[cowboywannabe]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...-term-process#

here is some more reading material for the appeasers and compromisers like m&p15t

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

thats what i thought youd say....you have no past examples of what you tout would happen later.

When did I state there were previous examples?

I am very aware that it's impossible to stop anti-gunners with compromise. I am very aware that people like Feinstein and her rabid anti-gun supporters would take everything away if they could, I get that.

Take careful note. I have asked two, very specific questions. And yet not one person responding in this thread has deigned to answer them. I find this very odd. It's as if people are afraid to consider the possibility that anti-gun legislation is going to be passed, as if discussing it will make it happen. Therefore, we can't have a logical discussion on the topic.

So I'll ask you very directly, and very specifically:

Do you believe that anti-gun legislation IS going to pass? Do you believe there is no avoiding the passing of some sort of anti-gun legislation?

[cowboywannabe]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

And if closing the loop-hole stops further anti-2A/anti-gun legislation?

edited due to editing.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

your first question here shows you are open to bending over with the promise of not getting the schwantz.

i say no to your question as there is no guarentee that would happen based on their lengthy past of assaulting our gun rights.

Yes, you are correct. I definitely would compromise to not get crushed by massive, sweeping anti-gun legislation.

Now answer the question I asked you directly in post #52.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Take careful note. I have asked two, very specific questions. And yet not one person responding in this thread has deigned to answer them. I find this very odd. It's as if people are afraid to consider the possibility that anti-gun legislation is going to be passed, as if discussing it will make it happen. Therefore, we can't have a logical discussion on the topic.

So I'll ask you very directly, and very specifically:

Do you believe that anti-gun legislation IS going to pass? Do you believe there is no avoiding the passing of some sort of anti-gun legislation?

Take careful note. Is the following a direct response?

Originally Posted by RussP

As I said before, I have read all your posts and the responses to them in all the threads in which you proposed your ideas. I can state that no one has posted that there will be no legislation.

I'll put it another way. Absent a dissenting viewpoint, everyone agrees that there will be anti-gun legislation.

[cowboywannabe]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Cool.

Now answer the question I asked you directly in post #52.

i dont know if it will pass.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by RussP

Take careful note. Is the following a direct response?I'll put it another way. Absent a dissenting viewpoint, everyone agrees that there will be anti-gun legislation.

Just to paraphrase for clarity: You DO believe that anti-gun legislation is dfinitely coming.

O.k., we now have a starting point.

What do you think we should do right now? Do you believe that there is anything we can do to not see sweeping, anti-gun legislation?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

i dont know if it will pass.

The consensus in several threads has had two parts: Legislation will be proposed; No one knows if or in what form it will pass.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

i dont know if it will pass.

Nor do I, nor does anyone.

What would be your best guess right now? As things sit today?

[cowboywannabe]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Nor do I, nor does anyone.

What would be your best guess right now? As things sit today?

as its been proposed by feinstein it will not pass.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

as its been proposed by feinstein it will not pass.

Edit:

Forget what Feinstein has proposed. What she has proposed means nothing, other than a possible starting point.

What I'm asking is, do you think SOME TYPE of anti-gun legislation will pass?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

...Giving in by compromising would not be a pretty sight. It's nothing anyone would want to do, least of all me.

Then why are you promoting, advocating, endorsing, and suggesting offering a compromise up front?

I am glad I quoted you before you edited your post.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Edit:

Forget what Feinstein has proposed. What she has proposed means nothing, other than a possible starting point.

What I'm asking is, do you think SOME TYPE of anti-gun legislation will pass?

You're vacillating.

Why is it important whether people believe or don't believe that the legislation will be passed?

[Averageman]

Do you believe that anti-gun legislation IS going to pass?
No I dont believe it will pass, this isnt going to be very pretty, but if we have gotten to this fiscal cliff certainly the dont have the juice to pass gun legislation, people hold it more dear than a budget.
Do you believe there is no avoiding the passing of some sort of anti-gun legislation?
I believe it is avoidable and without compromise. The NRA and GOA better find a very good spokesman and I mean right now and get him out there to speak for us.
Its hearts and minds time.

[RussP]

How about this.

Scenario #1: "Yes, legislation will pass."

Your comment is:


Scenario #2: "No legislation will pass."

Your Comment is:

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by RussP

Then why are you promoting, advocating, endorsing, and suggesting offering a compromise up front?

For a couple of reasons.

First, as you seemingly already understand, it (hopefully) would serve to defuse the masses. As I have stated several times in other threads, this is the most important thing to do.

Second, we firearms owners (through the NRA) would look compassionate and understanding in the eyes of the general public, further defusing the masses.

Thirdly, we (through the NRA) would actually be involved in the legislative process. We would be able to exert some control over the specifics of what gets passed. We would be doing pro-active damage control.

The Health Care Industry virtually wrote Obummer Care? Why? Because they were smart. They got involved at the very beginning, and had a hand in crafting that legislation, making sure that their own collective butts were covered.

If we move forward from a basic belief that some sort of anti-gun legislation is going to pass, then it would be smart to be pro-active in our approach. To actually be involved.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by Averageman

Do you believe that anti-gun legislation IS going to pass?
No I dont believe it will pass, this isnt going to be very pretty, but if we have gotten to this fiscal cliff certainly the dont have the juice to pass gun legislation, people hold it more dear than a budget.
Do you believe there is no avoiding the passing of some sort of anti-gun legislation?
I believe it is avoidable and without compromise. The NRA and GOA better find a very good spokesman and I mean right now and get him out there to speak for us.
Its hearts and minds time.

Great.

Then you should not be concerned with any of this discussion.

I agree that Wayne La Perrier is terrible, and needs to be replaced.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by RussP

You're vacillating.

Why is it important whether people believe or don't believe that the legislation will be passed?

Because it's the basis of starting a discussion.

I folks don't believe there definitely will be anti-gun legislation passed, then there's no point in discussing anything further.

If, on the other hand, folks DO BELIEVE that anti-gun legislation is going to pass, then the next discussion to have is "what to do about it"?

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by RussP

How about this.

Scenario #1: "Yes, legislation will pass."

Your comment is:


Scenario #2: "No legislation will pass."

Your Comment is:

#1: I have already expressed my view points in the other threads you linked to. I would now like to hear what you and other people think we should do.

2#: Then there is nothing to talk about.

[shotgunred]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Great.

Then you should not be concerned with any of this discussion.

I agree that Wayne La Perrier is terrible, and needs to be replaced.

I don't understand this. While I personally don't like him I am glad that the NRA is talking about dealing with the mental ill and actually doing something that will make a difference. (armed guards in schools.)

We could easily fund police in every school at the local level by adding 1 or 2 tenths of 1% sales tax. in the small county I live in 120K people 1/10 of 1% on sales tax to about 4 million dollars a year. (I work for the local government and this is our average)

[427]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

And if closing the loop-hole stops further anti-2A/anti-gun legislation?

"If".

Do you actually think appeasing will stop any kind of legislation?

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by 427

"If".

Do you actually think appeasing will stop any kind of legislation?

Yes, if done properly. Please read my other posts in this thread for more explanation as to why I believe this.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

For a couple of reasons.

First, as you seemingly already understand, it (hopefully) would serve to defuse the masses. As I have stated several times in other threads, this is the most important thing to do.

I understand that is what you believe. I do NOT believe that at all, no way, no how.

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Second, we firearms owners (through the NRA) would look compassionate and understanding in the eyes of the general public, further defusing the masses.

False. When you go in to negotiate, you do not go in offering any compromise up front.

The NRA is not going to be as positively influential as you think. You do not even belong to the NRA. What influence would you want the NRA to bring on Legislators?

If a legislator responds in agreement with the nasty NRA, his or her constituents will hang them. If they vote responding to grass root input from us through VCDL and like kind groups, not the NRA, they are responding to the people.

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Thirdly, we (through the NRA) would actually be involved in the legislative process. We would be able to exert some control over the specifics of what gets passed. We would be doing pro-active damage control.

Again, the NRA is not in the best position to control the specifics in legislation. Your Representative and Senator here in Virginia will cast the votes. Work on Warner, especially. By the way, have you joined the VCDL yet?

Originally Posted by M&P15T

The Health Care Industry virtually wrote Obummer Care? Why? Because they were smart. They got involved at the very beginning, and had a hand in crafting that legislation, making sure that their own collective butts were covered.

The 'Health Care Industry' is not one group, one organization. It is comprised of many large and small groups, special interest groups, who brought their wish lists to the table and to House and Senate hearings. Do you believe there will be in depth hearings?

Originally Posted by M&P15T

If we move forward from a basic belief that some sort of anti-gun legislation is going to pass, then it would be smart to be pro-active in our approach. To actually be involved.

Yes, but not behind the NRA. The NRA should be only one small part of the process. State organizations like VCDL should be working with Representatives and Senators to present our case to Congress.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by RussP

I understand that is what you believe. I do NOT believe that at all, no way, no how. False. When you go in to negotiate, you do not go in offering any compromise up front.

The NRA is not going to be as positively influential as you think. You do not even belong to the NRA. What influence would you want the NRA to bring on Legislators?

If a legislator responds in agreement with the nasty NRA, his or her constituents will hang them. If they vote responding to grass root input from us through VCDL and like kind groups, not the NRA, they are responding to the people. Again, the NRA is not in the best position to control the specifics in legislation. Your Representative and Senator here in Virginia will cast the votes. Work on Warner, especially. By the way, have you joined the VCDL yet?The 'Health Care Industry' is not one group, one organization. It is comprised of many large and small groups, special interest groups, who brought their wish lists to the table and to House and Senate hearings. Do you believe there will be in depth hearings?Yes, but not behind the NRA. The NRA should be only one small part of the process. State organizations like VCDL should be working with Representatives and Senators to present our case to Congress.

Russ, you just refuse to answer the question I posed to you directly, don't you?

Do I need to ask the question again?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by 427

"If".

Do you actually think appeasing will stop any kind of legislation?

You have too poor an understanding of how politics are working today. These guys are cut-throat predators who will perceive any offer of compromise as weakness. They will tout even an offer as a total breakdown of our will and resolve and pursue their total agenda with even more enthusiasm.

Or, as I said before, you are terribly naive.