as a civilian, under both Republican and Democrat administrations, I had occasion to negotiate for years, for example, with the Soviet Union, before the fall of The Wall. A very frustrating effort that was. A failure by one or both governments to even try to negotiate the multitude of critical issues between them could have led to the end of the world as we know it. But we tried. The issues I had to deal with were very small in comparison with the many other issues we then had with the Soviets, but this process went on continuously, for years and years. And our world, while still pehaps in danger, still exists.

Jim

After reading what feels like a veiled threat in your reply above, and receiving the answer that I thought I would receive, that folks with firearms will be made to give them up or they aren't being "reasonable", I will end any and all contact with you on this forum for any and all reasons. I do not and have not advocated "armed insurrection" on this forum or anywhere else. I have stated that I won't register my property or hand it over to the Federal government. For all you know, I'll take my semiautomatic rifles and beat them to pieces with a hammer...they may get the result of me not having that property anymore, but it'll be on MY terms because I AM NOT A CRIMINAL AND I HAVE HARMED NO ONE! I understand you were some sort of high muckety-muck in the government, and that I was just a lowly knuckle-dragging mechanic...you saved the world and all I did was play grease monkey, got it. You want me silenced, fine, all mighty overlord, I'm silenced.

SQLGeek wrote:So Jim what do you propose? We find a different way to engage or learn to live with more restrictions on gun ownership? Something else perhaps?

Yes. Please tell us what you think a reasonable approach looks like.

57Coastie wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Okay, so if WE, those that own semi-automatic firearms, etc., are expected to GIVE SOMETHING UP, then what exactly is the OTHER SIDE giving up? No rhetoric, please, just concrete items.

The answer is obvious, HP.

Jim

You have written a great deal and said very little. Let's try this again. What concrete steps do you think gun owners should take to "compromise" with those who think that all guns should be banned? What concrete steps do you think gun owners should take to "compromise" with those who want all guns to be registered, no magazines to hold more then ten rounds and every transaction involving guns, including transfer to your own family members, be required to submit the recipient to a background check?

What exactly IS the "compromise" that you think is reasonable, Jim? And IF gun owners were willing to make that compromise, what guarantee would they have that it wouldn't be followed by another and yet another and yet another, until there is nothing left to compromise?

For bonus points, please tell us, if you will, if you think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own: 1) semiautomatic handguns, 2) semiautomatic rifles, 3) magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds and 4) weapons with a caliber higher than .45.

These questions are serious. I want you to answer them. And I don't want the bush beating job you did in your two previous "answers". The answers to the last four should be a simple yes or no.