“If we thought the antigun side of the debate were interested in good-faith compromise, we’d be all for it. The dishonesty of their debating tactics, their ghoulish and opportunistic use of horrific crimes like the Newtown massacre to advance their agenda, and the onerous (and likely unconstitutional) regulations that exist in places where they hold political sway–such as New York City, where we live–persuade us otherwise.” – James Taranto, The Extreme ‘Centrist’ [at wsj.com]
Brilliant. Taranto is worth the price of WSJ subscription all by himself.
And what, precisely, would that “good faith compromise” look like and consist of??
This strikes me as a throw-away line, nothing of genuine substance. It is always easy to denounce one’s idealogical opponents as bad-faith ghouls.
The reality is that anti-gunners hold to their points of view as passionately as we hold to ours. They are sincere about their beliefs. They are convinced they are right.
As are we.
So, demonizing one’s opponents does nothing for anybody other than making “our side” feel better about itself. “Hooray for our side!”
Not really true. Yes, Bloomy really hates guns, but for a lot of lefties, they like power a lot more than they hate guns – they just use the guns issue to fire up their moronic base.
http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/at-democrats-request-even-mike-bloomberg-is-giving-up-on,52cc56e8b7d8d24162c0b385
Question of the Day based on that report to follow. FYI.
A “good-faith” compromise would consist of gaining something the pro-gun side wants for something the antis want. Something like gaining nation-wide concealed carry reciprocity or repealing the Hughes Amendment, or removing SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, and Silencers from the NFA.
Would it be a good idea to give up something in exchange for gaining something, probably not considering what the antis want, but it would at least be worth the conversation at that point.
I am going to disagree with you, based on the fact that we have seen an unending parade of “let’s compromise” gun ownership restrictions since 1934, and especially since the 1968 GCA. Tell you what I will do, though, to show my willingness to “broaden the discussion from within”. If Congress and every state/city governing body in America will repeal every gun law on the books today, so we can start from the original premise of the Second Amendment (“…shall not be infringed”), I would be willing to discuss appropriate measures that have a real-world high probability of decreasing crime.
Let me know when Hell freezes over.
Bravo!
” They hold to their view as passionately as we do to ours”-the difference sir, is that passionate advocacy of a stupid idea is still a stupid idea. One can believe he can suspend gravity with all his heart, but if he steps off a 10 story building…… Just because people passionately hold on to their error does not make their views cute, cuddly, or even respectable. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were passionate about their viewpoints too.
I do not disagree. They would, however, say precisely the same thing about our ideas. “They are stupid ideas and no matter how sincere you are, it is a stupid idea.”
And there we are.
Ah, but we’ve got the Constitution on our side!
Yes, some of them are as genuinely passionate as we are about guns. However, the Constitution takes sides … ours.
I agree re demonizing, however, most of what I hear from “our side” is usually around “you’re an ass and should get over yourself”, vs “you’re evil and should die a horrible death” from the antis.
It would be nice if the level of debate could be raised … But “our side” isn’t the one mostly to blame for lowering it in the first place.
Also, “our side” has tried reasonable-seeming compromises in the past (eg NM’s first round of CCW laws), only to be back-bitten and betrayed. So there’s a good reason, I think, for a pronounced lack of trust on “our side” vs what the other side considers “reasonable,” and a validated disbelief that the “other side” has any intention to negotiate in good faith.
I don’t get the number of people who seem to think that any kind of “debate” is even a viable idea. Debate what? Whether “shall not be infringed” really really means shall not be infringed?
Or is it that Clintonesque, “That depends on what your definition of “is” is?
I notice also that you assert quite clearly what anti-gunners think. Interesting.
If one is not able to articulate one’s opponents views as accurately and faithfully as they articulate them then you do not really understand your opponent. You have to get in the head of the other side and really understand them from the inside out to be able to respond to their points of view as completely and effectively as possible.
Ok I will grant you the point about understanding one’s foe in a Sun Tzu kind of way. Or the first of the 7 Habits…”Seek first to understand”. But to advocate on their behalf is a step too far. Ad the bottomline which again you seem determined to admit in Taranto’s piece and the other replies here is that we don’t see good faith or fair dealing on the anti-gunners side. Instead we see proof of Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals from the Community Organizer In Chief on down including demonstrated collusion with propaganists masquerading as Journolist(as) and abuse of IRS taxation powers to influence non-profits and deny voters rights. The “ends justify the means” tactics used by the left are familiar to any student of Soviet history as is the quote about Useful Idiots (V.I. Lenin). Sorry to be so brutally frank here Paul but in this part of the culture war its not a fair fight and at some point you need to pick a side. Personal freedom? Or not.
sorry my bad need to proof better – change admit to deny.
“to advocate on their behalf is a step too far”
Sorry, didn’t follow you there. Nowhere did I suggest anyone “advocate on their behalf” in fact, in the OP, that was the very point I first questioned: what compromise?
Maybe I misunderstood you though, I’m sure I did.
It’s not demonizing if it’s true. Gun free zones keep you safe from gun toting homicidal mass murderers; (in denial and delusional,) -check.
Rich and famous people need to have armed body guards with them and at their children’s schools but not for common people or THEIR children’s schools. ( Elitist, they hold the constitution and common people lives in absolute and utter contempt-check)
Out lawing gun ownership by law abiding citizens will stop criminals from getting guns- (delusional- check)
All mass murders except one have happened in GFZ, but with only one or two exceptions, none at gun shows, gun ranges or police stations, but still, the gun grabbers won’t give up the GFZ’s.( Delusional, Denial-check)
Many Liberal/Progressives, ie most gun grabbers, want gun control. GFZ’s, universal registration, mental health checks, waiting periods, magazine restrictions, assault weapons bans, ect. to stop a mass murderer from committing mass murder; but accuse a person that carries a gun to protect against said mass murderer as being paranoid, fearful, wanna be rambo and compensating for having a small package. (Hypocrites, denial, delusional and bordering on psychotic.- check)
So, we have established most gun grabbers as being in denial, delusional, hypocrites, border line psychotic; elitists that hold the common people in contempt OR those that aren’t rich or powerful but think the rich and powerful deserve armed guards and they don’t; (these people are peasant and peons at heart and deserve nothing but our pity,)
So is there anything I’ve said that isn’t true or that is “demonizing” these people?
Nope. No demonizing. Dead-on and balls accurate.
100000000000000000000+
Well said, sir.
Yes, preaching to the choir like this is cathartic, and a good morale boost, but does not in any way effectively counter-act the opponents points of view, nor does it win a hearing for our point of view.
“preaching to the choir” is sort of an insult whrn I read it that way but let me repurpose that point. If its true that TTAG has a diverse readership and rising viewership (demonstrable facts for anyone reading here for awhile) then this is a place for debate on the ideas. To inform those new to The Truth About Guns. To educate. And perhaps to influence. I sense and data out thrre shows a “vast disturbance in the force” and it is precisely because knowledgeable gun owners have gotten into the game and gotten involved and big parts of the formerly unaware have taken the time to get the Truth. Thats what makes TTAG specisl and useful as one of those who most humbly admits to being a newb and grateful to learn from all. Even the anti’s, who g_d bless ’em are not evil just wrong…but mostly to pay it forward to those in the middle looking for info whom I do trust can think for themselves too.
The reality P.T.M is that the people with this type of psychosis I just described are immune from fact, history and experience. They believe this way because it is based on emotion founded in an emotionally arrested child like view of the world; where a child thinks that by closing their eyes and wishing hard enough, that the monster under the bed they know to be real will simply go away. (GFZ’s anyone?)
That, or by yelling for mom and daddy (The Nanny state) that they will be held in loving arms and their irrational fear will be made better by the G-d like powers they know their parents (big brother) holds. (The Patriot Act and the surveillance state)
Those with eyes to see and ears to hear will know the truth of what we all speak on web sites like this; those that can’t; oh well, There will always be those that march into the ovens because they could not accept the “obviousness of the truth” right in front of them. For me, I will just have to keep my powder dry and my trust in G-d and the Christ and hope there is enough of us that believe in freedom to stop the storm winds of history that seem to inevitably blow us towards the reefs of tyranny.
I’ve been reading TTAG for quite a while now and I’ve never noticed any particularly strong representation of anti-gunners in these discussions.
: )
And let’s take one comment in your last:
“The reality P.T.M is that the people with this type of psychosis I just described are immune from fact, history and experience.”
Do you think you have any chance of persuading anyone even to consider your point of view, or even bother to listen to it, when you begin by telling them they are suffering from a psychosis and are immune to facts, history and experience?
I think you’d probably say, “No, now of course I would not begin a conversation that way.”
That’s my point.
If we are chatting amongst ourselves here, hurling our most cherished epithets about people with whom we disagree, that is simply preaching to the choir.
On the other hand, if the goal is to persuade those who can be persuaded, there are better ways of going about it.
“does not in any way effectively counter-act the opponents points of view, nor does it win a hearing for our point of view.”
[snip]
“Do you think you have any chance of persuading anyone even to consider your point of view, or even bother to listen to it, when you begin by telling them they are suffering from a psychosis and are immune to facts, history and experience?
I think you’d probably say, ‘No, now of course I would not begin a conversation that way.’
That’s my point.”
All good points, Paul.
A good-faith compromise would involve clearly identifying your goals and examining data and policy options with the aim of pursuing those goals.
In a good-faith compromise situation, the repeal of certain existing restrictions that haven’t served their stated purpose would be on the table. Perhaps things like removing suppressors from the NFA list, or eliminating the bizarre tax-stamp system entirely, or the idiosyncratic “sporting purpose” restriction on imports.
In a good-faith compromise situation, people who supported “universal background checks” would leap at the chance to make that system universally accessible without going through an FFL, and they wouldn’t care that it doesn’t also expand the NFTS at the same time, because that wasn’t their stated goal.
In a good-faith compromise situation, incorporating basic firearm handling and marksmanship training into public school physical education programs would be an acceptable way to remedy any supposed training deficiency among the gun-owning public, as opposed to separate state-mandated classes for adults.
In a good-faith compromise situation, it would be accepted as given that being knowledgeable about guns and gun laws should be a prerequisite for having any significant voice in the debate.
The liberals’ repeated refusal to allow public access to the NICS system proves that they’re not interested in universal background checks. They just want to ban private sales of firearms and force all transactions through the FFL’s, which is a fatal funnel they can then throttle out of existence.
“The reality is that anti-gunners hold to their points of view as passionately as we hold to ours. They are sincere about their beliefs. They are convinced they are right.”
I agree that many of them do hold their points of view just as passionately as we do. The difference is we come out and say exactly what we want in terms that are hard to misconstrue. Progressives, on the other hand, like to pussyfoot and dance around their goal of total civilian disarmament (among other policy issues) by lying and offering more laws that whittle away at our rights because they (at some miniscule level) realize that their true agenda is so far outside the mainstream, that they would be slaughtered at the ballot box for espousing their true goals.
What he’s saying is that if there were any reason to believe that a proposed compromise would be them kept as policy instead of used as a stepping stone to immediately pursue further legislation, and therefore nullify that compromise, then we might be more willing to work with them.
I wouldn’t be, I’d be using it as a stepping stone to peel back more regulations, as I’ve been convinced by the absolutist’s arguments.
The break of faith comes on the tactics. They want guns gone, we we want guns left alone. We say what we want plainly, they hide their true goal (total confiscation) behind lies and emotional misdirection. We can’t meet in the realm of ideas to discuss if anything can or should (try to) be done to reduce gun fatalites when one side is lying about goals to hide their agenda. And as far as demonizing the other side, which side is the one ready to make political hay out of human tragedy? To take traumatized people and parade them before the press like a child showing off a new toy, just to gin up emotions? To lie about supporting gun rights, while chipping ever futher into them? I want nothing from them but to be left the heck alone. From me they want, ultimately, the surrender of thousands of dollars of property that I have a natural right to own, and thus surrender my means of self defense from both criminal and tyrant.
Well said. A stat from Ms Watts own presser a couple of days ago – she brags about 70 events around the country to commerorate Sandy Hook. We gun rights folks excoriate Gottlieb for proposing a counter tactic event. Who is respectful of the parents sorrow? Who is ghoulish.
I like Instapundits advice when confronted by the pc -speaking narrative tending thought police of the left who want to make it personal: “Punch back twice as hard.” And “Mock them!”. And if you want really un-man them…confront them with the facts. Because they know and their shrill desperation confirms it: the facts disprove their beliefs and shatters their position of “we know whats best for you”…
“The reality is that anti-gunners hold to their points of view as passionately as we hold to ours. ”
We are not trying to introduce legislation to push our points of view onto them so that they must own guns (well, okay, that one town did but other than that).
“Good faith compromise” is still compromise. Even if the gun grabbers were willing to allow me 10 rounds instead of seven in my “clip” or allow me to keep the “thing that goes up” and actually not be thinking , “It’s only a first good step” to total disarmament, it is still infringing a right.
To Me, it’s the first right; because if I’m not alive and free, I can’t practice all those other rights the Bill of Rights talk about.
Taranto is not an absolutist and does not pretend to be. He is, however, a longtime student of the left land it’s mendacity.
How is compromise ever a good thing for anyone? Nobody gets what they want in a compromise “good faith” or not. Besides, any “good faith” there might be is based on ignorance of the subject/item at hand.
Like it’s a compromise to give up magic undetectable guns and teflon coated ammunition because of their uncanny ability to sail through armor. Sure, these things are fantasy but they embolden the morons in their wholly evil fight against liberty.
“If we thought the antigun side of the debate were interested in good-faith compromise, we’d be all for it.”
This is exactly why we need to be careful of folks on both “sides” of the issue. There is no room for compromise in “shall not be infringed.” None. At all.
I’m not ignorant of the fact that we HAVE been infringed, some more than others. The problem is that once our rights have been infringed upon the only way to get them back is to accept ZERO additional infringements and to work where we can to gain that ground back.
Compromise at this stage amounts to a step forward and three steps back.
Unsure why so many people are obsessing with his use of the word compromise and ignoring his more important points. I don’t need to agree with all of his article to enjoy the way he exposes the hypocrisy of the anti-gun zealots. I’d buy this guy a beer.
Taranto’s column drew me to the WSJ over a decade ago, back when I was just a poor student. I love his writing and his passionate defense of conservativism. For a NYer, he’s a also pretty pro-firearms freedom, but note the caveat because it matters.
Yup. John Fund is good too.
And elsewhere – read Sutan Knish – that guy is on fire. And Mark Steyn. Caroline Glick.
Sorry. I digress. Back to work…
Good-faith compromise? On rights? We’d be all for it?
No, “we” wouldn’t be , speak for yourself, FLAME DELETED.
Compromise with your spouse over what’s for dinner and what movie to watch, not with wannabe despots over your principles and rights.
Don’t hold your manhood cheap, or else others will too.
Again Paul I see you cherry-picking a quote and misconstruing the larger point. Seems to be a pattern as I look back over your posts.
Are you contesting the conclusion of the Best of the Web piece? Personally I find myself in complete agreementwith Taranto: theres no point in wasting time in fair debate with Bloomberg or the NYT for that matter. Thei “news” is propaganda when it comes to gun control. I wish you luck if you believe otherwise. Me I’d prefer to engage with rational readers who fome here for the Truth.
PS: what I especially like abt TTAG is how quick Robt and now Dan are to “get” the wider zeitgest on guns and the culture war. To the point of this Taranto WSJ piece on the dishonesty of The State Run Media™ here’s confirmation of the same…from the Democrat side. H/t Instapundit.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/182203/
I am so sick of hearing people using the “shouting fire in a theater” sophistry to justify second Ammendment restrictions. The logical equivalent of outlawing guns because somebody might shoot somebody would to be to outlaw speaking in a theater because someone might shout fire.
Yes. If I exercise my freedom of speech badly (“fire!”), there are laws to punish me. If I exercise my right to keep and bear arms badly (murdering someone), there are laws to punish me. People, like Dick Metcalf, who make shouting fire in a theater arguments to show that restrictions on rights are acceptable are disingenuous and/or idiots. Similarly any “history professor” at a school like Cornell (Metcalf again) who cannot understand that terms within a critical document written over 200 years ago must be considered within the historical context when it comes to understanding them is either a fool and/or someone pushing an agenda.
Well said. What is it about the Democrats/progressive/left that compels them to obsessively come up with more and more rules and regulations. Its almost as if they can’t trust us lowly citizens to exercise our own good common sense and free will and need our betters to do it for us.
“Its almost as if they can’t trust us lowly citizens to exercise our own good common sense and free will and need our betters to do it for us.”
Well, I don’t trust Progs with their right to vote or right to free speech. The difference is that I’m not about ban them from voting or pass a law to remove their vocal chords. That is the difference; I am pro-choice, they are prog-choice.
Liberalism means never having to say “I’m OK, you’re OK.”
Hot damn, now that’s a journalist.
There would have been a time, maybe 35 years ago, when I would have agreed with Metcalf about regulations and rights. There was a time when being seen as reasonable by my opponents would have been important to me. I would have cringed if anyone had called my political opinions “extreme.” There was a time, long ago, when I actually cared what people thought and said about me.
But then I grew up and assumed responsibility for my life, probably around the same time I became a father and assumed responsibility for the lives I helped create. Funny how that can change a person. It turns the MDA moms into screeching birds, howling at the world to leave their kids alone, believing that safety is enhanced in proportion to the volume of their argument. It changed me into that quiet, lumbering bear that dares someone to mess with my child because I will f*** them up.
So many different reactions to the same stimulus: elitists like Metcalf say trust us; MDA says you cannot be trusted and must be neutered; POTG just tool up and say “if you bring it, I will end you.” My grandmother was so right… sooner or later it all comes down to character and responsibility.
Right on
Responding to a few comments that were made in response to my first:
Yes, we are absolutely convinced that “they” are stupid, foolish, demonic, ghouls, rubes, and every other possible word we can think of to label them. And there is truth to some of these descriptive terms we use as “we” talk about “them.”
“We” however have not done our job simply because we ascribe the worst possible motives to our opponents, dismiss their points of views with pejoratives and not even bother to really hear them out. It is easy to engage on forums like this in calling our opponents names, deriding them, castigating them and cheering ourselves on but we are, quite literally, preaching to the choir. It has its place. Good to keep the morale up and make folks realize they are not alone, but it also has its limits.
The key to winning hearts and minds in these debates is to know our opponents points of view better than they know their points of view. That is, we learn how our opponents think, what makes them tick, what motivates their feelings, attitude, and opinions to such an extent that we can identify every possible weakness in their points of view and what is more important, every possible opportunity to the most effectively counter-act their points of views in the huge court of public opinion.
That’s my point.
Except Taranto isn’t preaching to the choir on a gun forum. He’s a mainstream writer expressing a view that many of us hold to a very broad audience. This does not happen often and is a very good sign that we are winning over some of the moderates. Could you imagine this being published a year ago?
By Taranto? Yes. I don’t get the impression that he’s particularly concerned about disagreeing with other journalists so long as the facts are on his side.
And again. Paul you dont speak for me in your description of the “we” here. I didnt and dont call the left ghouls nor did Taranto. Those are your generalizations which I am being charitable in describing as your strawman as you seem to be articulate enough to understand the term as a fallacy.
I’m interested in what Paul thinks but I am not interested in Pauls mind reading on what I or other 2A riguts believers think as I am quite sure I and they are capable of thinking for ourselves.
And its quite transparently clear where Bloomberg, Watts and others of their ilk are coming from if you are paying attention. They dont seek compromise, IMHO, only control.
rlc2, really? Strawman?
Just read some of the comments here, or on any TTAG post for that matter on these kinds of issues.
No strawman, rather, simple reality.
I propose that the essence of the gun control arguments, and indeed the argument of any statist, is that any individual cannot be trusted. In the absence of that trust, laws and regulations must be passed to curtail that individual. This is not just true in regards to firearms but to many other things:
You cannot be trusted to not shoot up a school, so we will define them as gun free zones.
You cannot be trusted to know whether you are really at risk of rape, so we will keep you from carrying a gun.
You cannot be trusted to control your impulses, so we will disarm you.
You cannot be trusted to have learned your lesson, so we will strip you of your rights forever.
You cannot be trusted to know what is best for your own child, so we will tell you only that school is acceptable.
You cannot be trusted to make up your own mind, so we will ban that book.
You cannot be trusted to live with the consequences of your actions as an adult, so we will ban that drug (but not alcohol, because we like alcohol), will require you to wear a helmet, require you to wear that seat belt.
You cannot be trusted to understand difficult concepts, so we will make those decisions for you.
I would further contend that the genesis of this lack of trust is a lack of faith. Trustworthy people have faith in something bigger than themselves. It does not have to be in a supreme being. It can be faith in themselves, in their friends and neighbors, in the community. It can be for a principle or, dare I say it, a set of principles. I absolutely believe that faith in something is an important part of being human. People will, aware or unconsciously, clamor for something to believe in.
And if someone is faithless, the state will give them something to believe in: a benevolent master, the state, which demands so little, only obedience in their vision and directives. Believe in us, the state says. What they do not say is that if you believe in nothing, the state is all you have left.
Sorry for the long post. Am in a pensive mood today.
And again. Paul you dont speak for me in your description of the “we” here. I didnt and dont call the left ghouls nor did Taranto. Those are your generalizations which I am being charitable in describing as your strawman as you seem to be articulate enough to understand the term as a fallacy.
I’m interested in what Paul thinks but I am not interested in Pauls mind reading on what I or other 2A riguts believers think as I am quite sure I and they are capable of thinking for ourselves.
And its quite transparently clear where Bloomberg, Watts and others of their ilk are coming from if you are paying attention. They dont seek compromise, IMHO, only control.
I suspect your comment was directed to Paul above, and not me?
Yes 505 to Paul, not you. This old kindle keeps flipping from desktop to mobile view in spite of settings on both it and the TTAG website. I’ll try and use the PC in future to be more concise. And Paul…apologies in advance if my frustration seems personal. You are a worthy friend or even foe for taking the time to post your beliefs…even if I disagree. As Ralph once pointed out ” who the f… am I!” Just one of many here and my .02 worth is worth same.
Very perceptive and thought-provoking.
It also brought to mind most of the reasons why I left religion behind so many moons ago. Do I have faith in something bigger than myself? I dunno. I’m not much for faith…maybe hope is a better word.
Unlike the more absolutist people here, I’d be glad to reach a point of true compromise, if only as a stepping stone to future gains — but the prog/left/statist side would have to understand what fair compromise really is, and they’d have to be honest in offering it. Not happening.
Thank you. I suspect one of the reasons there is no compromise from our enemies is that they recognize the inherent shift in perspective and thinking that happens when someone becomes an armed citizen. I do not think any other right, even free speech or religion, has the same kind of whammy.
Once someone experiences what it means to be armed, they become increasingly aware that they are not dependent upon the state for personal safety (unless maybe living next to a lead smelter or super-fund site), and that just starts an entire chain of thought that is almost impossible to control.
If I am responsible for my own safety, then maybe this whole war on terror thing is too far. If I am responsible for what I put in my body – and I accept responsibility for that – then maybe this whole war on drugs thing is misguided. Maybe I’ll teach my own kids because I can do it better than some failing school. Maybe I’ll start a blog and build a community of like-minded individuals. Maybe I’ll start my own retirement fund, because after all SS is going to fail at some point. Maybe I’ll stock up on food because you never know what might happen. Maybe I’ll start to swap goods or services with neighbors directly via barter. Maybe I’ll just make something myself, or fix it instead of replace it. Maybe, maybe, maybe… and the state slow starts to dissolve.
Faith or no, hoping for that can keep you warm. 🙂
“What they do not say is that if you believe in nothing, the state is all you have left.”
Almost but you left out a step in the progression. When people refuse to believe in something they end up believing in themselves. The state comes along with collectivist rule and self is abolished. Than only state is left to believe in.
Will people stop saying “likely unconstitutional”? This isn’t the first time I’ve heard that. Call it what it is: “Blatantly unconstitutional legislation passed and enforced by traitors to their oath.”
“If we thought the antigun side of the debate were interested in good-faith compromise, we’d be all for it.”
If we thought for a second they werent completely full of shit to begin with… 🙂
“Good fait compromise” with liberals is always the same. They ask for everyting and are willing to accept less as a compromise. The same thing works for budget cuts. Ask for 10% increase get 7% increas equals a 3% budget cut. “Can’t we all just get along” some time the answer is No.
What happened to his face?
“What happened to his face?”
Frankly, he looks to me like the kind of guy who, when he shakes your hand, you want to count your fingers. He talks a good talk, but when it comes to the Bill of Rights, there is no such thing as “good-faith compromise,”
Comments are closed.