What RKBA restrictions would you trade?

[ROGER4314]

Twice in my life, I dropped my membership to the NRA and that's the primary reason I never got a Life membership. Each time the NRA made concessions or compromises with the anti gun crew, it came back to bite us in the butt. The "antis" have proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted, will not keep their word and that they lie continuously.

No, I will not compromise anything regarding our Second Amendment rights. Our constitutional rights should not be bargained away like popsicles or chewing gum.

Flash

[HiBC]

This post,like some others lately,gives me tight jaws.

OP,if you do not like the NFA restrictions on SBR's,SBS's,and silences,OK.I'm with you.IMO,those restrictions do not make sense.I would back an effort to remove the restrictions.

However,I see no connection between restoring the freedom to own those NFA weapons by giving up the freedom to have whatever magazine.

Its as if,as a special interest that wants sawed offs and silencers,you are willing to sell out the folks who like mag capacity.

The thing is,the way my mind works,I smell a rat.It is easy for me to believe this is not as it seems.

Like,divide and conquer,or get someone to say something reactionary so a quote can be taken from TFL.No,I do not want to play.

There is the poster I have seen"I did nothing when they came for...."

As I said in another thread,we are not a democracy,we are a Constitutional Republic.OP,no disrespect,but please understand,the 2nd Ammendment does not belong to any coalition of shooters,the Creator endowed it to my grandchildren,and their children.It is not your perogative to bargain it away.

I hope you will re-evaluate your way of thinking.

Each little click of the ratchet,the screw turns tighter,and likely what is lost will not be regained.

[dbooksta]

If the intent of that question is to determine whether there's a "win" for pro-RKBA folks, and a "win" for anti-RKBa folks, then the answer must be "no," almost by definition. A win on the pro-gun side is automatically a loss for the anti-gun side, and vice versa.

No: This is true only if opponents and proponents share the same utility function. I believe that's unlikely, and the preamble to this thread asked it to be assumed for the purposes of discussion. In my example, I suggested that the single most-valuable restriction RKBA opponents would like to add is a ban on "large-capacity" magazines. Maybe this is incorrect -- we could discuss better examples, though based on what I hear from the gun-grabbers I don't think it's a bad one.

Now, for RKBA proponents is the right to continued commerce in magazines of unlimited capacity the single most important element of the RKBA? Maybe, but if you practice magazine changes I'm guessing it isn't. As I said, I personally would rather live in a world without many NFA restrictions. This is an example of a win-win: For some reason opponents think high-cap mags are the biggest affront to decency in the democratic world, yet most of them don't even know what an SBR is or what a suppressed gun sounds like. I practice tactical mag changes, so having to drop mags after 10 or 20 rounds instead of 30, 50, or 100 is much less of a concern than being able to equip all my guns with cans, or put a folding stock on my pistol without commiting a felony.

[dbooksta]

the 2nd Ammendment does not belong to any coalition of shooters,the Creator endowed it to my grandchildren,and their children.It is not your perogative to bargain it away.

Each little click of the ratchet,the screw turns tighter,and likely what is lost will not be regained.

Please note (again) the following:

• I am not disputing the fact that there is a natural right to keep and bear arms.
• I am not proposing to give any ground on RKBA. I agree that both tactically and in principle we should never concede any ground, and that those who did so in the past were fools.
• I am trying to get a feel for the utility function of other RKBA proponents by asking them to consider a trade -- i.e., a transaction in which they accept a new restriction that "hurts" less in exchange for removing an existing restriction that "hurts" more.
• This is a hypothetical discussion. We are not actually bargaining with our opponents, and even if an opponent showed up nobody here has the power or authority to put any such trade into effect.

So why not take advantage of the opportunity to explore and declare which facets of the RKBA you value most? And again, it doesn't benefit the discussion to just say "all of them:" That boat sailed a long time ago, and ever since losses and gains to the RKBA have played out according to political assessments of which would be politically easiest and most valuable to infringe and protect.

I might have posed this question a different way: "What restriction should we try to repeal next?" The problem is that the best answer to that is typically "The one we could most realistically and easily get repealed." That's an interesting question, but a far different discussion from the one I propose here, which might be rephrased, "What is the most important restriction you would repeal?"

[K_Mac]

It is not high capacity magazines that are the biggest affront to the sensibilities of anti-gun believers; it is guns in the possession of ordinary folk. They are not interested in giving anything to get our guns, they want them gone so their world can be a safer place. That is the doctrine of the true believers. Your game of hypothetical situations regarding our 2A rights with the objective of trading one right for another seeking win-win solutions seems to amuse you. Many of us find the game silly and offensive. You may have to find another group to play with.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by dbooksta

No: This is true only if opponents and proponents share the same utility function. I believe that's unlikely, and the preamble to this thread asked it to be assumed for the purposes of discussion.

Wait a minute. You "asked it to be assumed for the purposes of discussion," but then your response is:

Originally Posted by dbooksta

No: This is true only if opponents and proponents share the same utility function.

If you've asked "for X to be true for purposes of discussion," you can't very well complain if my statement is true "only if X is true."

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding utility function, but I'd be curious as to the basis for your belief. My belief is that I want to own guns, and that the anti-gun folks want me not to be able to.

I would be glad to have some of the NFA items return to an unregulated state. However, I see no practical way that "trading" magazine capacities away will achieve that.

[shortwave]

I am trying to get a feel for the utility function of other RKBA proponents by asking them to consider a trade ....

I believe that feel is apparent.

Trading / negotiating or to even consider such a proposal to what is a right is simply just out of the question. Too many lives have been taken and given to defend the COTUS to be compromised in any way. Especially the 2nd Amend.

[sigcurious]

Dbooksta seems to be biasing the question based on his/her perceived util value of various aspects of the RKBA. To put in in terms that dbooksta wants to use, everyone else who rejects your premise assigns equal util value to all aspects of the RKBA. Trying to apply basic economic theory to this situation is not very useful. For economic theory to be applicable too many assumptions and generalizations must be made. (For clarification, utils are a hypothetical unit of measure economists use to rank/rate the amount satisfaction given by the use/consumption of a good/service, or in this case an aspect of a right)

Oddly enough he/she included the rejection of the premise in their poll, yet doesn't like it when that's the option everyone seems to pick...

[dbooksta]

@Spats: Sorry I was unclear. Let me try again: You point out that there is no win-win between opponents. I clarify that's try only if they have the same utility function -- meaning that they value all things in the game/market equally. My preamble asked us to assume RKBA opponents have a different utility function from RKBA proponents. That would enable a win-win trade. I.e., one in which each party feels better off than they did before the trade. Proponents give up something they value less than the opponents do in exchange for something they value more than the opponents do.

@shortwave: Please re-read my explanations: This is a question or thought experiment in which RKBA is explicitly not compromised any more than it already is, and in which (potentially) everybody is happier and better off.

All: I realize the poll is NFA-centric, but I can't figure out how to modify it. Here are some other things that I suspect a majority of RKBA proponents value more than NFA repeal: National RTC; federal preemption of any further RKBA restrictions at the state/local levels.

So if a moderator or somebody could add these as poll options consider maybe they will speak to a wider audience:

• I would trade 20-round mag limits for National RTC and federal preemption.
• I would trade 10-round mag limits for National RTC and federal preemption.

[sigcurious]

BTW zero-sum would be a better term for what you're trying to describe dbooksta. As people have already expressed, it's not a win to them to trade one for another, making a win-win impossible.

[dbooksta]

Thank you @sigcurious for "getting it."

Oddly enough he/she included the rejection of the premise in their poll, yet doesn't like it when that's the option everyone seems to pick...

Yes, I thought that's only fair. It's just that so far I'm afraid a lot of people arguing for that choice are doing so because I didn't make the purpose or premises of the thread sufficiently clear.

I'd actually be interested to hear an argument for the first poll option that goes further than, "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," and shows some understanding of the question as posed.

BTW zero-sum would be a better term for what you're trying to describe dbooksta. As people have already expressed, it's not a win to them to trade one for another, making a win-win impossible.

Not quite: I stipulate it be zero-sum in terms of net RKBA rights, however that can be quantified. (Hence my repeated caveat that we imagine no net ground is being ceded on RKBA.) But win-win trades are easy: They're the foundation of free markets. I'm sure we could come up with a better analogy, but suppose the government takes all your possessions except your best suit and a rusty hatchet. From your neighbor he takes everything except a sweat suit and an inherited revolver. Your neighbor is a dandy who has no skill at arms. You are a survivalist. It's a win-win to trade your weapons and clothes, because you'd rather have the revolver and your neighbor would rather have the suit.

[sigcurious]

The flaw with that is that what you're describing is not a fair trade. It's one side returning something to another side that already possessed that and had it forcibly, so to speak, taken from them in the first place. Your analogy is also flawed in that a 3rd party does the taking then two equally affected parties trade with each other not with the party that did the taking in the first place.

It's as if I came and took your right shoe, then offered it to you in exchange for your left shoe and called it a win-win since I decided I wanted your left shoe instead and you presumably wanted your right shoe back. Either way you're still missing a shoe. That's not win-win, it's zero-sum at best.

Trading comparisons fail because there was never a trade to begin with, just one side taking something.

At this point capitulating, even hypothetically, any part of the RKBA in exchange for another, is in essence validating the governments ability to place arbitrary and non-effective restrictions on the RKBA. As such, it's unlikely that anyone is going to participate in a discussion saying that they'd trade one for another, no matter how much you want them to be ok with the idea of trading one for another.

If you want an argument for trade, lay one out. So far you have only rejected people's responses to your question because they do not fit into the arbitrary restrictions you want to apply, in what seems to be an effort to get them to justify/support your perceived values of various parts of the RKBA.

[MLeake]

I'm not sure what the point of adding the OP's two additional options would be, since they still involve so-called "trades."

I wonder if the OP would wish to play such trade games with the 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendments....

[HiBC]

Like I said,I just may smell rat.This thread reminds me of some questions posed to politicians by reporters during a campaign .
Can't say for sure,of course.

What you are proposing is a lot like the idea of trading Liberty for Security.

Was it Benjamin Franklin? "Those who do will have neither."

I just cannot trust the thought process that would suggest this.

What has made progress toward restoring some lost Liberty?Filing suit,going to court,and winning a battle.Not trading.
Come to me with that,a suit to strike down NFA restrictions,I can respect your position.

The idea of offering up magazine capacity as a negotiating chip ?...No.The very thought of it makes me suspicious.

No one with an agenda to limit magazine capacity would consider lifting restrictions on NFA weapons.It does not add up.

Betrayal is the antidote for naivite.

[dbooksta]

OK, last try: A gang leader (or maybe it's a representative of a government overstepping its constituted authority?) with the means to follow through comes to your family and says, "I'm taking all your property and rights. But I'm a reasonable guy: Just tell me what you really need and I'll let you keep it."

It's a chaotic time, you're not of age, and when the dust settles you learn that the gang has decided, among other things, that you are not allowed to own "assault weapons." It also says you can carry guns for self defense but it requires a "permit" to do so and makes it clear that you're not getting one. Oh, and you're not allowed to take any of your guns outside of its area of control, which happens to be your homeland.

Some time passes, and the gang undergoes leadership changes, and you grow up. The new leaders had nothing to do with the original restrictions, but enforce them by default. One day you learn that there are some factions in the new regime that seem disturbed by the fact that you're allowed to continue to buy magazines of arbitrary capacity. Silly, I know, but you would really like to get back one of the rights the old gang took, and the new gang doesn't seem as concerned about those.

The gang has been known to make "compromises," and since it fastidiously honors them, you approach them to ask for one of your other rights back. The current leader responds, "Well we're not in the business of handing out rights, but it's no problem to change things around so long as on net it doesn't look like you've gotten any new rights. If you really want this what would you give up to placate my anti-gun members?"

My question: What would you ask for, and what would you propose?

[geetarman]

My question: What would you ask for, and what would you propose?

I really think you underestimate our single mindedness toward preserving the Second Amendment.

A lot of us have been around long enough to have to deal with the differences between what people say and what they do.

The choices you offer as talking points are not really choices at all.

I think we have spoken clearly on this.

[geetarman]

Anyone that wants to change the constitution or limit our freedoms should GTFO

I understand your passion. The Constitution does provide for changes by amending the document. It has been done on several occasions.

The amendment process, IMO, should be more inclusive rather than restrictive.

Rights given up for "the better good" are usually just gone for good.

[shortwave]

The gang has been known to make "compromises," and since it fastidiously honors them, you approach them to ask for one of your other rights back. The current leader responds, "Well we're not in the business of handing out rights, but it's no problem to change things around so long as on net it doesn't look like you've gotten any new rights. If you really want this what would you give up to placate my anti-gun members?"

My question: What would you ask for, and what would you propose?
Today 03:14 AM

Same question different package...

...same answer same package...

NONE!

RKBA is a 'RIGHT' and non-negotiable. Therefore, I could/would not cast my vote in the poll.

You need another line in your poll options saying:

None. There are to many restrictions on our rights as it is.

[Salmoneye]

I am trying to get a feel for the utility function of other RKBA proponents by asking them to consider a trade

The question some of us have is 'Why?'

Who are you asking this question for?

[geetarman]

Another question I have is why supporters of the Second Amendment are
considered pig headed for being reluctant to negotiate while those who propose "common sense" modifications to that same document are considered progressive.

Something seems wrong about this whole thread. Perhaps someone is testing the water to gage any resistance to new gun legislation?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by dbooksta

@Spats: Sorry I was unclear. Let me try again: You point out that there is no win-win between opponents. I clarify that's try only if they have the same utility function -- meaning that they value all things in the game/market equally. My preamble asked us to assume RKBA opponents have a different utility function from RKBA proponents. That would enable a win-win trade. I.e., one in which each party feels better off than they did before the trade. Proponents give up something they value less than the opponents do in exchange for something they value more than the opponents do.

Why would I assume that? In my lifetime, the anti-RKBA crowd has leapt at every opportunity to deprive Americans of their RKBA. There's no reason to think they'll do otherwise in the future.

I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that the pro-RKBA crowd do have the same utility function (private gun ownership), but simply approach it from opposite ends: The pro-RKBA crowd supports private gun ownership; the anti-RKBA crowd does not.

So, assuming that I now "correctly" understand the question, no. I still don't want any of those trades.

Originally Posted by dbooksta

Yes, I thought that's only fair. It's just that so far I'm afraid a lot of people arguing for that choice are doing so because I didn't make the purpose or premises of the thread sufficiently clear.

The fact that we haven't given the answer that you're looking for doesn't mean we don't understand the question.

Originally Posted by dbooksta

I'd actually be interested to hear an argument for the first poll option that goes further than, "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," and shows some understanding of the question as posed.

The fact that we haven't given the answer that you're looking for doesn't mean we don't understand the question.

As far as going beyond "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," frankly, I that's a perfectly sound argument. However, on this one, I'll play. America tried it the gun-control way, in 1934, 1968 and 1994. The measures passed at those times didn't work. More importantly to me, even if there were some statistical evidence to support the notion that "gun control saved some lives," I do not believe that statistics are sufficient to strip individuals of their right to keep for themselves the means of self-defense. Statistics only show how many people died. I am more concerned about who dies.

The watchwords for the anti-RKBA crowd have long been things like "compromise" and "common sense regulation." Truthfully, there has never been any real compromise involved, any more than common sense has been involved in the legislation that followed one of these "compromises."

I don't want any of the trades offered. I don't want any trade that involves giving up any part of my 2A rights. I'm not interested in trading rights that I have for rights that were already mine to begin with.

[Sparks1957]

Who are you asking this question for?

I am wondering that myself. While I suspect the OP is just a poorly informed individual who really thinks appeasement will work with the anti-gunners, there is a shadow of doubt that they are fishing for information on behalf of some organization.

The poll results speak for themselves.

[geetarman]

Proponents give up something they value less than the opponents do

There is no part of the Second Amendment I am WILLING to give up.

Being forced to comply is a whole different issue.

[PeterGreg]

Not on your list but I’d accept a limit of 10 round capacity on all centerfire rifles for an unequivocal nationwide no license required concealed carry law.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by dbooksta

• I would trade 20-round mag limits for National RTC and federal preemption.
• I would trade 10-round mag limits for National RTC and federal preemption.

Adding the above two "compromises" do nothing to the overall "tone" of the poll.

Moreover, they are not a reasonable "trade." Your added criteria would set up the fed.gov as a defacto power with the ability to license gun-owners in whatever manner, with whatever criteria, said government desires. That is a power they do not currently possess and I see no need to give the fed.gov more power than they already have.

So, no. I decline the invitiation to modify your poll.