PeterZ wrote:Can we take this to Politics where this sort of discussion is expected? There are more than enough people who can either support your position there or explain why you are dead wrong. This is not the forum for such debates.kzt wrote:That is due to the nature of what "compromise" amounts to in this context. When has it meant anything less then just one side surrendering something? For example, when was the last time that an anti-gun group suggested getting rid of the Hughes amendment in exchange for anything? It's explicitly always an incremental long game to them that ends with a total ban on weapons outside of the government and military. As someone one said, "I saw a movie about a place where the government had a monopoly on violence, it was called 'Schindler's List'". You simply cannot negotiate with people who negotiate in bad faith.
The way this is prevented is by making people who want to negotiate pay a very large price. Like S&W being sold at fire sale prices after the boycott, the company running SHOT getting fired after their "Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show" collapsed, Congressmen Castle having an opportunity to seek work in the private sector, or columnists like Zumo or Metcalf having an opportunity to seek other employment.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/01/07/the ... ur-people/
I agree any debate over gun control should be taken to politics. I used it here merely as an example of thought control being imposed and as an example of that control being imposed by a group with whose overall position I find myself in substantive agreement. In other words, as a demonstration that no group --- certainly no political group --- is in a position to portray itself as blameless while accusing its opponents of pressure tactics and attempting to silence opposition.
There! I don't think there was any overtly partisan political posturing in the above.