The modern antigun movement has been amazingly consistent since Pete Shield outlined the goals of confiscation back in the 1960s — get what it can get and ask for more. Every so-called “compromise” has resulted in us giving ground while the antigun movement asked for more more more. To the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been a “compromise” as described by Professor Kingsfield…instead, we give ground and the antigunners ask for, or take, more.
Read the whole thing. I actually think HR2640 was the first compromise the anti-gun movement has been willing to make since they started going on the offensive in the late 60s, and I think it was a compromise that benefited our cause more than theirs.
I suggest that the only sane path in that situation is for Side A to also refuse to compromise. Unilateral actions, like those suggested by Feldman and the “third way” crowd (which is indeed a very small crowd, consisting apparently of Feldman and his right hand), simply lead to Side B asking for more.
I think a distinction needs to be made here. A compromise that involves us giving up something that’s of little importance to get something of great importance in return is probably one that should be made.  What we disparately want to avoid is appeasement, which is what Feldman advocated. The difference between compromise and appeasement, is compromise can still allow you to achieve many of your goals. It may often by the only away to achieve some of your goals. Appeasement, or giving the anti-gunners something they want in hopes they’ll go away happy, is a recipe for losing.
” It may often by the only away to achieve some of your goals. Appeasement, or giving the anti-gunners something they want in hopes they’ll go away happy, is a recipe for losing.”-Sebastian
So is 2640. Remember your above words when in a year or two they “improve” this again by removing what you think you got.
And know I’ll be on you like uglyon a chimpanzee.
There’s always a risk they’ll pass gun control laws. I’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
Dear Sebatian,
I have pondered how to deal with the incrementalism Mr. Bane talks about for some time. I don’t think we can just refuse to compromise, for then we will be painted as merely being obstructionists. Rather, we should offer our own laws everytime they offer up something new. For instance, when they offered HR 2640, we should have come back with a law to repeal the entire NICS, or replace it with the BIDS system, and if you don’t like that, here’s a repeal of GCA 68. Others could strategize this much better than I. Perhaps if they offer up a “sensable gun regulation” we could offer up to defund the Department of Education. Something to keep them off balance. Most of all, we should stop playing games with these people. You should never wrestle with a pig….
Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.
Regards,
PolyKahr
When we get what the grabbers say we have,THEN we can talk. I want an assault weapon for $200.
“There’s always a risk they’ll pass gun control laws. I’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.”-Sebastian.
You’ve already come to it. The restrictions will survive, but the protections will not. And you crossed that bridge and it has been burned behind you. Good luck getting back.
NICS isn’t going anywhere any time soon.
This doesn’t add restrictions, it just adds records. And, importantly, it adds a way of expunging records. So, even if a person is falsely imprisoned/committed, there should be a way to get their rights back.
Yeah, Al Mc, so you repeat what has been said ad nauseum. What you haven’t accounted for in your equation is the history of guarantees once the government gets what it wants.
They get “improved” right out of the law at a future date. FOPA had that guarantee, remember? That is the portion Congress refused to fund. But that bill was touted to high heaven as a good thing for firearms owners. How many have successfully appealed their “prohibited person” status under that law? NONE! Because the mechanism for it was never funded.
Just last year a double fence was mandated for the southern border because of all the constituent pressure for it. Funds were mandated also. Just this week that law was “improved” removing both mandates. Quietly and without fanfare once the initial attention died down. Those are only two examples, there are hundreds. Yet, you trust them to keep this promise?
I have a donkey that sings the Star Spangled Banner for sale, wanna buy it.
Well, hypothetically, Congress could pass a law outlawing NICS.
Then, next year, they could “improve” it, by restoring it.
You see what I’m getting at?
No, I don’t see what you are getting at.
Taxes are cut this year, raised the next.
One amendment bans alcohol, another repeals the ban.
My point is: nothing is absolutely guaranteed. The entire 2nd Amendment could be repealed by another amendment. Legislation you view positively could be gutted at any time, depending on what happens in Congress.
So, opposing this legislation because it could be changed at some point in the future is stupid, because all legislation is equally at risk of such an occurrence.
No, all legislation isn’t at the same risk. History has shown us that only legislation that fetters state action against individual rights is at risk. Where the Hell have you been?
Surely to God you older than 12.
I misspoke: all rights, laws, and privileges can be repealed, revoked, or otherwise voided. The risk is determined by the electorates willingness to fight over the issues.
This is why the U.S. public was reamed over all those copyright extensions. A 100+ years is a hell of a long time to wait for a book to enter the public domain. The public just didn’t appreciate what was happening.
Oh, and if you’re right, the risk to the RKBA still doesn’t go away. You risk losing it today just as you risk losing it six months from now.
Only by rallying to its defense is the way to save it. That’s why this legislation is good. If you help defend it when it is threatened, the legislation will remain good.