England UK

"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:4AZkh.101533$rv4.81473@edtnps90...
> "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:CoSdnfp34InFvQ7YnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>> news:TmEkh.100205$hn.2075@edtnps82...
>>> "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:GpOdnSSzH4Iw2g_YnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:aRjkh.99620$hn.62950@edtnps82...
>>> [ SNIP ]
>>>>> 3. With regards to RKBA specifically, *you* would see my position as
>>>>> being a compromise, and in the interests of keeping the bickering to a
>>>>> minimum, I'll accept that description. In fact, I think I have a
>>>>> definite position insofar as I think we have the right to handguns,
>>>>> rifles and shotguns, and I won't budge on that. So none of this ".22LR
>>>>> rifles are enough" stupidity...seeing as how that's clearly not my
>>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>> Fine and if other people hold a different position then I would
>>>> similarly expect you to respect their position even if it is a position
>>>> of no compromise.
>>>
>>> I respect that position but I don't agree with it.
>>
>> So you feel your rights should be subject to compromise?
>
> There's no "should be" about it - that makes it sound like I think every
> right, privilege, obligation, duty (I threw in the last two as reminders -
> it's not all gimme, gimme, gimme) should be tossed back and forth between
> competing interests until it's a pale shadow of its former self.

Oh, then it's only some of our rights you are willing to compromise away
until they are pale shadows of their former selves?

> All I'm
> saying is that there is, and must be, some degree of compromise in order
> for
> any agreements between people to actually come about.

Sorry, but where my rights are concerned compromise is not an option. You
may feel we should compromise out rights, but I disagree.

> Because people are
> rarely unanimous on things, and in a democracy different viewpoints need
> to
> be accommodated.

Except where our rights are concerned. Then those viewpoints that want to
restrict our rights can go suck an egg.

> May I point out that the Second Amendment itself is the product of
> compromise; it could easily have come out in a different form, tending
> more
> to either end of the spectrum, and in the one case you would now be
> distinctly unhappy with the result.

Yep, and until and unless the 2nd is repealed it IS the law and not subject
to compromise.

>> So tell me at what point do you finally put down your foot and declare
>> your rights are not subject to compromise?
>
> Confining the discussion to firearms, self-defense, and firearms for
> self-defense, I've stated where I stand on firearms - handguns, rifles and
> shotguns, as general classes. For the moment I'll leave it up in the air
> as
> to whether or not full-auto assault rifles or .50 calibre modern sniper
> jobs
> are in my "rifles" group. IOW, all handguns, all shotguns, and all rifles
> that a person would reasonably use for hunting or self-defense.

Well, that's an improvement anyway at least you are no longer immediately
looking to allow compromise on certain type of guns. Though it does sound as
if you wouldn't be adverse to further compromise on them either.

May I offer an alternative. No compromise?

Keep what we've got and seek to expand the protections of our rights under
the 2nd back to where they were.

There is absolutely no reason to further compromise in this matter. We have
already compromised our rights far more than we ever should have and as such
there is no reason to accept ANY further compromise of our rights in this
area. Ok, you want to avoid the 'grey' area because you don't have the
stomach to fight for it. I can at least accept that. However, just because
you aren't willing to carry the fight forward in these areas doesn't mean
you should accept any further compromise in that area either. I suppose
that's were our basic disagreement comes from. You sound like you are
willing to accept further compromise in your 'grey' area if that means
getting what you want in handguns and so on. I'm not willing to accept any
further compromise of our rights in any area even if that means taking a bit
longer to regain out rights in the matter of handguns and so on. At least
I'm not losing further ground which I will have to battle for once again.