Why Does Compromise Always Mean That Gun Control Wins?
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 3 months ago
Max McGuire writing for The Federalist.
People often ask me why I am so unwilling to “compromise” on gun control. In reality, I’m not. A compromise is supposed to mean both sides of an argument get something out of the deal. Neither side gets everything they want, but they both at least get something.
When people ask me what I would be willing to compromise on, I give them a simple answer: I would trade tougher background checks in exchange for nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity. If we are going to create a system where every gun purchaser is fully vetted through the FBI’s background check system, then we should give those vetted and trusted gun owners the right to carry their guns nationwide.
And this is why compromise means that gun control always wins.
He’s willing to trade universal background checks for a system of federal licensing on guns, which national reciprocity is (where the FedGov decides who can carry and what the requirements must be in lieu of states’ rights).
So he gives up something in order to give up something else. That’s why the controllers always win at the compromise game. People willing to give up recognition of rights.
On August 26, 2019 at 9:09 pm, Sarthurk said:
Once you give up a piece of your pie, you have lost that forever. And if it’s a particularly tasty piece of pie, they’ll demand more. And it never ends at this point.
What don’t you undersatand about “Shall Not be Infringed”?
What don’t you understand about NO?
Nuff said
SK
On August 27, 2019 at 1:26 am, Dan said:
The gun grabbers are commies…… and the commies have only ONE
rule about negotiating. “What’s mine is mine, what’s YOURS is negotiable.” You DO NOT NEGOTIATE with people whose ultimate goal
is you in a boxcar on the way to a death camp. YOU KILL THEM…..with
the guns they want to take away from you.
On August 27, 2019 at 6:03 am, Matt said:
While I wouldn’t compromise anything for national reciprocity or anything else, I do believe Uncle has a DUTY under the 2nd and it’s interstate provisions to mandate that anyone can carry in any state.
Carrying guns should not be a permission by the state either.
On August 27, 2019 at 6:07 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Matt,
I don’t disagree. But you know FedGov wouldn’t stop there.
On August 27, 2019 at 7:32 am, Bram said:
I tell people we already compromised. I went through a state and federal background check for a permit = big compromise.
I can’t own a machine gun = compromise… (Not that I agree with many of the compromises that were already made)
On August 27, 2019 at 11:17 am, NOG said:
I would tell them “lets compromise. I will give up my Second gun rights right AFTER you give up ALL of your First amendment rights. No free speech for you… including written or spoken. No religion (course commies don’t care- perhaps make them go to church daily?) No joining any groups.” Compromise should be on equal standing, not just about what they want. Perhaps the gun grabbers would then understand just where we stand. You want mine, give me yours (and then shut up you don’t have a right to speak). I will never give up any of my rights to those SOBs.
On August 27, 2019 at 11:19 am, Andy said:
Compromise? Sure, I’m all for it. Here is my compromise:
Repeal ALL gun legislation. They are proven not to work so let’s get rid of them. After that, feel free to bring what you want to the table.
On August 27, 2019 at 12:12 pm, Stacy0311 said:
Here’s my “compromise” position on gun control: Open the machine gun registry (repeal section 922), remove suppressors from NFA, national reciprocity for concealed carry, no extreme risk protection orders (ie red flag laws) no “boyfriend loophole BS for EPROs, no universal background checks, no “assault weapons” or high capacity magazine bans, encourage states to pass stand your ground laws and we’ll keep background checks for retail sales. Seems fair.
On August 27, 2019 at 2:12 pm, Scott said:
Yes, that really isn’t a very good compromise.
I would get something out of it that I don’t have now, the ability to legally carry in a lot a states that I don’t. but bf course I shouldn’t have to get a CCW to do that anyway.
But as a practical standpoint, offer that as a “compromise” to the Dems, they won’t take it.
They are not interested in “compromise” even when they are getting the better side of both parts.
On August 27, 2019 at 2:43 pm, TRX said:
I’m ready to compromise.
Q: “But what about criminals!?”
A: “What about them? If they’re not actually in prison, they still have their civil rights.”
Q: “But what about the mentally ill?”
A: “If they’re too crazy to be trusted with a gun, they’re too crazy to be running around loose.”
Q: “But what about the children?”
A: “Their parents are responsible for what they do; their parents can decide whether they can be trusted with guns.” (note: since the Constitution does not specifically prohibit minors from having guns, this is a real and sizeable concession on my part, based only on common acceptance of “age of majority” and “legal competence” legislation and case law.)
Q: “But how will we know who has guns?”
A: “What made it any of your business? And the answer, by the way, is ‘anyone who isn’t locked up or declared incompetent by a court with proper jurisdiction.'”
Q: “Don’t you care about the VICTIMS OF GUN CRIME?!”
A: “Not really. If you’re afraid, get a gun of your own and learn how to use it.”
On August 27, 2019 at 8:03 pm, Rocketguy said:
I’m surprised no one brought up Lawdog’s cake analogy. It and/or the follow-up cartoon would make for a worthy post and pretty much sums up my thoughts on “compromise”.
On August 27, 2019 at 11:38 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Why Does Compromise Always Mean That Gun Control Wins?”
The term “Negotiation” implies a willingness to sit at the bargaining table, engaging in give-and-take and compromise to arrive at a position suitable to the stakeholders or parties to the dispute.
The gun-control people have no intention of “negotiating;” they are absolutists and fanatics to whom the word “compromise” is anathema. They never give up pushing and demanding more; their idea of being reasonable is to demand only half of your rights this time instead of all of them. They can do this secure in the knowledge that time and arithmetic will take care of the rest.
They’d prefer to eat the whole pie today, but they also know that if they demand a fresh slice each round of “negotiations,” they will soon get all of it save a few insignificant crumbs.
The other problem is that Congress – the U.S. House and Senate – no longer work for the American people. They work for the rich and powerful elites, who own them right down to their socks. The legislators know where their proverbial bread is buttered, and aren’t about to disrupt that (high-profitable) arrangement.