Jump to content

Would it be worth a trade with the Left?


vito

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...