Is compromise a a goal in and of itself?

I agree with the basic premise, that it's unlikely that gun control advocates will trade gun-free zones in schools for a national red flag law.

But I think there's a real problem here with assuming that a compromise in and of itself, is worthwhile.

Who benefits from kids open carrying in school or or from free and open sale of guns to anyone without question?

I do get the pointt that most Federalist readers are inherently self interested and thus are pretty undisposed in general to listen to public policy arguments based on the common good, because, well, what's in it for them?

But, even though it's persuasive to those who put their own interests above others, isn't it a bit over the top to not offer even an argument about why free and open distribution of deadly weapons without background checks or open carry by minors in schools serves a valid public interest?

Why should those who want to see fewer dead kids compromise with those who don't give a flying f about dead kids?

This piece, I find pretty unimpressive.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/01/there-is-no-bipartisan-gun-compromise-in-the-works-just-gop-capitulation/

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Budwick · 70-79, M

Who benefits from kids open carrying in school or or from free and open sale of guns to anyone without question?

Who has suggested these things? - No one.

why free and open distribution of deadly weapons without background checks or open carry by minors in schools serves a valid public interest?

Who is suggesting that? - Also, no one.

those who don't give a flying f about dead kids?

And who is that? - No one.

YOU ARE BATTING 1,000 MISTY!
This POST, I find pretty unimpressive.

View 4 more replies »

MistyCee

@Budwick Actually, I think that honesty and admitting stuff like that as opposed to claiming infallibility, is pretty admirable.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@MistyCee So, you're going with 'pretty fucking stupid.

You wouldn't recognize honesty if it was standing on the toes of your size 11 Oxfords.

MistyCee

@Budwick Have you read the link yet?

Any interest in dialogue and discussion, or are you just here to fight?

Graylight · 51-55, F

Most everything is made better with the art of compromise, and it is an art.

But if your son is shooting up on your living room couch every day, there's no compromise to that, is there? It's very much a "don't do it" situation.

If a building collapses, there aren't a a series of "compromise meetings" to try and get the best building with the fewest shortcuts. All or nothing.

And so it is with guns, I think. We can talk about age limits, models, access, red flags, background checks. The fact is, someone squeezes a metal trigger, a firing pin is engaged, a projectile leaves the gun and people get hurt. More bullets, more hurt.

If having the most guns per capita really keep a country safe, we wouldn't have the highest number of gun deaths by a country mile. Ask 100 5-year-olds what the answer is to all the shootings. They know.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

soar2newhighs

@sunsporter1649 NO sign will, but if someone on a school staff is designated as a security person who can be armed, is trained/certified in weapons use and safety; should they encounter an armed individual as a threat or an active shooter, the security person(nel) should be able to effectively thwart the above mentioned threats with a well placed lethal bullet, if need be.

firefall · 61-69, M

Its the Federalist, the perfect blend of denial, delusion and death.

ron122 · 41-45, M

Yeah, in and of itself.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

MistyCee

@LvChris That's a good point. I'm on here a lot less myself because the politics section seems to have deteriorated. How much of that is due to my having been blocked and how much is due to having Biden in charge and not Trump, or other stuff, I'm not sure.

But I agree with you, there's not much of a chance of a meaningful dialogue with folks who don't want to have one.

Add a comment...