"Office Politics" or can a gun control consensus ever be reached?

[labgrade]

A topic on AFN 3PM MST 12/29 1350AM .... The Wife is guest-host w/the topic de jour.

Thrust is:

To obtain those goal which you'd most like to in the "office environment," you give a little (maybe compromise - maybe not), build the consensus (preferably beforehand) by fomenting the question/s at hand to your way of thinking/what you wish to accomplish, convince the opposition & get what you want.
Simplified, but powerful nonetheless. It works every day in the office environment.

We have lost the political impetus in the current political environment because, I think, due to our (conservative/libertarian, etc.) mood not to give one inch on any subject matter. We have no firm base (to present to the world) on which to stand. We are too fragmented in all our opinions.

The "antis" have grabbed the media, who tout the same party line daily. A powerful force, but, who still tout that line because it sells (not to mention their "anti-agenda" - that's another side issue). They will get behind "their agenda" & go for broke till that end is achieved while we argue the fine points. "They" give up the whole & go for the small, to eventually get what they want - all of it - piecemeal, but a bit at a time & they are very good at it.
It's called incrementalsism.

If we could coalesce behind ONE TRUE GOAL, could we actually pull off the "turn the tide" view in the political dimension? or will we continue to bicker on all the fine points? & never realize our goal/s being the "shall not be infringed" aspect of the Constitution?

Case in point. We have the continuing debate on CCW. Is it good or is it bad? Should we have training & licensed CCW or CCW is an absolute right with no (absolutely none!) licensing & carry as you may debate. On & on & "you name it" as for topics.

I think that one of our our main strengths is our individuality & again, one of our most weak points in that we can never agree on enough to reach a consensus regarding what that main goal should be.

That & we just want to be left alone in our security, bound by the Constitution & "inalienable rights" that are soon surely to be stripped away by our own inaction & inability to unite.

Opinions, please.

 

[TR]

One of the greatest advantages of society is that it has learned to come to a "consensus" over issues.

And one of its greates failures is that it has learned to come to "consensus" over issues.

Yes, that's correct, in MNSHO "consensus" is both good an bad. In certain circumstances it is the only way to get a group of individuals, with varying viewpoints to move toward a common goal. In other cercumstances, that result is exactly opposite of what should be done.

Why is this? well, let me put it into terms your mother (or mine) would understand. "If the committee of children that you play with all came to the consensus that they should jump off the bridge, would you?"

In other words, there are certain things that are right, and others that are just plain wrong, and then there is everything else that we can come to some "consensus" about.

The problem is this case is that the "other" side has decided that this is an issue, about which "consensus" can be reached. And somehow, they have convinced a great number of our fellow second amendment supporters of this.

This is simply not true. The second amendment does not say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the people come to consensus to say it will. Some might have cause to believe that the Constitution can be changed to, in effect, say such a thing, but I think it ignores some of the principles upon which this country was founded.

Let us take your example, CCW. CCW is a good thing in the sense that we have reached a "consensus" with others that it is "ok" for us to carry concealed as long as we have met certain requirements. Some of us are willing to suffer the ordeal of obtaining a CCW in these circumstances. My belief is not that they have "sold out" the cause, but rather are dealing with life as best they can.

Given a perfect situation, or that we could unite and win a Supreme Court Ruling in our favor on the issue, I think I would be hard presses to come up with the name of anyone on this board that would stop an say "Wait a minute, we need those regulations and licenses."

No, I think, in reality, a purity of interpretation of the second amendment is the one thing that we all (or at least the vast majority of us) could rally behind, united with one voice.

Our problem is when we start bringing types of firearms into the discussion. Then we start needing "consensus" again on how to handle "those evil looking black rifles".

Personally, If my particular choice in firearm is not to be discussed while coming to "consensus", then it's only fair and equitable that your choice also be "off limits" as well. So to solve that problem, let us say all firearms are not subject to any "consensus" on promotion, legality, or illegality. Instead, let us push for the right to decide for ourselves what firearm is best for our own use and purpose.

To get back to my main point here, some things are right, some are wrong, and others are open for discussion. HCI and others like them have lost sight of these facts.

------------------
---
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - RKBA!

 

[Art Eatman]

Pro-gun folks are concerned with how to deal with crime and "guns'n'crime". We operate on the basis of not being punished for something we haven't done. We operate on a standpoint of pragmatism about self-defense. We believe in tradition.

Gun control activists are anti-gun. Period. They will not rest until there are no more guns, and they will use any argument--no matter how specious--to further their "cause". They will twist facts and even lie. They will take numbers out of context to give apparent support to their arguments. And they will use emotion wherever, whenever possible.

Everything I have said about the anti-gunners has been proven over and over. It is demonstrably true.

So: How can there be "reasonable" compromise? How do you compromise with those who in essence say, "What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable."

Look at the history of gun-control legislation during debate. The recent CCW effort in Missouri is a good case in point. The gun-control crowd brayed once again about Bloodbaths, Wild West, OK Corral, Rivers of Blood, etc. Now, these same people know full well it didn't happen in Florida nor in Texas, the most recent CCW states. It was wilful lying. How does one deal with liars?

In 1985 (1986?) during hearings about banning the sale of newly manufactured machine guns to "civilians", BATF testified before Congress that no crime had ever been committed with a legally-owned machine gun. That fact, from a government witness, cut no ice with the gun-grabbers.

The only consensus they will be part of is one which says, "No Guns".

Regards, Art

 

[labgrade]

Hmmm,
I think we are in agreement that no matter what "concensus" we agree(d) on, the antis will never rest. We could drive a stake in the ground & say "here we are & never shall it change." But, they'll keep pushing.

That said, can WE reach that (any) agreement amongst ourselves to present a united front?

I don't think so.

 

[ctdonath]

A consensus can only be reached when both sides want the consensus, are willing to listen to and understand the other side, and the opposing views are not ultimately mutually exclusive.

In the topic at hand, there can be no consensus while anti-gun people actually want to ban all guns. That view is simply utterly incompatible with our view that those who wish to own and use guns responsibly must be permitted that right. It doesn't matter how much we conceed, doesn't matter what concessions we give in to, they will keep after us until all guns are gone. They will keep trying to nibble away, asking for "just one more reasonable step", cracking the edges of our unity, continuing the "camel's nose" and "boiled frog" approaches.

To obtain those goal which you'd most like to in the "office environment," you give a little (maybe compromise - maybe not), build the consensus (preferably beforehand) by fomenting the question/s at hand to your way of thinking/what you wish to accomplish, convince the opposition & get what you want.

If this consensus process involves your boss trying to pay you less and less until you work for free, a consensus will not be reached. Likewise, our "boss" - the government - wants to "pay" us fewer and fewer freedoms (freedom being the reason this country was created) until we have none. This "boss" does not want to disarm criminals, the goal is to totally disarm YOU.

give a little

We HAVE. We've given up the right to carry in most states (either totally or by having to ask for permission), we've given up the right to standard militia arms (_you_ try getting a real M16), we've given up the right to "high-capacity" magazines, we've given up the right to being assumed innocent until proven guilty (Brady & NICS are built on the reverse), we've given up the right to be even discreetely armed in most places of daily activity (work or school; and are not in turn protected), and we've given up much more. WHAT THE HECK HAS THE OTHER SIDE GIVEN???

There will, unfortunately, come a point where people will say "we've given too much, we have the right, we don't have to reach a consensus with them, and we will exercise that right to keep that right." Such is about to happen in California. We do indeed live in interesting times...and that's an old curse.

 

[ctdonath]

That said, can WE reach that (any) agreement amongst ourselves to present a united front?

Perfectly united? No.

Generally united? Yes. Remember that the spark that created this country in the first place was gun control. May the anti's read history and not repeat it.

 

[labgrade]

All points well taken. & we're probably all in agreement that the antis will never stop & we've "compromised" without getting anything in return.

However, the question I'm asking is:

Can WE (the pro-gun/good guys) reach a consensus?

 

[DC]

Labgrade...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>However, the question I'm asking is:

Can WE (the pro-gun/good guys) reach a consensus?[/quote]

My question to you is...reach a concensus on what, exactly?

If its on gun rights, we have to get every single gun owner involved and committed. The casual or non-shooting gun owner is one of our worst enemies, as they are apathetic and do nothing. You know...the once a year duck hunter who sees no reason to own a handgun or a semi-auto rifle or even a "hi-powered hunting rifle"...a shotgun is sufficient. Or any of the other special interest type shooter.

In Calif, SB15 comes into play next week....technically it will outlaw Glocks and single action revolvers as they have no external safeties. Forgetting the Glocks for the moment....SB15 now destroys Cowboy Action shooting and its variants. The next target is large caliber rifles with high end optics (to the anti's....the "sniper rifle"). There is not a single type of firearm that they will allow to remain if we don't stop them. Hell, they can ban black powder/muzzle loaders because of the potential safety hazards of black powder and kids. There is no end.

I can envision that in the future, they may allow pellet and airguns...as long as they are registered and the owner licenced and cleared thru NICS.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

 

[labgrade]

Well, DC, that's certainly part of the equation, huh? Beats me & I wasn't proposing anything specific but moreso to ask the question.

You're entirely correct in the "casuals" being our worst (political) enemy. Kinda back to the old quote about "they came for the X & I wsn't, so I didn't say anything, etc."

I could drive a stake in the ground & propose (& get flamed ) - let's see for discussion ... :

Background check & training. Full USA CCW reciprocity everywhere (courthouses, airplanes, etc. - everywhere), no check to buy a firearm ('cause if you can carry already, what's the sense in checking re a buy?), revocation of "license" only due to cause (i.e. felony conviction, etc.) ... otherwise, good to go for life.

Antis get "safe streets" (i.e. "proven good guys") & "we" get "RKBA."

'Course, this'll never fly 'cause the antis want much more than that & "we" would balk re the "absolute" RKBA issues.

 

[foxfire]

labgrade, IMHO forget about a "consenus" or any "compromise(s)" when it comes to GUNS the antis want them all, no ifs, ands, or buts. One day, in the very near future, each one of us will have to decide for ourselves, and our loved ones, whether we are Dogs, Pigs, or Sheep (with apologies to Pink Floyd). I've already made my decision...have you?

------------------
ff ...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make.

 

[Art Eatman]

Labgrade, as far as a consensus among gun-owners: I'm not optimistic. Our problems, overall come from human nature.

The duck-hunter does not feel threatened by an anti"assault-rifle" ban, as was commented on above; what this indicates is the old "single-issue constituency" syndrome. The same holds true for others whose personal ox is not gored.

Another problem is that from what I've seen, many shooters are independent cusses, and just don't function well in groups, or are not "activists". Thus, they tend not to get involved in the political arena, being occupied with other stuff--such as working and paying bills. It's the same sort of problem farmers have.

A partial solution, of course, is an education effort to make the disinterested gun owners realize that an attack on any part of the "gun world" is an attack on them; if not now, soon; if not soon, later. But the attack on them will come.

Regards, Art

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Personally, if bans are enforced against
personal firearms suitable for self-defense
but exempt duck hunters and skeet shooters -
I might undergo a conversion and lobby
strongly to ban all guns (totally) and
hunting. That might shake some sense into
these folk. If they need a 'sport' they
can go bowling and play combat video games
with the pimple boys.

I have personally convinced several "hunters"
to become CHLs and support the RKBA for more than shooting a duck or Bambi.

 

[labgrade]

foxfire,

"I've already made my decision...have you?"

You bet. I've already seen the Valley of Steel (W/A to The Floyd ) & believe the danger's all too real. Will have to hoist a few & talk personal-like to know what I think, as it's inappropriate (not to mention [probably] illegal) over electronic mediums of any sort.

Was just curious if a consensus could be reached. Never thought it could be defined let alone succeed.

 

[foxfire]

labgrade, Tho I've only been a TFL member for a short time, I already know what I'm going to hate the most about this 'electronic medium'--not being able to sit down, bend an elbow and really talk with someone, like yourself. I'm gonna miss that... Oh, for the record, make mine a nice frosty bottle of C**rs! (didn't know if brands can be mentioned by name around here) All the best to you and yours in the New Year!

------------------
ff ...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make.

 

[Dennis]

Well, Foxfire, if you "must" (nose held high with a disapproving "sniff") mention Colorado Kool Aid, I would guess C**rs would be the way to do it.

I, on the other hand, prefer Shiner Bock! A truly distinguished brew from the Spoetzl brewer in the little town of Shiner, Texas. (Loud chuckles, guffaws, and other assorted indicators of merriment!!! )

BELCH! ... Oh, my! Excuse me!
-------

We've both hailed and damned so many different brand names of so many different products I don't think there is much left to praise or bedevil! Lead on, Foxfire! And (unless it violates TFL policy), cursed be he who first says, "Enough!"

Happy New Year!

 

[foxfire]

Dennis, Never heard of Shiner Bock until now. Maybe the next time I'm in Texas... Thanks for the info, guess I'll just have choke (sounds of strangulation inserted here) down some more 'koolaid' Well Labgrade, kinda got off the subject: But RE: my office environment - the guys I work with (no ladies at this time) have a general low regard bordering on fear, I guess, of anyone who has anything more than just a passing interest in firearms. So much for the infamous good ol' boy mentality down here in the South. Go figure. So needless to say, a coherent, or meaningful discussion of practically anything (except for sports) is just about impossible. They are aware of my feelings toward RKBA and I'm only too glad to answer any pertinent questions that come up. But I do not initiate any dialogue out of fear of appearing like a guy about to go "postal". This may seem to be a 'cop-out' but the head man is definitely an 'anti', so I feel my options are limited. Maybe, this would make an interesting topic by itself: the pressures, subtle or otherwise, that pro-gunners face in the workplace because they're not PC. Well, slurp! slurp! time for more 'koolaid' Thanks for listening...

------------------
ff ...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make.