TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:VM, I largely get the same response from some people when I mention "compromise". Compromise isn't promoting that we give something up and get nothing, it's promoting that we both give something up and both gain something. No one that I know of promoting reasonable discussion or compromise is indicating that we should just make concessions.

Taking the view that compromise is impossible because they won't budge is inherently doing what we're accusing "them" of. "Slippery slope" is a great example of our side not budging on anything, yet we can easily identify that improvements need to be made - like better enforcement and background checks that actually work.

I grow tired of continued politicization of these issues. We won't discuss the facts, we just vilify the source.

I don't think we have the whole cake, otherwise I'd be fine with a stonewall. I think we've got part of the cake. I believe that there are ways to improve public safety and promote 2nd amendment rights.

JALLEN wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone

I agree about focusing on laws in effect and known criminals. The problem seems to be with the unknown criminal. Most of these asshats that are giving us a bad name have a history of bad behavior but not until they act out with a gun do they become known. Background checks don't give me heartburn and I'd love to see a mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun to be stacked on top of any other sentences.

There are laws on the books for that, with mandatory prison time, but these are usually the first to be dropped in plea negotiations, according to many working on both sides of the crime sausage factory.

I don't know how you make it mandatory that filed charges cannot be dropped, or that the prosecution MUST file all possible charges. You can't ban plea bargaining without a hideous increase in judges and courtrooms and court appointed lawyers.

Shooting them in the act is the most efficient, no inefficient trial proceedings, no expensive prison stays, no bogus rehab programs, no recidivism, no probation foolishness, and you are pretty sure to shoot the right perp, no alibis about being in Peoria that night.

cbunt1 wrote:

No offense taken, just frustrated in general. I really don't mean to take it out on anyone.

You are correct that "reasonable" means "reasonable" on both sides. Unfortunately, the other side of these issues are not "reasonable" in the sense we both intend. What we have to realize is that when we're asked to be "reasonable" that really does infer acquiescence, and an unwillingness to comply with their wishes is seen (and more importantly, played in the media) as unreasonable.

So unfortunately, it's the other side of these issues that are pushing to a "my way or the highway" mentality, and when you're up against that mindset, you simply can't afford to back down.

I wasn't speaking of the TSA in this case (although I *LOVE* the Thousands Sitting Around reference, and I ask permission to steal it), I was actually talking about the BATFE. I don't remember the specific details right now, but there was a case a few years ago in which a keyring and shoestring were deemed a full-auto weapon. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking someone had the poor sense to request a ruling from ATF on such a makeshift bumpfire device, but the point is that it was ruled a full-auto weapon.

And of course, the fact that you suggested the TSA actually makes both our points--that as paranoid as it seems, and as well-intentioned as some of these ideas may seem, the opportunity for abuse and misapplication is simply too great.

I'd love to be able to have "reasonable" discussions with the anti's around this, but I won't be lectured to by them anymore.

VMI77 wrote:

Both sides....are you kidding? You see reason from the other side?

I don't think you know what the word compromise means. It's not a compromise if I have a cake and you tell me that you're taking half of it. It's not a compromise if someone sticks a gun in my face and says if I hand over my wallet he won't shoot me....it's a mugging. Every battle over gun rights at the national level is either a mugging and ends with us losing more rights, or a stalemate. So just how do you think you're going to get a "compromise?" The ONLY place where this isn't true is at the state level...in SOME states, like Texas.

mojo84 wrote:

Based on your contention-
If they haven't acted out yet, they haven't been arrested yet, therefore, a background check does no good.

Did you watch the video? What is explained there will do more to curb the "gun violence" in American than making more laws or doing more background checks. Just because you don't mind more background checks doesn't mean they would be effective in reducing crime.

cbunt1 wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

Well, using the term "black helicopters" to marginalize the position doesn't do much to move me away from my personal conviction of "No compromise."

Being "reasonable" means that I have to go toward the other side, but with no expectation of the other side coming my way. We've seen how that has worked out for us.

Don't forget that all this will be regulated by an agency who has managed to deem a keyring and a shoestring an illegal weapon in certain circumstances.

The time for compromise is in the past. That got us the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Some of us remember how certain representatives and senators sold us down the river back then, and a president who canceled his NRA membership over unpopular but accurate statements.

Lessons learned.

mojo84 wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone