#BoycottNRA

[luthervol]

Lol. That is the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. That's not compromise you moron. Compromise isn't giving up something you don't already have. Ah, the liberal mindset. And people wonder why kids are shooting up schools and blowing up people.

Of course it's compromise. do you understand the concept? I'm only sorry I didn't see one of your earlier 9,999 questions so I could have saved you the trouble.

Two parties sit down at a table to negotiate. One wants to give up no guns, one wants to ban all guns, a COMPROMISE would be a position between those two extremes. Understand?

 

[Squints]

Of course it's compromise. do you understand the concept? I'm only sorry I didn't see one of your earlier 9,999 questions so I could have saved you the trouble.

Two parties sit down at a table to negotiate. One wants to give up no guns, one wants to ban all guns, a COMPROMISE would be a position between those two extremes. Understand?

Good morning, cupcake!

 

[tumscalcium]

Of course it's compromise. do you understand the concept? I'm only sorry I didn't see one of your earlier 9,999 questions so I could have saved you the trouble.

Two parties sit down at a table to negotiate. One wants to give up no guns, one wants to ban all guns, a COMPROMISE would be a position between those two extremes. Understand?

Imagine an anti gay marriage compromise.

Person A: Gay people should be able to marry.

Person B: they shouldn’t marry. Look, we’ve already given up a lot. We won’t jail gay people, we won’t assault gay people, we won’t kill them. What more do you want? I mean, we’ll still allow them to rent, just not together.

You’re person B.

 

[luthervol]

Imagine an anti gay marriage compromise.

Person A: Gay people should be able to marry.

Person B: they shouldn’t marry. Look, we’ve already given up a lot. We won’t jail gay people, we won’t assault gay people, we won’t kill them. What more do you want? I mean, we’ll still allow them to rent, just not together.

You’re person B.

Nomination for worst analogy of the year.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nomination for worst analogy of the year.

Nope. You've actually swept the category already.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Of course it's compromise. do you understand the concept? I'm only sorry I didn't see one of your earlier 9,999 questions so I could have saved you the trouble.

Two parties sit down at a table to negotiate. One wants to give up no guns, one wants to ban all guns, a COMPROMISE would be a position between those two extremes. Understand?

Again, I ask what have you given up? Zero, it's not compromise, it's lessening your demands. Compromise means giving something in return for getting something. That's why it never goes anywhere, because in true liberal fashion all you want is to take, take, take.

If you are mugged and the mugger says, give me all your money, and you say I'll give it al to you but I want to keep $1 for a coke, are you compromising?

 

[InVOLuntary]

Nomination for worst analogy of the year.

You should know. You are the undisputed champion of all time.

 

[northknoxvol]

Sad that that bombing was going on in Austin. Bombs should be illegal!

 

[tumscalcium]

Nomination for worst analogy of the year.

But, but it’s a compromise.

The only thing that makes it a bad analogy is that arms are protected by the constitution. Marriage isn’t. That means you sound even more stupid that the analogy. Let that sink in.

 

[luthervol]

Again, I ask what have you given up? Zero, it's not compromise, it's lessening your demands. Compromise means giving something in return for getting something. That's why it never goes anywhere, because in true liberal fashion all you want is to take, take, take.

If you are mugged and the mugger says, give me all your money, and you say I'll give it al to you but I want to keep $1 for a coke, are you compromising?

You are just looking at it from the wrong perspective. The negotiation is over what types of laws and regulations should cover guns. The compromise is both sides not getting exactly what they want but meeting somewhere in the middle.

What are you suggesting as something liberals would give up as it relates to gun regulation?

 

[NorthDallas40]

You are just looking at it from the wrong perspective. The negotiation is over what types of laws and regulations should cover guns. The compromise is both sides not getting exactly what they want but meeting somewhere in the middle.

What are you suggesting as something liberals would give up as it relates to gun regulation?

No it isn’t dip****. There is nothing for you to give up here and the “compromise” on our part is in deciding what things we will let you take with no compensation in return. Again, a populist viewpoint!

 

[InVOLuntary]

You are just looking at it from the wrong perspective. The negotiation is over what types of laws and regulations should cover guns. The compromise is both sides not getting exactly what they want but meeting somewhere in the middle.

What are you suggesting as something liberals would give up as it relates to gun regulation?

No you're looking at it totally from the liberal perspective, "what can I take". I've already put forth my idea of real compromise:

1. Raise the age of any firearm purchase to 21 with the following exceptions: passes a course similar to a handgun carry permit class at 18. Active military.

2. Universal background check but only at the individual level. Call a hotline and run the buyer through an instant check with a photo ID.

In exchange, no transaction record to include the firearm type, model, serial number. If I can own a gun legally then the firearm doesn't need to be factored into the equation. I either can buy a firearm or I can't.

Also, remove short barreled rifles and suppressors from the NFA and make them subject to the regular background checks of any firearm.

Now see? That's compromise. That gives you your age limit, and your universal background check and you've given up a couple of things too. That's compromise.

 

[NorthDallas40]

No you're looking at it totally from the liberal perspective, "what can I take". I've already put forth my idea of real compromise:

1. Raise the age of any firearm purchase to 21 with the following exceptions: passes a course similar to a handgun carry permit class at 18. Active military.

2. Universal background check but only at the individual level. Call a hotline and run the buyer through an instant check with a photo ID.

In exchange, no transaction record to include the firearm type, model, serial number. If I can own a gun legally then the firearm doesn't need to be factored into the equation. I either can buy a firearm or I can't.

Also, remove short barreled rifles and suppressors from the NFA and make them subject to the regular background checks of any firearm.

Now see? That's compromise. That gives you your age limit, and your universal background check and you've given up a couple of things too. That's compromise.

No way in hell they go for that and you know it. The first step in confiscation is knowing where to go to get them. Expect more paper trails on firearms going forward not less. SBRs are arbitrary I think but they won’t want to give out of principle. And LEOs would lose their damn minds on suppressors.

 

[05_never_again]

No you're looking at it totally from the liberal perspective, "what can I take". I've already put forth my idea of real compromise:

1. Raise the age of any firearm purchase to 21 with the following exceptions: passes a course similar to a handgun carry permit class at 18. Active military.

2. Universal background check but only at the individual level. Call a hotline and run the buyer through an instant check with a photo ID.

In exchange, no transaction record to include the firearm type, model, serial number. If I can own a gun legally then the firearm doesn't need to be factored into the equation. I either can buy a firearm or I can't.

Also, remove short barreled rifles and suppressors from the NFA and make them subject to the regular background checks of any firearm.

Now see? That's compromise. That gives you your age limit, and your universal background check and you've given up a couple of things too. That's compromise.

I can fathom gun rights advocates agreeing to #1 and #2. Gun control advocates would never, ever, agree to that part in bold.

 

[hog88]

You are just looking at it from the wrong perspective. The negotiation is over what types of laws and regulations should cover guns. The compromise is both sides not getting exactly what they want but meeting somewhere in the middle.

What are you suggesting as something liberals would give up as it relates to gun regulation?

There isn’t a need for the, lets call it the pro-gun side to negotiate. The gun control crowd has presented no evidence of a need to write more regulations nor have they presented a single proposal that would stop mass murders.

 

[InVOLuntary]

No way in hell they go for that and you know it. The first step in confiscation is knowing where to go to get them. Expect more paper trails on firearms going forward not less. SBRs are arbitrary I think but they won’t want to give out of principle. And LEOs would lose their damn minds on suppressors.

I know, that's because of the liberal definition of compromise is take not give. That's why a universal background check will never fly. 1000s of transactions happen daily with private sales.

I know several LEO and some who are friends with ATF, all would like to see suppressors removed from the NFA.

 

[orangeluvr]

When legislators fail to do the right thing in our Republic, it's much easier these days for the masses to effectuate necessary change. This is a good first step.

#BoycottNRA

#BoycottNRA: Hertz and Avis are the latest companies to cut ties with gun lobby as movement gains steam - The Washington Post

Search Twitter - #BoycottNRA

The NRA is being supported by these companies – ThinkProgress

The remedy for the nra is the ballot box. 50% and above.....:bad:

 

[orangeluvr]

I know, that's because of the liberal definition of compromise is take not give. That's why a universal background check will never fly. 1000s of transactions happen daily with private sales.

I know several LEO and some who are friends with ATF, all would like to see suppressors removed from the NFA.

The "CONservitive" approach is to never negotiate. Our way or no way! # Mid-terms on the way!

 

[luthervol]

No it isn’t dip****. There is nothing for you to give up here and the “compromise” on our part is in deciding what things we will let you take with no compensation in return. Again, a populist viewpoint!

Sure it is dip wad. (Do you see how I was able to call you a silly name without having to use the ****s?) We are giving up many rational and reasonable measures to settle on just a couple.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Sure it is dip wad. (Do you see how I was able to call you a silly name without having to use the ****s?) We are giving up many rational and reasonable measures to settle on just a couple.

You’re not giving up anything dip**** ( I like the *’s). You never have on this debate. The whole gun control agenda is “take” you literally have nothing to “give”

 

[NorthDallas40]

I know, that's because of the liberal definition of compromise is take not give. That's why a universal background check will never fly. 1000s of transactions happen daily with private sales.

I know several LEO and some who are friends with ATF, all would like to see suppressors removed from the NFA.

Interesting viewpoint from your LEO buddies. I have a couple who would probably agree privately but no idea if they would offer public support. And can’t see LEOs getting behind it en masse.

 

[hog88]

The "CONservitive" approach is to never negotiate. Our way or no way! # Mid-terms on the way!

What do we have to negotiate?

 

[hog88]

Sure it is dip wad. (Do you see how I was able to call you a silly name without having to use the ****s?) We are giving up many rational and reasonable measures to settle on just a couple.

Still using those buzzwords without explaining what they are or what they will accomplish?

 

[TheDeeble]

We are giving up many rational and reasonable measures to settle on just a couple.

Here's what you're suggesting in an opposing view...

Pro life- we want to ban abortions.

Pro-choice- we want no restrictions and keep things as are.

Pro-life- Let's compromise. We want common sense abortion restrictions. No abortions after "x" days. No abortions without parental consent if under the age of 18. No abortion if father wants to raise the child.

Pro-choice- no. You're not giving anything up.

Pro-life- we're giving up rational and reasonable measures to settle on a couple.

 

[luthervol]

Here's what you're suggesting in an opposing view...

Pro life- we want to ban abortions.

Pro-choice- we want no restrictions and keep things as are.

Pro-life- Let's compromise. We want common sense abortion restrictions. No abortions after "x" days. No abortions without parental consent if under the age of 18. No abortion if father wants to raise the child.

Pro-choice- no. You're not giving anything up.

Pro-life- we're giving up rational and reasonable measures to settle on a couple.

I think that is the perfect example. And shows how compromise can work.