Dem Senator Says "Not Interested in Conpromise with NRA"

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...on-gun-control

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii says he isn't interested in conpromising with NRA but wants to "beat them". Sen. Schatz's past votes have included supporting bans on semi-automatics with no transfers allowed for grandfathered weapons (including passing them on after death), firearms registration and licensing, etc.

Just in case some of you have gotten complacent and forgotten what the stakes are. We haven't made progress over the past 20 years because RKBA is weak. This is a fight we can win; but we do need to get involved and start communicating with our representatives and senators.

[zukiphile]

Sen. Schatz is the same towering intellect who thought Sessions' reference to the anglo-saxon tradition of the office of sheriff was racist. Let's hope Senate dems put him in control of their strategy on this issue.

[Tom Servo]

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii says he isn't interested in conpromising with NRA but wants to "beat them"

The thing about situations like this is, the antis get arrogant and state what's really on their minds. The best-known example was Sen. Feinstein's "Mr. and Ms. America, turn them all in" rant on 60 Minutes after President Clinton signed the original AWB.

[NateKirk]

The thing about situations like this is, the antis get arrogant and state what's really on their minds. The best-known example was Sen. Feinstein's "Mr. and Ms. America, turn them all in" rant on 60 Minutes after President Clinton signed the original AWB.

What's your point though? Extreme views and opinions are rewarded is politics today because no one is willing to compromise or negotiate. Expressing an extreme opinion no longer hurts a politician, because it panders to their base and the other side was never going to vote for them anyway. There's no incentive for politicians not to take things to extremes.

Dem Senator Says "Not Interested in Conpromise with NRA"

What do you expect? No one is willing to compromise with them.

[WyMark]

Maybe I missed it.

Was there anything in Dana or Lil' Wayne's CPAC speeches about compromise?

Or was it just scorched-earth? And was there some expectation of an olive branch from the other side?

[5whiskey]

I saw an article in the federalist that basically suggested the CNN town hall, with its obvious slant on banning all semiautomatic weapons, will do no good for the gun control lobby. Even many registered democrats and mild gun control advocates would have a hard time swallowing the ban of the Ruger 10/22, or a 1911, or many of your more garden variety semi-autos.

Many hunters and fairweather 2A fans may not oppose an AWB, but when their favorite back yard plinker is on the ban list they'll be happy to stand against it. This senator is an example of overreach. If gun control advocates had a brain, they could easily pass UBC, bump stock ban, raise the age limit for a rifle purchase, and probably even score a few other minor accomplishments right now. Add that all together and it is a significant advance of their agenda. That stuff won't be good enough though, as there is no compromise. And they get no gun legislation. Which is fine by me. The only thing I think might, MIGHT, prevent a future school shooting is raising the age to 21, and then folks have aged out and left high school behind. The rest of it is feel good scapegoat measures.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

The Senator isn't interested in compromise, the NRA isn't interested in compromise, many of the people on this board and others aren't interested in compromise, some on the left aren't interested in compromise. Same old same old.

[LogicMan]

Why should any of us be interested in compromise? All that leads is to more aggression from the anti's. should we "compromise" on the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process, privacy, right to remain silent, etc...?

[rickyrick]

It seems that we’ve moved past

Nobody is coming for your guns.

with the political rhetoric.

[armoredman]

Compromise https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compromise

1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things "

When I see a democrat offer something BACK that they took from us already, then we can call it a compromise. Anything less is a misuse of the word and deliberate obfuscation of aims and intent. Want age limit to 21 compromise and offer National CCW recognition. Want to ban bump stocks? Offer to reopen the National Registry. That is compromise. Telling me losing half my cake is better than losing 3/4s of it isn't compromise, it's simply taking less right now, things you will be back for later.

[In The Ten Ring]

To the Left, "compromise" means "you give me just a part of what I ask for and I give you nothing."

If the Left would go for national reciprocity and a federal Stand Your Ground law then I could go for raising long arm ownership age to 21. That's a "compromise."

A "compromise" is not "raising long arm ownership age to 21 with nothing in return."

The fact is, the Left wants more school massacres as it fuels emotions for bans. Even though bans have no effect on anything except to disarm the good guys but that's OK. A total ban is the end game.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

No Compromise? As in very Narrow Minded, one way, or just plain stupid? First off, all the anti-gun rhetoric is just a "Wedge Issue". Sheer Propaganda started by the Left wing media. And good Propaganda uses "FEAR" to motivate the sheep. There goal is not to find a solution, but to lead the sheep with this fear in order to vote on the Democratic Ticket.
The fact is that the world we live in, is full of predators. These predators could very well use a firearm, a pipe bomb, a propane tank filled with explosives, a automobile, and on and on. Now, the propaganda machine does not want that in the main stream. They want to go after gun rights and the second amendment as the element of fear. Preach it over and over and over until the real cause of the problem is not the Predator, but the second amendment. And now the party that wants to protect the constitutional right is now the Predator.
One thing the Left wing does not want you to know is the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths are committed by African Males around 20 years old. About 90%. And these are NOT legal gun owners. Why does the Liberal propaganda machine not want to publicize this? Because approx 20% of the vote comes from this group. Enough to win many elections.
The goal is not about guns, it is about Power. If they can take away one amendment, they know they can go after others. School systems, business's etc. are now afraid of frivolous law suites from the Liberal "political correct crowd" (a form of taking away the right to free speech). Riots, looting, advocating killing Police, disrespect for the flag, and on and on is now acceptable to the liberal party.
Yes, it will get worse if America continues or allows our freedoms to be taken away.
When a citizen can no longer protect his family with a second amendment right, then the country will eventually fall. It will be a domino effect.

[turkeestalker]

Just in case some of you have gotten complacent and forgotten what the stakes are. We haven't made progress over the past 20 years because RKBA is weak. This is a fight we can win; but we do need to get involved and start communicating with our representatives and senators.

^^^
This

[Tom Servo]

What do you expect? No one is willing to compromise with them.

That's because their definition of "compromise" is very flawed, and purposefully so.

A compromise involves a situation in which either party gives a little and gets a little. What did we get in exchange for the 1934 NFA? Nothing. The 1969 GCA? Nothing. When the FOPA was set to pass in 1986, they were appalled that there were provisions that might actually benefit gun owners, so they poisoned it with the Hughes amendment.

What did we get in exchange for the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons Ban? Nothing. In fact, the little negotiation the NRA was able to do to ameliorate the effects of those bills (no persistent registry, 10-year sunset on the AWB, letting people actually keep property they lawfully owned prior to the law) was scorned by the bills' sponsors. Going into the vote, they crowed about how great those laws were. Once the President signed both bills, they claimed they hadn't gone far enough.

The important thing to remember is this: gun control is an incremental strategy, with the end goal being as close to total civilian disarmament as possible. Any "compromise" its advocates offer is simply a pause along the way. They simply can't be dealt with in good faith when they're so dishonest about their intentions.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

What do you expect? No one is willing to compromise with them.

Because nobody on the gun grabber side is willing to compromise. "Compromise" means I give up something, and in return you give up something. As Lawdog has pointed out in his blog post about the gun control cake, the anti-gun side's idea of "compromise" is "You give me half your cake and I give you nothing." And then, next year, they come back and demand half of your remaining half, while still offering NOTHING in return.

A "compromise" might be offering us silencers, and/or national carry reciprocity, in exchange for enhanced background checks. But they don't understand "compromise." They use the word, but they aren't offering any compromises. They are presenting ultimatums. "This is what we want -- take it or leave it."

Why should the NRA even attempt to compromise with them when they won't compromise on anything? Compromise is a two way street.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Carl the Floor Walker

These predators could very well use a firearm, a pipe bomb, a propane tank filled with explosives, ...

Does anyone besides me remember that ALL of the above were used at Columbine? Guns were the backup plan -- those two had planted pipe bombs all over the school, they dropped two 20-pound propane bombs in the cafeteria, and both of their cars in the parking lot were rigged to explode. Mercifully, they were lousy bomb makers and the bombs didn't detonate, or the casualty count would have been orders of magnitude greater.

The worst school massacre in U.S. history was in 1927. IIRC, it was 44 killed and 58 injured. No guns involved -- the guy blew up the school with dynamite.

Google school massacres in Europe and you'll find at least two incidents in which schools were attacked with home-made flame-throwers.

This discussion should NOT be about "guns." It should be about how to prevent crazy people from attacking schools.

[Tom Servo]

Mercifully, they were lousy bomb makers and the bombs didn't detonate, or the casualty count would have been orders of magnitude greater.

In his book Columbine, Dave Cullen estimated 500-600 casualties. The whole idea was for those two cretins to beat McVeigh's total from Oklahoma City.

Funny that the media continues to ignore the fact that Columbine was an act of domestic terrorism and not a spree shooting by two supposed bullied loners.

[44 AMP]

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii says he isn't interested in conpromising with NRA but wants to "beat them".

Just one more example of an anti-gun politician, who had always been anti-gun, and will always be anti-gun using the fact that the topic is headline news today, to get his name in the headlines.

It's not "news" because there is nothing new about it.

He could (and probably did) say the same thing a year ago, and no one in the national media would notice, let alone run it as a headline. They would just yawn...Today, its "news", because the media thinks it is.

Nothing new here, and certainly nothing positive, or worth our attention. HI residents, you know (or should know) your guy, you elected him...

moving on...

[adamBomb]

Good. Whether you agree with his point on this issues or not - No one should compromise with these special interest groups. We have been controlled by lobbyists too long. Get rid of them.

As far as this guy being extreme, thats the nature of the game. Left and right are now extreme. The middle is gone. The attitude of...not budging an inch is what made it this way.

[TDL]

Whether you agree with his point on this issues or not - No one should compromise with these special interest groups.

NRA though is a membership group with 58% national approvals. it has a huge base to paid members, something non of the gun lobby fronts have.

As far as compromise, ACLU does not say we need new fourth of fifth amendment restrictions whenever a crime occurs. Planned parenthood does not compromise.

The NRA exists to represent gun owners, with 55 to 60% of the public owning guns, and 58% gallup approvals, it certainly can be said to represent their views in general.

[TDL]

Funny that the media continues to ignore the fact that Columbine was an act of domestic terrorism and not a spree shooting by two supposed bullied loners.

It is way more than that. The media ignores, has not mentioned at all that the past 25 years, the gun homicide rate has fallen well over 50%, and in the 5-18 and 5-20-year old cohorts fallen even more.

As far as assault rifles, lots of major gun murders are without them, Cho killed more school attended with pistols, and Breivik at Utoya Norway killed more students with a rifle legal in Canada, still legal in Norway, and legal and not an assault rifle in NYC and DC than any US school shooting.

Banning AR would do what? shift mode to more events like Va Tech, Utoya, Navy Yard?

[JohnKSa]

The thing about situations like this is, the antis get arrogant and state what's really on their minds. The best-known example was Sen. Feinstein's "Mr. and Ms. America, turn them all in" rant on 60 Minutes after President Clinton signed the original AWB.

Yup, the "vampires" get very confident when they have fresh blood to feed on.

[s3779m]

Asking the N.R.A to compromise is nothing more that stripping down the 2nd amendment. WE don't know if restrictions such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990 not been put into place, if there were no restrictions to where THE PEOPLE can carry, such as federal buildings (really, those sworn to uphold the constitution ban it in their buildings) had not been put in place would there had been no mass shootings, BUT we do know the shootings go for the soft targets. And once again, I give thanks every day hillary is unemployed.

[Pond, James Pond]

It is way more than that. The media ignores, has not mentioned at all that the past 25 years, the gun homicide rate has fallen well over 50%, and in the 5-18 and 5-20-year old cohorts fallen even more.

Any reliable sources for that?
Good to know where to find it/read it in more detail.



This whole catastrophic situation will continue to spiral for as long as no one does a serious, broad and unbiased review of why these atrocities take place.

If they can't start being able to say, with some certainty, why young men go on rampages in schools/churches then firearms will continue to be the one and only lightning rod for public ire and a springboard for political ambitions.


We all know guns are not the cause, but until we can start to say what is the cause, they are too easy a target.

[macsr01]

They’d ont want compromise of discussion of anything related to firearms of the 2nd Amendment. They just want their way - period.