Criteria for Reasonable Steps and Compromis in Regard to Gun Control

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JimBowie1958, Jan 17, 2013.

  1. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,474
    First to define what 'reasonable' and 'compromise' are.

    Reasonable is when you define a goal, say for example to keep animals from eating your garden. You then define a criteria to accomplish that goal, such as less food eaten by critters, less damage to objects placed int he garden like signs and stakes, and healthier plants. Then you do some analysis of what means might meet your criteria, and take the most effective options you can implement. When the neighbor, who might not like your garden, suggests that getting your roof replaced might help, that is not a reasonable option because it has nothing to do with acheiving your goal of reducing varmint consumption of what you are growing in your garden.

    Compromise is where both sides of a controvercial issue give something up that the other side wants and an agreement is reached that both sides can live with. If one side is doing all the giving, reducing how much they give up is NOT compromise, it is simply lessened subjugation, and I say subjugation because a group wont give up something for nothing in return voluntarily unless they are being forced to one way or another.

    Preventing more massacres like the one at Sandy Hook is the claimed goal of the liberals and gun grabbers push for 'reasonable' gun regulations and 'compromise' is their stated means to that objective.

    But most of their proposed solutions are simply irrelevant to what happens at such massacres and thereby ineffective. People who do such massacres dont have to use a semi-automatic rifle for example. They can and have used other weapons varying from knives, to bombs to poison gas. Since such attacks do not require the use of semiautos, banning some of them is not going to accomplish the goal of reducing such massacres.

    And their so-called willingness to compromise is little more than rolling gun owners amd;otting them but will agree to take less if gun owners would hold still while the gun grabbers steal gun owners rights, property and freedom to live as they prefer to.

    When gun grabbers propose to ban 120 types of rifles, it is not compromise to ban only 60. That is still robbing gun owners. A compromise would give gun owners something in return so that they can live with the final arrangement. So far, I have not heard/read of one gun grabber asking the gun owning community what it is that they would like in return for agreeing to restrictions on gun rights. Not even once.

    This is because the gun grabbers and others among the libtard herd have no intention on giving gun owners anything in return. When one is one a moral crusde to banish item X one is not obligated to compromise, in their view. They are doing it for 'the sake of the little children' and when they even mention children, gun owners are supposed to immediately go into a fetal position and beg for the chance to help gun grabbers take whatever they need or suspect might help the gun grabbers in their crusade.

    But the public, thank God, is starting to wake up to this kind of bullshit. It only took the NRA a week to emerge from their self-imposed silence and hammer back. At one time they used to pitch in and toss out gun rights till the leftists agreed that the NRA was on the same crusade, and all the while the NRA was supposed to be speaking for gun owners in the USA. Which is part of the reason we have GOA and Pratt competing with the NRA for gun owners support.

    But when the libtards go on a crusade it is usually because the owners of this country decide that this crusade MUST be done at any cost. They will do anything, sacrifice anything to acheive that goal. Their owned MSM outlets will sacrifice millions in ad revenue to blast the public psyche with incessant propaganda ever time they think it might have any impact at all. They will twist and re-interpret any laws that might help them, and evade any laws that might hinder them.

    They will demonize or belittle the advocates of the opposition in TV shows, movies, songs and plays until people feel ashamed that they would ever be associated with such evil forces and will join groups that work against hte intersts of the general public in order to mask any prior history of doing this new evil thing, whatever the latest cause is. For an example notice how Wikipedia lists the US NRA as the last option in their disambiguation page, instead of going to the NRA by default. Pathetic.

    These are the same scare tactics, agit-prop, and slander the left has used since the end of World War 2 when the Western libtards began to see the West as too similar to the old Nazi evil that repulsed them so much, and so the West could not have any redeeming features in telescopic perspective, and so embraced 'otherness' and began to undermine Western civilization from the inside.

    Disarmament of the free citizens of the Westernnations has long been a declared goal of the radical left and one that they put in place or reinforced at every opportunity from Germany to Russia to China, and then instituted their horrific programs of mass slaughter not long after while our Western press ignored and covered it all up unless that nation lost a war and could no longer buy the press to advance their own causes.

    Gun owners are not going to engage in the lefts false compromise. Gun owners are not going to agree to putting laws into place that do absolutely nothing to prevent school massacres but only strip guns away and the left should be ashamed for standing on the graves of these little kids to push a long prior held goal of total disarmament.

    But the left has no shame, and for too long gun owners have no had defenders with enough spine to stand up for them, not untill laPierre came along.

    But the times, they are a'changing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  2. hardicon
    Offline

    hardicon Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    i just want one single democrat to tell me how making guns harder for law abiding ciitizens to get are going to stop criminals from illegally obtaining weapons and killing people.

    If just one person could answer that one with anything that makes sense then maybe I could seriously talk about some of this.

    for the record im pro gun but I have no issue with background checks at stores and gun shows. background checks at gun shows is something i think needs to happen.

    I have no issues with stopping mentally ill people from getting guns (which sadly none of the gun control policies being talked about even mention the mentally ill).

    I do have issues with law abiding citizens that are not hurting people being told they cant have a gun. that is ranked up there with telling me what kind of food I can eat just because some people are fat. it is stupid.
     
  3. blastoff
    Offline

    blastoff Undocumented Reg. User

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13,494
    Thanks Received:
    1,707
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    In a galaxy far far away...
    Ratings:
    +4,593
    Oh, c'mon hardicon, it's very simple. After the lefties pass a slew of more laws about controlling guns, magazine capacities, and God knows what else, all they gotta do is pass another law making it mandatory for criminals to obey all gun laws, period. Wow, you people on the right are so stupid.
     
  4. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Gun control for law abiding citizens isn't supposed to stop criminals from getting guns. Gun control laws are supposed to HELP criminals by disarming the victims.
     
  5. hardicon
    Offline

    hardicon Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    heh i know what gun control does but the democrats are trying to tell people that these gun laws will stop people from killing people. ok how, anyone wanna care to seriously try to explain that or should i just assume aliens are gonna stop people from killing people.
     
  6. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,474
    Dude, I dont think it is even that sophisticated. It seems that cause (guns) have an affect (more deaths) goes beyond their abilities or even desire to capture the essence of what is going on here.

    They are simply feeling like such a tragedy requires some kind of action, ANY action, to make them feel like they have done *something*, anything at all.
     
  7. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    63,780
    Thanks Received:
    10,688
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +28,244
    Ah, JimBowie, JimBowie, JimBowie. As usual you start out so lucidly and then go right to pieces and demolish your own point. Where do you get off talking about "compromise" and "libtards" in the same breath? Shot yourself in the foot again. You prolly consider me a liberal, yet you have painted everybody you disagree with into some bag of robots who all want to "gun-grab". SMH... with this attitude it's no wonder you never convince anybody.

    But to stay with the positive -- I love the analogy of keeping critters out of the garden. I have a garden, and it certainly attracts critters. And I certainly didn't plant those crops for them. So what do I do-- sit by the window with a shotgun? No -- I make the crops something they don't want or can't get. Deer are repelled by the fence and what it smells like. Bugs are repelled by what's planted nearby, and by my spraying coca-cola on the foliage. That's working with Nature rather than trying to overpower it.

    Same thing with the whole gun mentality. I've been pointing out over and over, passing new restriction laws is just throwing legislation at the problem; instead of treating the symptom let's treat the disease and go after not the guns but the culture that makes them attractive.

    This stupid blanket-statement "us vs. them" mentality needs to go. Yesterday.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  8. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,474
    Well, first, I take multiple breaths...

    Second, as I have stated elsewhere, I distingusih between classic liberals like Humphrie, Johnson, Kennedy (Jack, not his commie brother Eddy), Eisenhower and Nixon on one hand and libtards like the eidtors at the New York Times on the other.

    Classic liberals respected gun rights and ownership. To libtards guns are no different from a toaster.

    My foot is just fine, though wedged up Jake Starkeys ass most of the time.

    No, I consider you an intelligent person who seems to have not yet learned to question the Main Stream Culture around which liberalism is built. You like swimming with the stream it seems, but that isnt always the wrong thing to do.

    Lol, I do just fine, though I must admit that your niche of the internet readership is not my target audience.

    Why? You were being so much fun!

    Yeah, well, I was helping my wife with her garden and the most effective things were found were 'bags of shorn human hair tied to various places, and a bird feeder to draw in Blue Jays. Blue Jays seem to be territorial and they dont like ANYTHING invading their turf, from crows to racoons to stray cats. I have seen Blue Jays go after several large crows single...handedly, and chase of a ground hog. The racoon stopped showing up too, and none of that was planned out ahead of time; just one of the glories of feeding little birdies. My only complaint is that the tree rats (squirrels) dont give a fuck and intrude any damned time they want no matter what you do. My son once toldme that when he would see the squirrles around in our back yard the Montgomery Gentry song 'This is my town' would pop into his head.


    Agreed, but I prefer carots to sticks. Maybe the government could somehow encourage interesting and challenging games that dont involve doing headshots to your opponents? Maybe the feds could off a license program that would give reciprocity tights to gun owners across all state lines and into national parks but would cover guns with less than the classic 7 shots? A carry reciprocity 'permit' that would require some additional training not to just hit the targets and know the bsic gun laws, but also on why you should secure your guns, especially if someone in your household or friends is not altogether the kind you would want to see in a dark alley with a gun, how to avoid accidental discharge, etc.



    Agreed, but with the polarization that is going on, DELIBERATELY, led by the two parties who are trying to triangulate away any future Ross Perots, well, Im not to hopeful.

    I am thinking about writing a book on reflective principles of centrism, but I doubt it would ever get published.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2014
  9. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    63,780
    Thanks Received:
    10,688
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +28,244
    I gots nooz for you; I've been questioning everything there is about mainstream culture since the day I was borned.

    OK since you're going to be slippery, who exactly are "the libtards"? And to return to original point, regardless who they are or whether it includes me (from your context I infer it's defined as anyone not licking the jackboots of the NRA), how do you expect "compromise" when you start out calling them/us/whoever "libtards"? You can relinquish all the flailing attempts to stay afloat by invoking the Kennedys and Eisenhowers; they don't post here so clearly you're aiming closer than that.

    I agree about the clumps of hair; that's another method. The local barber is happy to supply. Blue jays, I don't do that so much because they also chase other birds away and I'm a birder. They come by occasionally, marauding like a gang -- well, that's what they are. And they also sleep at night, which doesn't help with nocturnals. But I can't agree more about tree rats. I have a pile of golf balls on my porch should they approach, and my aim is deadly. :dev2:

    But "carrots to sticks", exactly what I'm saying about guns. IMO what we need at base is to get away from this idea of addressing conflict by blowing it away with a firearm, just as we don't control deer incursions that way. We need to think a bit higher. If going straight to a firearm wasn't the automatic go-to we think of in the absence of thought, then it wouldn't matter who has how many guns or what the laws are; the desire wouldn't be there.

    Sifting as we must through all these crap threads yelling at each other about "gun grabber libtards" and "NRA gun nuts" to find the real heart of the matter, there's a thread over here that seems to finally be looking in the right direction. I've only begun to scratch its surface but here for example:

    Hamamoto (1992) argues that the United States produces most of the world's mass murderers because of a "blow back" by civilians scripting violence in a hyper-militarised America which started with the increasing military adventures after World War II.

    -- there's the kind of analysis we need to be pointing ourselves at, rather than endless bickering over what effect gun restrictions in Australia have had.

    When I see the city of Windsor go over two years with zero homicides while Detroit, right over the bridge, suffers over six hundred, that tells me there's something fundamentally different between the two. Some say it's the difference in gun control, but given the valid point that NRAdrones keep making that those who want guns will find a way to get them, I say it's the difference in culture.

    .
    .
    .



    So why add fuel to the fire?
    You could certainly draft it here. I'll read it. (...... uh, and critique of course.) I might consider myself a radical centrist.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  10. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,474
    Wow, you were born literate too? There are few of us it seems, lol.

    People who dont think for themselves, the lefts equivalent of 'rightwing loons' who also dont think. To be more specific, just about anybody that is an uncompromising Marxist or neoMarxist, or who believes that their perspective holds ALL the answers to all the problems and they could fix everything if only that enough political power. Shades of Sauron.

    Meh, when people state that they want to implace changes that will not serve the problem that they claim to be trying to address, but instead demand emotional reactions that solve nothing, but instead create more problems, that person is being a libtard if on the left and a rightwing loon if on the right. Problem is, the libtards are totally dominating the discussion right now, so I would appear to be reflexively pro-NRA to those who dont know me. But I am not a doctrinare conservative by any means. I am a 1967 Hubert Humphrey liberal.


    Just using them as points of contrast, not authorities.

    I respect Blue Jays.

    Gun owners that are 2A advocates are rightly provoked by the use of a tragedy to try and strip them of property, rights and happiness, so I cant blame them; feel pretty aggravated myself. While a I dont think Obama is a communist, I do think he is a radical leftist by American standards. In Europe some of the things he has said would be comsidered rightwing.

    I speak plainly and bluntly because it seems to me that the radical left is pushing the country toward violent provocation of the vast majority of its citizenry.

    I think there is some justification for that perspective, but it goes far further back than WW2. We are a nation largely composed of groups who fled Europe looking for freedom of various kinds and most learned to fend for themselves and resent the government trying to nanny state them into unarmed peasantry. Americans have been fighting one enemy or another from the inception of this country and so violence is kind of bred into us. Some are exceptionally talented at just that soile thing, like Chuck Harrellson.

    But Australia is a kind of laboratory of experiment, so there is some relevance to their national experiences.

    .[/COLOR]


    What fuels that fire far surpasses me. IT is built into our duopoly political system; white Spy vrs black spy. This keeps the working class devided against itself and distracted as the government removes the protections of the people and gives excessive rights to corporations and their political toadies.


    Well it would start with the observation that all law abiding people in this country have their own specific experiences and have the natural right to pursue their goals according to what eason and learning they have. The strength of democratically elected officers of our Republic is that they come from all walks of life and show the US to itself in all its ethnic richness.
     

Share This Page