TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote: Ive considered your position, but seeing that the antis want to totally eliminate gun ownership, I feel that even a little appeasement is letting the camel's nose get under the tent.

There absolutely are some "antis" that want to totally eliminate gun ownership, but they're a small minority. And they don't stand a chance. This is America. I've decided that Chicago and New York are not part of America.

There are also some "pros" that believe that the constitution allows firearm ownership to all regardless of weapon type (full auto) and they we should be allowed to carry 4 of them to the mall. They're also a small minority.

The people that you should worry about are the majority in the middle... Which is why scaring people at Starbucks isn't a good idea.

I understand the view of getting the camels nose under the tent and the slippery slope theory. That camel is likely getting his nose in anyway - at least that sure seems to be where we're headed. Maybe ignoring it will work and nothing will change... I guess I could be wrong.

Tha problem to me is that the camel's nose slipped under the tent in 1934, 1937, and 1968 as well as other times. Why should we, WE compromise MORE when what has been tried has been shown not to work. Even the late 10 year "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't work and it was allowed to expire, but we are attacked as the ones who made it expire, that we didn't give it a long enough chance, and it needs to be tried again despite not working the first time because people just waited for the ban to end (all comments/arguments I have seen & heard) and that one was a camel on a leash.

I am tired of just one more little compromise, it's time to go the other way, repeal GCA '68, Repeal NFA, and even get rid of the Sullivan Act.

And FWIW, I feel that there is a greater percentage of antis that want to outlaw ALL guns, even if they don't let it be known.

jimlongley wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote: Ive considered your position, but seeing that the antis want to totally eliminate gun ownership, I feel that even a little appeasement is letting the camel's nose get under the tent.

There absolutely are some "antis" that want to totally eliminate gun ownership, but they're a small minority. And they don't stand a chance. This is America. I've decided that Chicago and New York are not part of America.

There are also some "pros" that believe that the constitution allows firearm ownership to all regardless of weapon type (full auto) and they we should be allowed to carry 4 of them to the mall. They're also a small minority.

The people that you should worry about are the majority in the middle... Which is why scaring people at Starbucks isn't a good idea.

I understand the view of getting the camels nose under the tent and the slippery slope theory. That camel is likely getting his nose in anyway - at least that sure seems to be where we're headed. Maybe ignoring it will work and nothing will change... I guess I could be wrong.

Tha problem to me is that the camel's nose slipped under the tent in 1934, 1937, and 1968 as well as other times. Why should we, WE compromise MORE when what has been tried has been shown not to work. Even the late 10 year "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't work and it was allowed to expire, but we are attacked as the ones who made it expire, that we didn't give it a long enough chance, and it needs to be tried again despite not working the first time because people just waited for the ban to end (all comments/arguments I have seen & heard) and that one was a camel on a leash.

I am tired of just one more little compromise, it's time to go the other way, repeal GCA '68, Repeal NFA, and even get rid of the Sullivan Act.

And FWIW, I feel that there is a greater percentage of antis that want to outlaw ALL guns, even if they don't let it be known.

Discussion? NOPE; but I would be open to discuss the subject of the anti's removing the locks & fire extinguishers from their homes.

Factually it's not a compromise these anti's want; it's appeasement. Only one party here is being asked to cede something.

cb1000rider wrote:There absolutely are some "antis" that want to totally eliminate gun ownership, but they're a small minority. And they don't stand a chance. This is America. I've decided that Chicago and New York are not part of America.

You might not think Chicago and New York are part of America, but last I checked, the New York and Chicago machines control a lot of the media and what comes out of the mouths of the MAJORITY of the antis. They control the conversation. The antis are in lock step with their agenda.

Anygunanywhere

Jim Beaux wrote:

jimlongley wrote: . . .

I am tired of just one more little compromise, it's time to go the other way, repeal GCA '68, Repeal NFA, and even get rid of the Sullivan Act.

And FWIW, I feel that there is a greater percentage of antis that want to outlaw ALL guns, even if they don't let it be known.

Discussion? NOPE; but I would be open to discuss the subject of the anti's removing the locks & fire extinguishers from their homes.

Factually it's not a compromise these anti's want; it's appeasement. Only one party here is being asked to cede something.

And we have seen the Neville Chamberlains the Gun Control waving their papers and declaring "Peace in our time." after they bit off another piece of the elephant, too many times.

Repeal Brady, repeal GCA '68, repeal NFA.

cb1000rider wrote:...Unwillingness to compromise on issues around mental illness and background checks is one issue that I'd (personally) be willing to discuss versus having it implemented in a way that allows far greater consequences. It's a matter of time before all medical information is digital and very available for matters of "national security". (The quotes are intentional)...

IMO both are intrusive in a way we don't need from our already too-vast, too costly, and astoundingly incompetent Federal Government.

Good grief that kid in CA was reported to the police, by his own parents iirc fer cryan' out loud, who interviewed him and decided he was OK so he celebrated by going Postal. Will we never learn?

I generally agree with the concept behind cb1000's statements. I think several ways my Reagan Republican Party has moved far enough to the right as to take us out of some conversations. If we pick primary winners that aren't electable in the general population, we lose by losing that voice. HOWEVER, I also believe that it is the content of the conversation that matters more than compromise. Just this past week I was called two decent derogatory names during what I thought were gun debates but ended up being name calling sessions. I took the high road and stuck with the topic rather than colorful adverbs. Two people that witnessed those events reached out to me separately to ask me more questions about my opinions. Good questions. Thoughtful questions that will long term only help our cause.

If we are the face of the 2A that calls names or belittles others (yes, Starbucks OC comes to mind for me), we could still lose. As long as we dig our heels in with intellect and better arguments we can continue to win without compromising. Yes I also realize that the OC group feels like I already compromised. Maybe so. We’ve also won so many shall-issue CC battles and staved off many a Sandy Hook reactionary legislations.

As side note, both of the mentioned debates also remind me that this is exactly why I give to the NRA. Once people lose it and get to the name calling place, they'll vote for anything. It is going to be a long slog of a fight. Perseverance.

J.R.@A&M wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I have not heard any of the anti's calling for gun safety classes in the schools. I wonder why? That would be the best way to promote safety and reduce accidents. Education is the answer. Why don't the anti's push for gun safety classes in the schools?

Because while band saws and acetylene torches are also potentially dangerous, they are morally neutral tools, whose safe use can thus be taught in shop class :(]

I disagree. You're approaching the question from the standpoint of logic and reason....the antis only approach the question from emotion. The reason they won't teach gun safety in school that it would normalize the use and possession of guns. Their plan to eliminate guns requires demonization and stigmatization.

Then I failed... because I was attempting to approach that last question from the standpoint of satire and humor.

Well, sometimes I miss satire when it's expressed in writing with no other context. I'd have probably caught on if I'd heard you say it.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:No, both sides are not wrong.
The antis are wrong.
We are right. Beyond any doubt right. The only way to prove it would be for the antis to try it our way for once. That will never happen.
Pretty good article. Thanks for posting the linky.
Anygunanywhere

That's exactly how we get no where... You can't even have a discussion that starts with "we're right and you're wrong".
Some good points in the article.

Look, demographics are shifting. The media puts laser-beam focus on incidents of gun violence and has contributed to a situation where any mentally ill person knows how to get the attention that they want. That media influence can sway the broad more neutrally-minded majority. Old hard-core conservatives are dying off with the demographics and social changes. And we've got significant division between 2nd amendment groups.

Digging in is not a good long game option.

Negotiation and compromise require both sides to argue in good faith and to make mutual concessions. When have the antis ever done either, much less both?