No offense taken, just frustrated in general. I really don't mean to take it out on anyone.myntalfloss wrote:Sorry about offending you with the black helicopters but that's kind the response that I've been seeing on this board. (Not from you, mind you.)cbunt1 wrote: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."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?
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.
And, reasonable to me infers reasonable on both sides. You seem to see reasonable as acquiesence.
Boy, if you're speaking of the TSA, you've got it right. The Thousands Standing Around are the most incompetent gov't agency around and that's a high mark to reach.
As to regard to compromise, compromise is the basis of civilization. If you're looking for a 'my way or the highway' culture, I'm not sure where to go.
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.