Jim,57Coastie wrote:I was afraid someone would pop up and ask me this.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 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
Here are the sticking points of what you've written above.......
1) NEGOTIATION:
If this is to be a "negotiation," what are we negotiating? Whether or not to accept restriction of a FREEDOM? After all, WE are being told that we must GIVE UP something we consider to be a RIGHT. So what are we negotiating? Can you think of any other way to frame what I have just stated here? There is no real negotiation here.e It is a "negotiation" between the Big Bad Wolf and the three pigs. "Turn in your guns, or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll kick your door down." That's not a negotiation. That's a threat. No pig in its right mind is going to open the door and come out, because there's a blasted wolf at the door. Here is a metaphor to illustrate my point:
Because a maniac in Connecticult used his right arm to beat some kids to death, a left-handed Diane Feinstein writes a bill to ban right arms, and it describes a right arm as having ANY one of the following features: any bones bearing a resemblance to a radius or an ulna, hinged elbow joints with cartilaginous articulating surfaces, a shoulder thing that goes up......what's it called?......Oh yeah, the humerus, as well as any glenoid fossa capable of accepting a humerus insertion. A biceps, triceps, and a deltoid are named features. (The muscles of the forearm and hand are OK because they have sporting uses.) Further, ANY right arm which has any single one of these features is a banned right arm. All currently owned right arms must be registered by their owners with BATFA (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Arms) as NFA items, and a fee must be paid or the right arm will be removed. Furthermore, the arm's owner cannot leave the house with it until the BATFA tax stamp arrives a year later. On the owner's death, the arm must be cut off and turned in to the gummint, and can never be used for an arm transplant, including to an heir.
Now, along comes a former coastguardsman by the name of Jim, who thinks that I am being unreasonable if I am not willing to negotiate away any part of my right arm, which was legally mine, and which has never been used in the commission of a crime...........Meanwhile, I'm wondering how on earth ANYBODY would have the sheer chutzpah to think that I should even be willing to consider negotiating away part or all of my right arm!
2) COMPROMISE:
THIS is how compromise is supposed to work. You (hypothetically) want A) control over the debt ceiling to be ceded to the president; B) a 20% increase across the board on all tax rates; and C) to increase entitlement spending by 50%. I (hypothetically) want A) a zero increase to the debt ceiling; B) a 20% reduction across the board on all tax rates; and C) a 25% cut on entitlement spending. You and I sit down and negotiate a compromise. I agree to a ONE time and FINAL increase to the debt ceiling in exchange for a 10% decrease in entitlement spending, and we both agree to a 5% across the board tax hike. We both gave up something. We both got something. (BTW, in NO WAY is any of the above to be construed as what I think should be done with fiscal policy.)
The proposed AWB ban has no point on which compromise can be reached. The loss/gain is entirely one sided. NOTHING is being offered to owners of any of the guns the AWB would outlaw in exchange for compromising on the gun-grabbers' demands, except that by submitting, we can stay out of jail. THAT IS NOT A COMPROMISE. THAT IS BLACKMAIL, plain and simple. And that makes it a completely and irretrievably immoral proposition.
Now, along comes a former coastguardsman by the name of Jim, who thinks that I am being unreasonable because I am unwilling to be blackmailed. If Diane Feinstein's abortion of a bill proposed that, in exchange for banning future production of magazines over 10 rounds capacity, armed citizens would be allowed purchase their 5.56 NATO, .45 ACP, and 9mm ammo from Nat'l Guard Armories, in bulk, and at government prices, then THAT would be a compromise. (Again, I am not saying I would accept any of this, but it illustrates the principle of compromise.)
Instead, here is what WE are being TOLD (which you seem to support): Compromise is when the government will ALLOW you to keep what you already own—legally own—once you've jumped through all of government's hoops and paid all the new fees, and you get to stay out of jail. The gun-control side concede's nothing, loses nothing, and agrees to give up nothing.
And you think we're being unreasonable. In my opinion, you are the one who is being unreasonable. You have gloated and taunted, which is unseemly, and you have been vaguely threatening regarding charges of sedition. Another forum member felt that you were threatening him personally with being "SWAT'ed" (Google it), and he resigned his membership today, leaving me a PM about it as his last act on the way out. How do you expect anybody to react to that kind of bullying—which by the way is so typical of the left? Me personally, I'm being caring what anybody thinks about my intransigence because I am defending freedom. I am frankly surprised that you're willing to negotiate with someone who wants to take away your freedom, and disappointed that you're willing to acede to a compromise of your freedoms. It's a degree of cynicism about the value of liberty to which I cannot reconcile myself.
