TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: I think you're underestimating our opposition. It's not that they don't believe what the NRA says, they don't care what it says, because their goal isn't gun "control," it's getting guns out of the hands of the populace. Just read what they say to each other on the subject. The gun grabbers have never compromised on anything....if you think they have I challenge you to cite an example? We have fewer gun rights now than we had 100 years ago.

I don't attribute what the super conservative Republicans say to the Republican party. Nor do I attribute what radically liberal/socialist/etc Democrats say to the Democratic party. I don't think that there is a substantial portion of the population that thinks we should take everyone's guns. I think there is moderate portion of the public that supports (per polls I've seen) some additional restrictions on gun control. That doesn't make them "gun grabbers". I think that *most* of the population is caught in the middle and is fed information via the media that they tend to believe on face value. Sure, there are people that might take them all. There are people that would hand full-auto weapons out to the general population.

You're right. We have fewer gun rights than we had 100 years ago. The 2nd amendment which shall not be infringed is clearly infringed. You'll get zero argument from me there. I find it somewhat incredulous that we have laws that fly so counter to a specific constitutional amendment..

I don't have an example of "gun grabber" compromise. I wouldn't expect that anyone who legitimately wants to take all the guns out of the USA would compromise. That's a radical agenda. It's way far off centrist and doesn't have popular support. I won't paint everyone that might support less radical ideas with that brush.

VMI77 wrote: You'd have to describe what a less eroded 2nd amendment is, and what you mean by stricter background checks to really understand the trade-offs --maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that either....in theory. The problem is that our opponents will never allow a system of stricter background checks that doesn't deny guns to more law abiding citizens --especially if they have to give something up for it. They will only agree to it if it advances them towards their ultimate goal.

A less eroded 2nd amendment to me is likely firming up national gun laws and taking restrictions out of the hands of the states. There is too much variation in the states and I'd like to see federal courts rule to de-infringe the 2nd amendment. I want the right to carry a firearm in the 50 states. I want enough specific legal support to disallow arrests under conditions of legal carry and I want substantial penalties if enforcement branches get it wrong. I can live with or without OC, but I don't want to have to spend 30 minutes reviewing the rule book every time I cross state lines. And I'd rather not worry about the internal policy of Round Rock PD on CHL. Yea, I'd trade stricter purchase requirements - even on private purchases for that... That would be a compromise I could live with.

VMI77 wrote: I think we differ on this because you're attributing the same good intentions you have to your opposition. It's this kind of good faith on our side that has enabled them to advance their agenda so far. There may be some in the opposition who genuinely believe their rhetoric, but they don't have any power --the ones in power aren't acting in good faith.

You might be right. You assume there is an end goal of massively restricting firearm ownership and certainly it's headed that way looking at historical context. I don't think I believe in good intentions of "gun grabbers" - but I believe that there is a legitimate middle ground that can be found between NRA and gun grabber policies. Maybe one that advances the agendas of both. I don't believe that either party has enough credibility in the compromise department to get it done and it seems (from the outside) that neither side is willing to discuss it. I mean, what would happen if someone in NRA leadership actually publicly discussed a compromise that involved allowing more stringent background checks? I think that head would be on a stick in a very short amount of time.

Chasfm11,
I appreciate the polite discussion. You raise good points and your disagreement is logical and respectful. Thank you.

chasfm11 wrote: In my view, there is and never has been a compromise by the gun control faction. When they don't get everything they want this time, that is not a compromise because they are back proposing the rest of the package at the next event. They've lost with things like the assault weapons ban termination but were back with it in spades following Sandy Hook. They never compromise. They never go away. But that really wasn't the focus of why I posted this situation.

That's an interesting point. It may be true, but it's also symbolic of the type of paralysis in congress and on the gun rights / gun control front. Everyone says that the other side won't compromise. I've been thinking about it a lot on the 2nd amendment side. Would I trade a stricter background check program for a less eroded 2nd amendment? I think I would. Is the NRA capable of having that discussion that includes compromise? Probably not. Is the gun control faction capable of having that discussion? Probably not. The reality is that the gun control faction doesn't believe a word that the NRA says and vice versa... So we've got an effective stalemate, maybe advantage NRA (due to funding and pretty solid conservative backing). Neither side should get to discuss it because they're both largely incapable of compromise.

I had a lot of hope for the bi-partisan Gang of Eight - take out the hard core refusal to compromise of the party and make people have a rational discussion where everything is on the table. Of course that failed because the output went back to congress.

I agree with you on the legal system. It's wacked. It's also less wacked than the rest of the world. You're massive advantaged if you're wealthy. You're probably still advantaged if you're white. And we see instances all the time in the media where LEOs couldn't make a logical decision for themselves and DAs are even worse. Lives are ruined. Peoples finances are destroyed.

Speeding - you're right on. 95% of speeding enforcement is about revenue, not safety. When I lived in N. Dallas years ago, there was a little town near Lavon that wrote something like 10x as many tickets as they had people in that area. They eventually got sued and shut down. I think enforcement like that is partly why PDs can't get 100% of ticket revenue directly (if I remember correctly). I accept is as part of the system, however.. I used to get worked up over it, but eventually recognized it as my favorite kind of tax - the "voluntary tax". If I didn't speed, I didn't pay. That and I sold the Corvette, which makes me a little sad.

chasfm11 wrote: Let's not get this too far away from the central point - how do we impose accountability on those who are enforcing the gun laws for political purposes rather than to deal with crime as they were supposedly intended to do.

I think we start by becoming an educated public, but as our founding fathers made this a Republic, it maybe too much to ask.
Look, politicians by nature play the issue strings. It's not just gun laws. It's gun laws when you're speaking to a group of people that are associated with the NRA or a group or parents from Columbine. For others, it's medicare or social security. For others it's income taxes, property taxes, business taxes... It's whatever floats the boat of that particular constituency. It's not like most politicians actually have strong lines of support for this stuff - it's that they can feign support and fool most of the public.

And the public needs to get it that there is no free lunch. You can't have your pet program at no cost. In fact, we've all got to man up and recognize that we've already overspent. No one wants to talk about austerity, because we're not "that bad" yet - and many still believe that we economically grow our way out of this without any personal consequences.

We start compromising. Without compromise you end up with what we have in congress.


Push politicians for decisions made on actual data. Not politically spun data. Independent (if possible) analysis and data. If the data turns out to be wrong, you expire the decision. New spending goes on the books with a finite limit at which time it has to be re-debated. Same thing with new taxes.

I agree, on the surface it seems pretty messed up. Of course, the DA's could just be stonewalling the media as it's pretty clear that the government messed up badly here. Why throw more fuel on the fire?

Can you imagine a corrections / probation system that is understaffed and can't properly respond to offenses due to staffing levels? I think that's pretty likely... Can you imagine a set of taxpayers that don't want to give more money to corrections and probation supervision? I know I can because I'm one of them.

RoyGBiv wrote: Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

I appreciate solutions - and a good discussion about them. Your solution would effectively remove the working and non-working poor from the voting pool. Of course, the poor are already effectively opting out of the voting pool by choice (non-partisipation) anyway, so maybe it won't mess things up that much.

What about me? What if I allowed the government to subsidize my solar water heater (I did)? What about my clients who I installed solar power systems for? Is that taking money from the government?

Perhaps you're only taking about those who effectively take more from the government than what they've paid in? And I think you're talking about cumulatively - not yearly - as you're excluding pensioners? That is, tax rebates or subsidization is OK, as long as you're paying in more tax than you're getting out?

What if your medicare costs exceed what you put in? Same question about social security - what if you get out more than you paid in? Or that's OK because you paid *something* in? And now it's OK to be a net negative drag? Perhaps we should consider the value of paid in dollars 20 years ago against what the value is today?

I ask most of this in jest, but it's really hard to come up with defined parameters around a solution like that without leaving someone in a donut hole.