Friday, January 18, 2013

Compromise 101


This is a brief introduction to the art of compromise. While compromise is not always advisable especially when they involve core principles sometimes it is unavoidable.

All Republicans should take notes.


Prerequisites: 

1.  Actually debate bills introduced. This obviously implies that you should read them.

2.  If the bill introduced is unconstitutional, then vote against it. The Constitution does not explicitly state that it is only the job of the judicial branch to decide whether every crazy idea is constitutional. The constitutionality of bills should be debated by ALL branches of government during the legislative process.

3.  Read and understand the Constitution. The first 10 amendments are known as the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Needs.

Case Study:   NY SAFE Act

Issue:   Limit the number of bullets allowed to be held in a magazine to 7 rounds.

While it can be argued that states can legislate the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine it is an issue that can and should have been debated rationally and possibly compromised on in the end.

Merriam-Webster defines compromise as a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.

The Democrats want 7 rounds to be the maximum number allowed under the law in New York State. The federal government wants the limit to be 10. The NRA wants no limit.

NY's SAFE Act limits ALL magazines to 7 rounds for EVERYONE. Unfortunately, by not reading the bill and/or debating it, law enforcement officers were not exempted and are currently violating the new law; most cops carry 15 round magazines.

In response to this oversight, Senator Eric Adams (D) will propose an amendment next week to exempt police officers. He said "You can't give more ammo to the criminals."

Republicans should agree and offer their own amendment (compromise) that says that any person that commits a crime with a gun and has more than 7 rounds in the magazine will automatically be charged with an additional felony and if found guilty be sentenced to no less than an addition 5 years imprisonment on top of the sentence for the original crime committed.

This would be a rational compromise. Good guys, cops and citizens alike, would have nothing to fear from the new law. The NRA shouldn't have an issue with it and the Democrats get their irrational and unworkable solution to mass shootings.

See how that went? Two positions that are opposite meeting somewhere in the middle that would make most people happy.

Stay tuned for more lessons in common sense. That is, until the New York legislature decides that the First Amendment doesn't cover blogs and that average people don't NEED to have the ability to write on the internet.

2 comments:

  1. So good to read a statement that reflects common sense for a change. Glad to know that there are those among us who still possess it. Until the arrival of Obamacare on the scene I was naive enough to think that if not the Congressman himself, at least his staff was responsible to read a bill so the Congressman would know its contents and could vote intelligently. Now I see that NO legislation is read before being voted on. Talk about the blind leading the blind. Why enact ANY laws? If you don't know what's in them, you don't need them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. Thanks for stopping by our show blog.

    ReplyDelete

Get Your Free Estimate!