Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK I know many of you gun owners are a Hitler and Stalin type "Not one step back" group. I agree to a point but I also am the type that feels that if I can take a step back to make a better position for myself I will do it.
Here is my point. Do I like the Manchin bill? No, But with the Tea party sitting on the powder keg of the national debt smoking cigars laughing like the Joker wanting to just see it all blow up, I am seeing the Dems slowly start to gain in poles around the country. If the Dems can take control or enough of a gain in 2014 do you think they will not go for a stronger bill? If the Manchin toomey bill was passed with the guidance of the NRA and others it would be tolerable and and could defuse or make it much harder if the Dems take control to make a bill called the back ground check now with many more things that are not tolerable.
My feeling is I would like to see no law passed, but I also think that if we could keep bad laws by doing some defusing it would be a good move. Do I think we can appease the gun grabbers? No never. But if a law is passed then the dems get control and want more, the NRA and others will have much more support to argue we worked and passed a bill and now you want to ban mags and guns? Maybe I am flawed on this but I also don't like to die on a hill when I can move back a hill and win. Just a thought not a firm position.
The pro gun-control group will ALWAYS want more no matter what, until guns are pretty much gone except for security, police and military. They are like any other group of their ilk, the radical feminists, the radical homosexuals, the radical (fill in the blank). You can try to pass a bill that you think will appease them but in a few months/years, especially if the senseless violence continues (and it will, NOT by honest, law-biding, mature, mentally competent gun owners) they will want more and more and more bills passed restricting firearms ownership/use until virtually no one can own one except for a specific group. THEN they will go after other weapons. Your thoughts are well placed but, there are many in their group whose end game is NO firearms whatsoever. By compromising you are only giving them their wish incrementally. And the Tea party, by the way, is NOT the only one sitting on the powder keg of shutting down the government. Your fearless leader, Mr. O, has not stopped playing golf either, and is probably laughing at the Republicans. They want a meeting, and he has refused. They have sent him bills that he has refused to sign. Now they ARE meeting and hopefully there will be a plan to get things back on track. But that is for another thread.
DauntlessDan is right - the grabbers will never be happy so there is no reason to help them get where they ultimately want to go. Beyond gun politics, I think the era of compromise between the right and left being possible is over in general. Compromise is only possible when there are shared values, and there are fewer of those between red and blue states with each passing year.
OK I know many of you gun owners are a Hitler and Stalin type "Not one step back" group. I agree to a point but I also am the type that feels that if I can take a step back to make a better position for myself I will do it.
Here is my point. Do I like the Manchin bill? No, But with the Tea party sitting on the powder keg of the national debt smoking cigars laughing like the Joker wanting to just see it all blow up, I am seeing the Dems slowly start to gain in poles around the country. If the Dems can take control or enough of a gain in 2014 do you think they will not go for a stronger bill? If the Manchin toomey bill was passed with the guidance of the NRA and others it would be tolerable and and could defuse or make it much harder if the Dems take control to make a bill called the back ground check now with many more things that are not tolerable.
My feeling is I would like to see no law passed, but I also think that if we could keep bad laws by doing some defusing it would be a good move. Do I think we can appease the gun grabbers? No never. But if a law is passed then the dems get control and want more, the NRA and others will have much more support to argue we worked and passed a bill and now you want to ban mags and guns? Maybe I am flawed on this but I also don't like to die on a hill when I can move back a hill and win. Just a thought not a firm position.
Had the Machin-Toomey Bill been passed the ACLU would have eviscerated it, not because of the 2nd Amendment but because it violates HIPAA, and I'm pretty sure that it could not be proven that furthers an important government interest, especially given even Joe Biden admitted it none of the proposals (which includes Machin-Toomey) would have prevented Aurora, or Sandy Hook (the verbiage is for intermediate scrutiny, which applies to cases of privacy and government, or is supposed to).
Meanwhile to the question.
The issue is either we have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, or we don't. To use your analogy of moving back a hill, well there is no other hill to move back to, the right to keep and bear arms is the only hill there is in this fight and the only thing we could do is cede the top of the hill, and then we'd be fighting an uphill battle.
Moreover, the furore has died, only a month ago someone let loose in a DC Naval Yard, and there were no cries of "we need to do something". If nothing else at least we're holding back the tide. The only change in the whole debate involves Starbucks who have requested people not take guns into their stores, it's not a mandate or a ban, it's just a request, and the primary reason was to move Starbucks out of the firing line (which is somewhat ironic language) between gun control and 2nd Amendment supporters. Whether anyone really adhere's to it is irrelevant, Starbucks just played a neat political card that fundamentally changes nothing.
So what law do you think will be passed, giving honest respect to the current state of the 2nd Amendment in the US, and the SCOTUS opinions over the past 5 or so years?
The way I look at it is that the Gun Grab is much the same as the old steam locomotive and the swing arm turning that big wheel. It takes a lot to get it started, to break over the fulcrum, but once the break over point is reached, the next rotation is a lot easier.
Too many times I have heard the Anti's say things like, "If we can just get our foot in the door", or "If we can pass this bill, there's no stopping us", or the best one, "We have to change a little at a time and they won't realize they are loosing ground until it's too late." Once they can get a foot hold, the impending tide would roll right over us. Right now, the Anti crowd is consistantly stopped, but yet, they keep on trying. If they can't get the magazines banned, they'll try for the bullets. If they can't get the rifle banned, they'll try for the accessories that attach to it. If they can't get the guns and magazines, maybe they can get the laws on defense changed, making it a law suit heaven, even if you are morally right in your defense.
If they did get their foot in the door, now the Anti crowd that was behind them, would see the light and it would be like a stampede at a concert. They wouldn't stop, nor even slow down.
It's a good analogy to step back to the next hill, but just how far away is the hill and is it defensible? I don't think it is. Besides, what makes you think we're loosing ground on the hill we're on?
When people describe themselves as "progressives", what they talk about is the progressive move towards a totalitarian state, one rule, one tax, one ban at a time.
I don't believe in compromising basic individual freedoms such as the right to defend yourself from your government, outside invaders or other criminals. I see now what a fallacy it was in the beginning to meet in the middle on background checks and all the rest of the stupid laws. They just push for more until you have nothing. It takes time and they know that, but they hope to wear us down over time until we surrender.
The progressive gun grabbers are like an annoying woman that keeps pestering you. Do annoying women ever shut up? No they don't, they just keep nagging. The progressives are no different, just annoying nags that never shut up and just keep pestering you until you surrender everything.
Also the 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with hunters, target shooters or collectors. Anyone that doesn't get that needs to hit the books and read up why this was included in the Bill of Rights.
Saxondale echos the Karl Rove's and the Neville Chamberlains of the world. "If only we step back, play nice, be nice, they'll think us warm and cuddly and accept us". That has never worked and will never work. It's a loser strategy and we need to stop trying to be loved and accepted by people that hate our guts and everything we stand for in regards to individual freedoms and personal property rights.
And another thing is why the hell are all these people telling me I have to compromise and meet in the middle? When has the Left compromised and stopped banning, regulating and taxing?
I am on the fence, being a chess player I sometimes try to anticipate the next move and stop it before I am boxed in. It is looking like the Republicans may take a hit on this shut down. The poles are showing them taking the biggest part of the hit and it may reflect in the elections. My thoughts were not that the gun banners would say we got what we wanted we will not go for more, but that if enough get elected in 14 to the house and the senate stays in dems hands a new bill for back ground checks may get introduced and then much more added under it. If a bill were passed now [not saying I want it to] then if the election turn in favor of the Dems they will have to go for more and it can be said you got some now you want more? And argued that they are never happy. Its one of those if I knew tomorrows lotto numbers I would know what to play today things.
I am on the fence, being a chess player I sometimes try to anticipate the next move and stop it before I am boxed in. It is looking like the Republicans may take a hit on this shut down. The poles are showing them taking the biggest part of the hit and it may reflect in the elections. My thoughts were not that the gun banners would say we got what we wanted we will not go for more, but that if enough get elected in 14 to the house and the senate stays in dems hands a new bill for back ground checks may get introduced and then much more added under it. If a bill were passed now [not saying I want it to] then if the election turn in favor of the Dems they will have to go for more and it can be said you got some now you want more? And argued that they are never happy. Its one of those if I knew tomorrows lotto numbers I would know what to play today things.
Current polls show 60% of the population want to fire Congress in it's entirety, but it's not going to happen either.
The polls also show that the majority of people are happy with the activities of their own Senators and Representatives. We don't elect by proportional representation, so whatever the gross polls show isn't really that relevant, what is relevant is how each district and state feels about the activities of their Senators and Representatives.
What the anti-gun crowd asks for isn't compromise, it's capitulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxondale351
If the Dems can take control or enough of a gain in 2014 do you think they will not go for a stronger bill? If the Manchin toomey bill was passed with the guidance of the NRA and others it would be tolerable and and could defuse or make it much harder if the Dems take control to make a bill called the back ground check now with many more things that are not tolerable.
Would it? Really? If they had passed the Toomey bill this year, then next year when another atrocity occurs the same folk will be saying "That last bill just didn't go far enough, we need to pass Toomey II".
Quote:
My feeling is I would like to see no law passed, but I also think that if we could keep bad laws by doing some defusing it would be a good move.
Passing any gun control bill only strengthens their resolve to pass the next bill.
On the other hand, I am okay with compromise where it is a true compromise -- they get something they want, we get something we want in return. Okay, require background checks for all transactions by people who don't have a valid CHL, but make the CHL valid nationwide, for carry and for purchases. That's a compromise.
Would it? Really? If they had passed the Toomey bill this year, then next year when another atrocity occurs the same folk will be saying "That last bill just didn't go far enough, we need to pass Toomey II".
Passing any gun control bill only strengthens their resolve to pass the next bill.
On the other hand, I am okay with compromise where it is a true compromise -- they get something they want, we get something we want in return. Okay, require background checks for all transactions by people who don't have a valid CHL, but make the CHL valid nationwide, for carry and for purchases. That's a compromise.
Or how about we give on BGCs and we tack on that the Fed can not buy any more ammo?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What the anti-gun crowd asks for isn't compromise, it's capitulation.
