vito Posted February 25, 2018 at 04:00 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 04:00 PM I recently wrote a letter to Senator Durbin, who we all know is absolutely no friend to gun owners, suggesting that if he wants to get his Republican colleagues to agree to some of the demands of the Democrats on gun control, he should try to make them an offer they can't refuse. I suggested that since the Democrats are always talking about compromise, they should offer their full support to national concealed carry reciprocity as well as repeal of the Gun Free School Zone act passed in the 1990's (since it is obvious that making schools "gun free" hasn't quite worked out as they hoped it would) and in return ask the Republicans to support a banning of "bump stocks" and raising the age at which someone could buy an "assault rifle" to 21. I don't even expect to get an answer to my letter, let alone to convince Sen. Durbin that compromise is in his own interests, and I wonder what those here at Illinois Carry think about the concept of actually compromising with the Left. Up until now I have generally been of the opinion that giving in to the Left on ANY gun issue is counterproductive, since it seems that no matter what would be agreed to, it would never satisfy the Left's real goal of ending the private legal ownership of firearms. But a true compromise, where gun rights are increased in some areas in return for being moderately restricted in some other areas, might actually work if both sides really want to make progress on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmurph44 Posted February 25, 2018 at 04:13 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 04:13 PM I like this but don’t think it’s possible. Did you send Durbin that Muslim video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted February 25, 2018 at 06:58 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 06:58 PM In a trade, they're gonna want a whole lot more than Republican agreement to a few minor gun control measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:10 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:10 PM I stopped writing to Herr Durbin some time ago. He believes he is omnipotent and should be allowed to rule as he pleases, as you can see in an excerpt from the last email I sent in 2014 asking him to support S.108 - that years iteration of the National Reciprocity Act. "The elected representatives of each state are in the best position to know and understand the needs of the state. They should be allowed to determine for themselves the policies that govern their homes, streets, neighborhoods, and workplaces." (emphasis added) I fear for our Country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:30 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:30 PM Google "Federal Gun Laws". Gun rights have been "compromised" since 1934 at the federal level, with NO increase in rights in exchange for those that were restricted. "Compromise" to the Left means "you do what we want, and like it, and we won't ask for anything else..........until the next time. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are absolute. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. The goal of the Left is total disarmament of the citizenry, even to the point of local and municipal LEO's being disarmed. The only arms the Left wants remaining are those of the armies they control. You've been around here longer than I, how many compromises have we agreed to just here in IL? And yet, they continue to want more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:31 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:31 PM I stopped writing to Herr Durbin some time ago. He believes he is omnipotent and should be allowed to rule as he pleases, as you can see in an excerpt from the last email I sent in 2014 asking him to support S.108 - that years iteration of the National Reciprocity Act. "The elected representatives of each state are in the best position to know and understand the needs of the state. They should be allowed to determine for themselves the policies that govern their homes, streets, neighborhoods, and workplaces." (emphasis added) The last time we saw Democrats showing such support for states' rights, the Democrats were George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and Orval Faubus. Now, fifty years later, here they are again. You've finally found your true ideological home, Dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec4 Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:59 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 07:59 PM The Second Amendment is clear. It says "rights of the people", not rights of the militia, or police. "Shall not be infringed" is also pretty clear. All these liberal (and I sadly must include some RINO's in that group) have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. They therefore have no honor. I say no concessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted February 25, 2018 at 08:06 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 08:06 PM Compromise with the left?Where's that gun law meme? http://www.guns.com/2013/11/07/illustrated-guide-gun-control/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vito Posted February 25, 2018 at 08:26 PM Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 08:26 PM I probably should have sent the Muslim immigration video to Durbin. I'm sure he would love it! I agree that up until now the Dems idea of compromise was really asking, no demanding, that the Republicans give in to their demands with nothing in return. I am proposing that our side be willing to actually reach a compromise, but that means getting some of what we want in this matter. Even for the areas where ostensibly the Republicans already agree with the Democrats, i.e., adding the mentally ill to the national database, restricting the sale of "bump stocks" I think we should demand something in return that we value, like national reciprocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear226 Posted February 25, 2018 at 09:04 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 09:04 PM They think they have us on the run now. They will not give up a thing! They see we are willing to do something and that is a change they don't see hardly at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vito Posted February 25, 2018 at 09:20 PM Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 09:20 PM You might be right. But if they won't give us something, we should give them nothing. Since they say they want the children in school to be safer, giving teachers and staff the right to be armed is actually giving them something toward their goal. If they disagree, then it is obvious they really don't give a damn about the well being of the children, they just want to take our guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaeghl Posted February 25, 2018 at 10:16 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 10:16 PM Then again, how can anyone trust certain members of the Democratic party? Would you trust either of our Ill. Senators? I could not trust either one with a spork, let alone trusting their word on any sort of quid-pro-quo. BobPistol's post of Lawdog's 'cake analogy' is correct. You CANNOT compromise with anti-rights advocates. Their idea of compromise is "do it MY way this time, and next time, we'll do it MY way. That way it's just a little bit at at a time and you won't notice it, cuz you're just stupid gun owners." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANDY Posted February 25, 2018 at 10:33 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 10:33 PM The only compromise I could make would involve Durbin's resignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanook Posted February 25, 2018 at 10:45 PM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 10:45 PM You simply can't trust them to keep their word. They'll make the deal, and immediately go back on it and demand something else. The old saw about "you can tell they're lying because their lips are moving" is dead accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:18 AM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:18 AM I recently wrote a letter to Senator Durbin, who we all know is absolutely no friend to gun owners, suggesting that if he wants to get his Republican colleagues to agree to some of the demands of the Democrats on gun control, he should try to make them an offer they can't refuse. I suggested that since the Democrats are always talking about compromise, they should offer their full support to national concealed carry reciprocity as well as repeal of the Gun Free School Zone act passed in the 1990's (since it is obvious that making schools "gun free" hasn't quite worked out as they hoped it would) and in return ask the Republicans to support a banning of "bump stocks" and raising the age at which someone could buy an "assault rifle" to 21. I don't even expect to get an answer to my letter, let alone to convince Sen. Durbin that compromise is in his own interests, and I wonder what those here at Illinois Carry think about the concept of actually compromising with the Left. Up until now I have generally been of the opinion that giving in to the Left on ANY gun issue is counterproductive, since it seems that no matter what would be agreed to, it would never satisfy the Left's real goal of ending the private legal ownership of firearms. But a true compromise, where gun rights are increased in some areas in return for being moderately restricted in some other areas, might actually work if both sides really want to make progress on this issue. Changing the age to 21 causes adults under the age of 21 to be a sub-class. Having multiple classes violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Mere possession of a bump fire stock should not be a crime and instead committing a crime with one should be a crime. Mandatory life in prison for using a bump fire stock to commit a murder would be better than mandatory life in prison for mere possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:27 AM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:27 AM Why does the government value armored trucks enough to allow armed guards and yet not allow armed guards for schools? Are the children valued less than armored trucks by the government? Does the government only value children as a means to push for gun control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:42 AM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:42 AM Bad idea; here is why1. They would never keep their part of the deal2. They would keep demanding more and more and with worthless promises to do more3. They would take advantage of the next crisis to renig on the deal4. Because they should NOT GET ANYTHING and should give up a lot so our rights are not violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted February 26, 2018 at 04:05 AM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 04:05 AM "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I could not have said it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted February 26, 2018 at 04:42 AM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 04:42 AM In answer to the question that forms the title of this thread: NO in fact I would consider asking the question itself as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and encouraging them to continue their attack on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:05 PM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 02:05 PM The gun control movement is in no position to be demanding anything of us, not with how badly they’ve lost at the state level in this country. Ignore them, and keep pushing for gun rights without any regard for what they want. Politically there’s more of us than them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilphil Posted February 26, 2018 at 03:39 PM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 03:39 PM Compromise requires trust and a certain amount of good will from both sides.I have no trust of either side acting in good faith at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted February 26, 2018 at 04:30 PM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 04:30 PM ". . . Shall not be infringed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted February 26, 2018 at 05:07 PM Share Posted February 26, 2018 at 05:07 PM Compromise: They recognize that the 2nd applies universally to individuals and cannot be infringed. We recognize, and support, any and all bans they want to pass that pass constitutional muster considering the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.