One synonym for "hard ass' is "uncompromising."

i think certain members here are too willing to compromise with the anti-gun activists because they believe there is a solution we haven't yet found which will keep guns out of the wrong hands.

They don't see an agenda, only an attempt to "do something."  Until a real solution of offered, i will continue to be a hard ass when dealing with anti-gun activists.

Compromises?

We don't need no stinkin compromises.

The only difference here is you guys seem to think EEF is from Mommies Demand Action.

I don't see it.  I don't see any ill will - certainly no insidious "agenda."

Anyway, I got interested in this place because I'm fucking tired of us taking incoming fire from these fifth-column Marxists.  I think they should be afraid of what we're going to do to THEIR agenda, rather than us bracing for their next salvo.  I'l figure my way toward that objective, one way or another.

So, anyway, there's bigger fish to fry, than EEFish, in my view.

Sorry if you took offense at my reference to folks around here as being hard asses.

In my world, that's a compliment.

More sophomoric arguing and trolling.

 

Compromises?

We don't need no stinkin compromises.

Here is where we may differ.

Unless you are a true libertarian who believes there should be no restrictions on firearms at any level then there is some level of compromise. Positions on gun rights are really a spectrum issue from those who want to ban all guns, to those who want to ban only certain guns or guns owned by certain people, to limited restrictions, to no restrictions at all.

The people who want to ban all guns for all people are the extreme, the people that are probably too set in their ways to change their mind. However as you move more towards the middle I think the window opens up for more opportunity to change minds or come away with a better understanding even if we haven't swayed them yet. I don't like painting these people as our enemies or stupid as it only hurts our efforts to protect firearm rights. Realistically speaking there will always be some level of compromise because like it or not they get their vote as much as we get ours and a line will be drawn legally speaking. Compromise is necessary and sometimes we have to compromise a little bit or we lose and will be forced to compromise more.

If you are interested in my position on red flag laws I can summarize them for you because CMO's characterization is wrong.

Here is where we may differ.

Unless you are a true libertarian who believes there should be no restrictions on firearms at any level then there is some level of compromise. Positions on gun rights are really a spectrum issue from those who want to ban all guns, to those who want to ban only certain guns or guns owned by certain people, to limited restrictions, to no restrictions at all.

The people who want to ban all guns for all people are the extreme, the people that are probably too set in their ways to change their mind. However as you move more towards the middle I think the window opens up for more opportunity to change minds or come away with a better understanding even if we haven't swayed them yet. I don't like painting these people as our enemies or stupid as it only hurts our efforts to protect firearm rights. Realistically speaking there will always be some level of compromise because like it or not they get their vote as much as we get ours and a line will be drawn legally speaking. Compromise is necessary and sometimes we have to compromise a little bit or we lose and will be forced to compromise more.

If you are interested in my position on red flag laws I can summarize them for you because CMO's characterization is wrong.

Damn.

I got tricked into a long, drawn out philosophical exercise and now my head hurts.

… and I don’t even have any shochu for Happy Hour

Damn.

I got tricked into a long, drawn out philosophical exercise and now my head hurts.

… and I don’t even have any shochu for Happy Hour

I think of the 2A as a principle.

Then there are the ways, or avenues, or material things, which are fully consistent with upholding the essence of that principle.

I believe in no compromises whatsoever with respect to upholding the essence of principles, as best we broken mortals can grasp those essences.

So I don’t think the analogy of a spectrum of give and take with those averse to a principle is a valid analogy, because it completely disregards the inherent nature of what a principle is.  From the git go, it frames a principle as not really being a principle at all, and perhaps that is in fact the strategy of such an analogy, or ploy.  It throws the principle onto broken ground, and if you accept that frame of argument, well, you’ve already lost.

Concretely, with respect to the 2A, if you take the principle to be the right of the individual citizen to have the means to defend himself against organized tyranny, well then, limiting that defense to only allow semiautomatic long guns is already hollowing out the core principle to a significant degree given the armaments available to local authorities, should they target civilians.

On the other hand though, the deterrent effect certainly remains to support the principle, and that’s what we really want, right?  I don’t want to ever have to use my firearms on any other human being unless all other options for me have been exhausted - and nobody here disagrees with that.

Always carefully assess the ground your opponent has chosen for a fight.  Unless he’s chosen it very foolishly, you want to throw him out of it.

I look at it this way.  If it causes me to think more, then this will give me more that I can bring to the table when talking to someone who's anti 2a or to our politicians or when submitting testimonies.

Provided that the post I'm reading is useful and not full of BS.

But it's also important not to burn out because you gotta be fresh when the next legislative session starts.  Our anti 2a polticians can ask questions if you show up in person.

When banning under 21 from buying ammo, the anti 2A politician Rhodes asked the NRA-ILA Hawaii rep Kevin why it's OK to ban cigs for those under 21 and not ammo.  Unfortunatlly, he didn't have an answer.  I raised my hand in the zoom, but wasn't called upon.  I would have stated, cigs aren't protected by the bill of rights, so you can deem any age you want.  But ammo/guns are protected (2a). Then I would have went on to booze. 1 amendment states to ban booze and was during the Al Capone prohibition days. Then another amendment repealled that and said each state can decide what booze laws they want. And booze too isn't protected by the Constitution.

Maybe that's why I wasn't called on as they are aware of my education on the 2A.

[1] I agree with you on the 2nd amendment principle.

[snipping lots of rambling and qualifying of comments made]

[2] I think we are best served supporting approaches that can have the maximum safety effect with minimum level of intrusion into gun rights.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed
a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges
that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that
two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly
consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second
Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald
do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court issued a decision that, among other things, said the following:

Quote
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed
a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges
that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that
two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly
consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second
Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald
do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15

If you continue reading the decision, you'll see that the "means-end scrutiny" includes the state's weighing of public safety against the ability of the individual to exercise a constitutionally protected right.  No other item in the Bill of Rights can be limited because the state deems it in the interest of the public at large, which makes laws that do so with regard to the Second Amendment inconsistent.

I'n 5th grader terms, you can't take away, nor limit, my rights just because you feel it benefits society as a whole.

Hey thanks for this!

I have discovered that one can learn something from actually reading the court’s decisions - who knew?

“means-end scrutiny”  versus  “analogy of a spectrum of give and take with those averse to a principle.”

The former being the product of high intellect.

The latter the product of smoking buds every day before school in the canal at Kalani for three years.

Unfortunately, the courts rarely dumb their publications down for the masses.  Instead, they use specific language that's been used the same way in the past so the legal decisions 'flow" from case to case and court to court.  Often the language used is "legalese", so even if you do hire a lawyer to explain it to you, their interpretation doesn't always align with how a specific judge or jury has, or will, interpret it.

Anyway, Bruen basically hit the reset button in states that were passing and upholding bad laws.  While the Supreme Court maintained a Liberal majority, gun cases that should have been appealed were placed on the back-burner until a more conservative and 2A friendly majority was seated.  We have Trump to thank for that.  If Hillary had won, I shiver at the thought of where the 2A would be now.

The post-Bruen situation is that 2-step test has been replaced with 2 separate tests:
(1) does the case fall within the scope of the Second Amendment? and
(2) is there a historical analogue which demonstrates a tradition of similar laws, limits and restrictions?  Historical means "around the time the Constitution and Second Amendment were enacted.

If you read some of the recent, post-Bruen cases, you'll see how easy it is to satisfy he first test.  But the second one is much more difficult, which is why some of the analogues the government comes up with to support their case are so comical.  They are reaching for straws, and it's just too obvious.  Some are actually using racist, anti-slavery laws meant to disarm blacks as "historical analogues."

not everything is a conspiracy...

I agree with you on the 2nd amendment principle.

I think a good political parallel regarding compromise can be the abortion debate. You have the hard core who demand abortion be illegal in almost all cases, you have the opposite hard core who believe it should never be restricted, then you have the middle who want some restriction but not too much. Maybe a 15 week limit or a 12 week limit or 6 week limit. The problem for the die hard pro-life side is that if they get a bill proposed or a candidate picked in a primary who has that no-compromise position then you have a candidate who will alienate too many people in the middle. If that happens then their candidate doesn't get enough votes to win the general election and instead of a moderate republican who would push a 12 week limit, you get a democrat who might push a 20 week limit or no limit at all. End result is that you have more legal abortions by taking the harder stance than if the party took a moderate stance of allowing some abortions.

If I ran for office and came out with an uncompromising view on gun rights saying that all guns should be legal for all individuals, I might win a primary but then lose a general election because my position is too far right for the majority. End result would be legislation less friendly to gun rights. To put that in more practical terms I think that means we need to understand that some level of restrictions are necessary, even if we don't agree with them in principle, to keep the situation from going too violent to where public opinion starts to swing left and we risk losing even more rights. For example lets say a mentally unstable person/terrorist/gang banger buys a gun and shoots up a school, this sways public, they ask how that person could get a gun. In response we can take two options, consider some form of gun control, or stone wall saying we mustn't compromise. Stone walling is, I argue, bad for us on many levels, both optically and practically in terms of protecting out gun rights and addressing the problem so it is in our interest to concede certain restrictions on firearms (arms in general) to both protect our rights and address the problem of gun violence.

I don't really agree with the way some others paint the issue in terms of a compromise because they paint the compromise as only one side giving up something but that is looking at it only from their side. Simplistically put you could say one side wants no guns in their country, the other wants lots, the compromise is some guns, but sides are giving up something they want. On top of that I don't know that it would be that accurate to paint democracy as a compromise in the first place. Bills are made, votes are cast representing a population (in theory) and law is made. Compromise may have been made somewhere but the democratic process is not about compromise, it is about our voices being represented. Sometimes we don't get what we want because the majority wants something different and that doesn't mean we compromised anything, we just lost the vote. Yes I know enshrined rights are not supposed to be overridden by popular vote but that is a separate issue as I am only focusing on the use of the word compromise in this discussion.

There are all sorts of ways to try and control guns to affect the gun violence problem, registration, background checks, permits to purchase, purchase waiting periods, red flag laws, restrictions on certain types of guns, etc. I think we are best served supporting approaches that can have the maximum safety effect with minimum level of intrusion into gun rights.