,
22 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
People who think gun control advocates need to compromise more, realize a key fact:
Gun control *is* the compromise position.
Other countries just have bans, you realize.
Gun control advocates are by definition compromising.
Would YOU like to compromise?
Gun control *is* the compromise position.
Other countries just have bans, you realize.
Gun control advocates are by definition compromising.
Would YOU like to compromise?
People on the left would do well to realize that in MOST cases our desired policy ends are already the compromise positions, and the requests for further compromise are simply requests to capitulate entirely.
Reject that frame. We're already at the halfway point.
Reject that frame. We're already at the halfway point.
It's a negotiation.
Sweeping gun control legislation at the federal level is the offer.
It's an opportunity to avoid a total gun control ban down the road.
Those who don't want to work on the former are opting for the latter.
That's how this works.
Sweeping gun control legislation at the federal level is the offer.
It's an opportunity to avoid a total gun control ban down the road.
Those who don't want to work on the former are opting for the latter.
That's how this works.
People who insist on living in a world without compromise will find themselves living in that world by their own choice.
But we are going to stop the massacres.
But we are going to stop the massacres.
We should be very clear that a total ban on private ownership of guns is our goal.
If they don't want to compromise, we're happy to pursue that goal.
If they want to compromise, we're open-minded people, and will discuss some alternatives, like:
If they don't want to compromise, we're happy to pursue that goal.
If they want to compromise, we're open-minded people, and will discuss some alternatives, like:
What we do now is state an opening goal of something less even than that compromise position, and then get nothing.
Move the frame.
Compromise isn't what we need; not because we won't compromise, but because we're already at the compromise position.
We're the only ones here.
Move the frame.
Compromise isn't what we need; not because we won't compromise, but because we're already at the compromise position.
We're the only ones here.
This is funny because it suggests conservatives aren't already trying to do this.
There is no evidence at all, other than all the other countries that have tried it.
But otherwise, great point.
But otherwise, great point.
Sweeping national gun control isn’t “getting my way.”
A total gun ban is getting my way.
Sweeping gun control is the compromise.
A total gun ban is getting my way.
Sweeping gun control is the compromise.
I have no intention of making allies with millions of gun owners who refuse to consider any gun legislation.
Gun control IS the compromise.
Compromise or we’re happy to pursue our goals without you; just like gun defenders have been doing for decades.
Gun control IS the compromise.
Compromise or we’re happy to pursue our goals without you; just like gun defenders have been doing for decades.
It’s so funny but I’ve never seen gun defenders concerned with “making allies” with gun control proponents or trying to “start a conversation” with us.
Somehow that’s always exclusively our job
We’re already at the compromise point: sweeping national gun reform
Meet us there
Somehow that’s always exclusively our job
We’re already at the compromise point: sweeping national gun reform
Meet us there
Yes, a true compromise between "absolutely no restrictions on guns whatsoever" and "total gun ban nationwide" would be "substantial national regulations for guns."
This is pretty obvious stuff.
This is pretty obvious stuff.
The fact that this thread has resulted in a steady stream of "that isn't compromise at all how DARE you" from gun defenders is 1) pretty rich given the source, but also 2) reveals just how used to early capitulation they've become
They shriek THEY WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS as a way of getting us to present ourselves as 'reasonable' w/a weaker opening ask, leaving them to hold the unreasonable position of "no gun regulations."
No.
We DO want to ban all guns.
We'll work to do it, too, unless you compromise.
No.
We DO want to ban all guns.
We'll work to do it, too, unless you compromise.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CONVINCE ME TO COMPROMISE IF YOU SAY YOU'LL BAN MY GUNS
Answer: I don't care about convincing you. I care about banning all guns. Want me to stop? YOU convince ME.
It's a negotiation.
Answer: I don't care about convincing you. I care about banning all guns. Want me to stop? YOU convince ME.
It's a negotiation.
This isn't being inflexible. It's actually very flexible and transparent.
I want a gun ban. I'd be willing to compromise. The compromise would look something like this.
Don't want to compromise? OK. Call me if you change your mind.
I'll be over here, working on a gun ban.
I want a gun ban. I'd be willing to compromise. The compromise would look something like this.
Don't want to compromise? OK. Call me if you change your mind.
I'll be over here, working on a gun ban.
Notice in that scenario who it is that is willing to compromise, and who it is that is not.
By the way, we should approach pretty much every issue with this understanding of compromise.
By the way, we should approach pretty much every issue with this understanding of compromise.
Thank you for the question!
Answer: I'm not mad, but the fact that anyone can carry that weapon in public spaces is barking mad, and symptomatic of a very sick culture.
I'll be working to make it so you can't.
Answer: I'm not mad, but the fact that anyone can carry that weapon in public spaces is barking mad, and symptomatic of a very sick culture.
I'll be working to make it so you can't.
1) If you won't allow a compromise simply because the other side has purposes and desires that go further than the compromise position, then you oppose compromise categorically. That's the definition of compromise.
2) What we want is to stop our epidemic of gun murder. I think a ban will do that. I think national gun control *might* do it, and am willing to try it.
If it doesn't, then, yes, we'll keep pursing the ban.
Because what we *want* is to stop gun murder.
Is the thing.
If it doesn't, then, yes, we'll keep pursing the ban.
Because what we *want* is to stop gun murder.
Is the thing.
3) People are *currently* defenseless against state tyranny, if firearms are our only defense.
AND we are defenseless from the current state of affairs, in which any random person can and might deliver lethal force whenever they see fit.
AND we are defenseless from the current state of affairs, in which any random person can and might deliver lethal force whenever they see fit.
This thread is long. I'm ending it with this encapsulation:
They want us to think that compromise means we need their permission before we pursue our own goals—a restriction they don't put on themselves.
*We don't need their permission.*
It's not uncompromising to say so.
They want us to think that compromise means we need their permission before we pursue our own goals—a restriction they don't put on themselves.
*We don't need their permission.*
It's not uncompromising to say so.
