“In our divided country, though, people who disagree about gun ownership and regulation seem to be split into two great tribes. Each regards those on the other side as not just mistaken about policy but also wicked or corrupt.” – Kwame Anthony Appiah in How Do I Deal With a Gun at a Relative’s Home? [via nytimes.com]
This site said it best. Antis say they want “compromise.” But for us, all we would be doing is giving up rights in exchange for… nothing. That’s not compromise, that’s surrender. I refuse to capitulate to their wants and beliefs.
What we often forget is that there are two meanings to the word compromise. Whereas the antis know this, but as always they are being dishonest. When they say compromise they want to the vast majority of people in the middle to hear definition #1, but what they mean is definition #2.
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
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial a compromise of principles
Bingo. The fervent hope of those standing against freedom is that gun owners will compromise our beliefs.
There is no compromise to be made with those who would destroy you or that which you hold dear. 100 plus years of compromise from our side is enough.
Now it’s their turn.
You cannot compromise with some things, like God given rights. It is like being a “little” pregnant. Once you compromise with your rights, you have lost something irretrievable. Look at where we are today. In many places one cannot legally own a firearm. “Shall not be infringed” leaves no room to compromise, only to be constantly vigilant and constantly willing to fight back against that infringement.
Scenario: a man demands, DEMANDS I TELL YOU!, multiple sexual encounters with a woman who finds him utterly and totally repulsive. Should she compromise with the repulsive man and have sex just three times? Just once? No? Neither should we compromise with our right to self-defense.
Desert Dave is correct: we must not compromise with some things.
Exactly. Compromise? That would look something like this: “Ok, fine, no guns in gun free zones. But we get to have full autos back, completely unregulated.”
It’s important not to mistake capitulation for compromise. Anti 2a folks want to compromise my rights by forcing me to capitulatilate and I will not do it.
Only a fool would agree to forfeit an unalienable right. That’s not compromise, its idiocy at its worst.
Umm, the left is corrupt. Not backing down with their ilk.
“How do I deal with a gun at a relative’s home…”
By minding your own damn business and getting over yourself. I’ve had a few relatives inform me of their displeasure in my gun ownership. My response is usually, “Oh man, that’s sucks.” Then I walk away or change the topic.
You know what it changed? Nothing. Fun side effect of being a grown up.
Pretty much the advice given, which is kind of odd for the NYT.
“How do I deal with a gun at a relative’s home…”
Why do you need to deal with it at all?
I could see the question being valid if the gun is somehow affecting you, but if the only effect it has on you is because of your fear (of what, exactly?), then the gun isn’t the problem.
But then, trying to be logical with people with an irrational fear doesn’t work, by definition.
“How do I deal with a gun at a relative’s home…”
Recommend they speak very quietly. Guns have great hearing, and become angry quickly, and no doubt could find their way out of a safe and could on their own volition shoot someone.
Sure. Let’s compromise. After our range outing, I’ll let you choose kydex over leather.
I may not like it, but it’ll help us “get along”.
Dang Tom, that’s downright ecumenical.
Is Kydex AND leather an acceptable compromise, or just a half-assed solution? Asking for a friend…
No retreat, no surrender.
Molon labe
When some people are given power over other people, against their will, tyranny is the inevitable result. Has nothing to do with “getting along.” Getting along means minding one’s own business and leaving others to do the same. That’s not what these folks are talking about.
If I go somewhere and my gun isn’t welcome, I go somewhere else. Yes, even when “family” is involved. I mind my business, and leave them to mind theirs however they wish… just without me.
You can rationally “compromise” on which salad dressing to serve, or the brand of the beer you buy for the party… but it doesn’t work very well for the most serious decisions a person needs to make. Nobody’s ever going to talk me into thinking either they or I will be “safer” if I’m unarmed and helpless.
We all used to get along as one big happy family, guns are tools and necessary for those who want them. Until politicians started pushing gun control regulation and propaganda that guns perpetuated increased crime
I’d be happy to get along with everyone, along the lines of our country’s prime directive, the second amendment
One side wants to take the other side’s rights away. That is NOT a symmetric situation.
How do you deal with a gun in someone’s home?
In one of 2 ways.
1. You dont worry about it and act like an adult.
2. You run to your safe space you little snowflake.
There is no compromise in the second amendment. You want to sit down and talk about guns? Fine.
First repeal the nfa and declare all NJ, MD, CA, MA, AND NY gun control laws unconstitutional and illegal. End of conversation.
As a MA resident, this would please me. However, the police unions who give untold dollars to liberal politicians don’t like the idea of the rest of us having guns. Consequently, I don’t anticipate much changing around here.
“In our divided country, though, people who disagree about gun ownership and regulation seem to be split into two great tribes. Each regards those on the other side as not just mistaken about policy but also wicked or corrupt.”
I agree 100%, and my tribe is bigger, growing, and winning.
And armed.
Can’t we all just get along? Sure we can. Just leave us alone. That’s all gun owners ever wanted. Stop preaching lies to us, stop trying to invent crazy new pretexts for siccing the police on us, or Child Protective Services, or the mental health system, or get us fired, or expelled from school.
Can’t do that? Then no, we can’t “get along”, because what you really mean is “won’t you just surrender?”
Oh, and a helpful tip: How do you deal with a gun at a relative’s home? You don’t. You don’t normally worry about “dealing” with other people’s possessions which they keep in their own home. Not that ghastly centerpiece on the coffee table, not the contents of their underwear drawer, and not their guns. Seriously, would it kill you to behave like a normal person for once?
That is a perfect response to this nonsense.
“Seriously, would it kill you to behave like a normal person for once?”
Yes it probably would kill them. How else are they going to get their articles and opinions published?
Without being published they’d have to find a job that requires a honest days work and then be considered one of the menial laborers that they claim to be fighting for
Compromise is something the antis demand it from us. They feel and act like they are doing us a favor to allow us to keep some of our freedom. This is what got us the NFA, the GCA, and the AWB, the only smart thing we did was to force them to put a ten year sunset in the AWB. Now that the pendulum is swinging the other way, we need to push hard to sweep away all the foolish and racist crap heaped on us for the last hundred plus years. Common sense gun safety is never found in legislation!
kwame a river of tears.
or squirt me a river appiah.
can’t have both.
The problem with the Anti-gun crowd is one of perspective. The founders put the 2nd amendment in place because they KNEW from their own history and they knew Human Nature. History taught them that Tyranny was the norm in the world. Kings and Dictators were the norm. Humans tend to dominate the weak and, in many cases, brutally. So encouraging citizens to equip themselves with the tools necessary to defend themselves, their families and their fellow citizens would prevent any other human from dominating them. The founders encouraged law abiding goodness and self-reliance to create the brotherhood of a free people known as America. The problem we have today is that many Americans take this freedom (which is NOT free) for granted and the Public School system has failed to teach the founding principals – thank you Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon and all the big government leaders we have had. They all believed what most progressive leaders believe…The Average citizen is too stupid or naive to take care of themselves. As Reagan said, “We are always just 1 generation away from losing our freedom.” I fear we are in the 1 generation now. Citizens need to think outside the box and see that a NORTH KOREA, a Venezuela, a CUBA COULD happen here IF we allow it. In many ways we ARE allowing it without knowing it.
So America – think outside the box, push back always in favor of Freedom and liberty, be good to one another as often as you can…and carry cocked and locked.
If you read the linked article, it sound like both the original writer and the advisor are both “buts”. You know, I support gun rights, but……. . I will just say what others have said, not your house, not your problem. As far as compromise goes, look where it’s gotten us so far, compromise is what you do when deciding what to have for dinner.
“Compromise”.
Let’s take guns out of it for a moment, and look Alice and Bob trying to get dinner.
Scenario 1: Compromise
Alice and Bob have decided that they are both hungry, and that they would each like to have dinner while enjoying the company of the other.
* Alice craves a New York style pizza, with a thing floured crust and giant slices of pepperoni baked under a layer of mozzarella.
* Bob wants a thick and juicy steak burger, topped with fresh lettuce and tomato, Heinz 57 and french-fried potatoes.
The problem is that there is no restaurant that serves gourmet burgers as well as NYC street pizza. So the two epicureans have to compromise. They decide to go to a restaurant called The Rock Wood Fired Pizza and Grill.
* Alice orders a Rock Classic, which is a thin crust pizza and not so bad, but it’s certainly not exactly what she wanted. The crust is soggy and the pepperoni is sub par, but it’s still a decent pizza, and it satisfies her while also allowing her to dine with Bob, which was the actual goal.
* Bob orders a Rock Burger. It’s a typical hamburger (and not steak), and it’s so well done he can taste the carbon. The lettuce and tomato and okay, and they fries are a bit bland, but it’s a burger and it satisfies, while allowing him to dine with Alice.
In this case, Alice and Bob have both compromised. They reached their goal (of dining together) while satisfying their distinct needs, even if neither got exactly what they wanted to eat.
Scenario 2: The acceptable casualty
Alice and Bob have decided they are both hungry and would like to go out to eat, though not necessarily together.
* Alice craves a New York style pizza, with a thing floured crust and giant slices of pepperoni baked under a layer of mozzarella.
* Bob doesn’t want to go to the pizza place with Alice, because he’s afraid of Charley, a gangbanger wanted for multiple homicides at a pizza restaurant.
Bob’s solution is to call the city and claims he saw a roach at Alice’s favorite pizza place, which gets the restaurant shut down. When Alice – frustrated and not being able to get what she wants because Bob is being a tit – orders something from Dominos instead, Bob goes on Facebook and posts memes about how fat Alice is and how she should be ashamed of her pizza-eating habits.
In this instance, Bob gets what he wants, or at least part of what he wants, and Alice suffers for it. This is not compromise, as Alice doesn’t get anything. Non of her needs are fulfilled, and she has to give up on her wants, too, because Bob has taken her ability to fulfill them away.
Scenario 3:
Alice and Bob have decided they are both hungry and would like to go out to eat, though not necessarily together.
* Alice craves a New York style pizza, with a thing floured crust and giant slices of pepperoni baked under a layer of mozzarella.
* Bob doesn’t care what he eats, he just hates pizza. Maybe his father died from a pizza-related heart attack. Maybe the roof of his mouth is scarred from one time when he tried to eat a slice. Perhaps he’s a bigot who hates italians and anything related (no matter how mistakingly) with their culture. Maybe he ate at Imo’s once and thinks that the cracker cheese bread they serve is some form of pizza, even though it clearly isn’t.
Bob cannot abide Alice – or anyone else for that matter – eating pizza. The thought that they ENJOY pizza is enough to prove that they aren’t human. Pizza, in his mind, causes fatness and mouth-burns and has no redeeming qualities.
Bob creates a media campaign against pizza. He gets anti-pizza laws passed. Trying to look reasonable, he allows for pizza in certain specific circumstances, such as after someone has taken a background check to prove they aren’t Italian. Perhaps Bob will allow certain people to have pizza anyway, but only after they have done him a service or promised to use the pizza only in ways that he approves of.
In this instance, there is no compromise. Again, Alice gets none of her needs or wants filled. Alice only suffers because of Bob’s ideas and actions – her opinion (unless she changes it to be anti-pizza) are irrelevant to Bob.
Conclusion:
Compromise under duress isn’t compromise, it’s capitulation, or perhaps surrender.
* If Alice and Bob aren’t working toward the same goal, then there can be no compromise.
* If Bob’s goal will only negatively impact Alice, then why should she help him reach his goal?
* If Bob’s goal is specifically for Alice to suffer, then why should she stay friends with him at all?
P.S. – The pizza is guns.
Excellent breakdown, Casey. My takeaway from this? Bob is a jerk. Alice should dump him.
Then maybe she could invite Ted and Carol over for a three………… way split on that delicious NY style pizza! (You know, the stuff Bob failed to ban because he spread filthy lies about pizza and everyone stopped listening to him!)
I highly recommend people actually read the article before making an opinion. Mr. Appiah gets a whole lot right. Here’s a few other quotes from the article:
“The largest danger posed by firearms in the household is that they will be used for suicide, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of gun deaths. I assume you don’t think he or your relative is at risk for that. (If they were, the solution would involve more than getting rid of a weapon.) ”
“And obviously, accidents with guns do occur, and you need guns around to have accidents with them. But a reasonable person who knows all this might decide to keep a gun. ”
“But I don’t agree that having an unloaded gun, even with its ammunition nearby, is evidence that you’re not a responsible spouse and caretaker. Our country is full of responsible spouses and caretakers who have guns stored safely in their houses.”
But then he goes off the rails…
“So provided Tim can assure you that the gun is stored safely when the kids visit, I’d focus on persuading him to tell his husband he has it. Unlike you, his husband is in a position to ask that the gun go, if that’s how he feels. If Tim won’t tell him, you may have to consider telling him yourself. The duty of confidentiality can be overridden by sufficiently weighty considerations. But getting in between two spouses, even if one of them is a close relation, is a pretty serious step.”
Sounds like Tim should’ve kept his mouth shut about the shotgun. Now he has to worry about a narc threatening his relationship.
I don’t think that section was well written or would, overall, pass for good advice. What goes on between married couples isn’t your business unless they’re asking you to join them for a threeway or a polygamous marriage.
That said, there is a deeper point about a member of a marriage keeping secrets like this secrets which, once discovered, can destroy trust in the relationship.
As such, I see nothing wrong with encouraging “Tim” to open up to his spouse about the shotgun but to go over his head and tell Tim’s significant other on his own would be a bridge too far.
Accidents will happen regardless, and suicide is absolutely nobody else’s business. Mighty “white” of this guy to conclude that most of us are responsible people. So, what was the purpose of the article again then?
It’s a “Dear Abby” type advice column.
I’ve never quite been sure what the point of such articles. IMHO they basically revolve around people who are unable to think for themselves asking complicated questions of people who have no expertise in anything so far as I can discern.
It’s like asking your investment advisor about the cam shafts in your classic sports car but I text format… except that in these cases the person you’re asking probably doesn’t know diddly about investments either.
Advice columns: a traditionally safe space for asking the sort of questions that would normally have people slowly backing away from you.
I’m leaning towards this being a fake news piece out of The NY Times. I don’t believe a word these scumbags publish. They are likely again making stuff up to push the liberal agenda. Note the elderly man coming out of the closet theme to put a personal touch on the gun debate.
People of the Gun are such meanies! All the ignorant anti-civil rights bigots want is to impose any and all possible pointless restrictions/burdens on the free exercise of our second amendment rights. Is the imposition of severe criminal penalties, for minor paperwork violations, such a terrible thing? Why must we be so negative about those who hurl invective at us, slander us and lie at every opportunity? I just do not understand why the irrational, transient emotional states and laughably unrealistic fantasies of gun control supporters do not convince us to willingly surrender our rights.
Nice! Yep. The warm hug of a delusional and outright irrational belief system, does not keep one safe from the realities of gravity, velocity, inertia or the attentions of a human predator with ill intent.
I’ll be “that guy” and make a concrete statement:
Forcing other people to do something against their will is almost always WRONG.
Let’s look at the score:
— Gun owners want to own and possess firearms and force other people to do nothing.
— Gun grabbers want to force gun owners to give up their firearms.
Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Which group is corrupt?
well, it shouldn’t be too hard for a firearm possessor to force another person to do nothing.
Pretty much.
One definition of a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
We can’t get along because the grabbers won’t stop and won’t take no for an answer. In short, they’re fanatics and a live-and-let-live approach just does not compute with them.
The “divide” between the opposing “Tribes” over firearms in the home basically comes down to: one side wants to infringe RKBA to the point of abolition and the other side wants the full meaning of the Second Amendment phrasing “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” to be completely unrestricted in any way, shape or form. Where there is diametrical opposition there is no chance for compromise and little for “getting along”.
“Mugwump’s” fantasies about about “compromise” are founded on huffing Unicorn farts and thereby nothing but vapor think. All people have the right to acquire and provide for their personal defense by any means they choose, or to make no such choice at all. Whatever an individual chooses, no other individual (or political entity) has any right to dictate, control or otherwise interfere which that choice. The party owning the firearm unbeknownst to his spouse has, however, taken on the responsibility to ensure the firearm is stored safely whenever children may be present, and for the consequences of keeping the secret from his spouse. Personally, I would not keep such a secret from my spouse.
The advice given to interfere with the relationship by telling one party the other’s “deep dark secret” amounts to interference in the relationship and should not be acted upon.
I DO have antigun acquaintances-they’re called relatives. Don’t like me having guns in my home? Don’t visit. My friends like guns. Just more BS…
Play it out to the end game more quickly (cook it down to the kernel).
EVEN
IF
WE
GAVE
UP
OUR
GUNS
The tyranny of Gun grabbers, and the evil POS (D) would still be a scourge worth eradicating. A civil and next world war would be worth the blood to just not have to hear from these MFs ever again, and it would buy some time to lie in wait for their next iteration.
No, we can’t all get along. All commie bastards must FOAD.
My favorite line in this response is the first.
“Let’s be clear: Tim didn’t show you an Altoids tin filled with crystal meth.”
“My favorite line in this response is the first.
“Let’s be clear: Tim didn’t show you an Altoids tin filled with crystal meth.””
I saw that and said to myself: “You know, a nice bump might be just what the old guy needs now and then, a ‘lil ‘pick me up’, so to speak…”
/sarc 😉
*snicker*
Maybe that’s the deal. Tim doesn’t complain when some crank goes missing and the old guy pretends he doesn’t know about the gun.
Leave me alone. STFU . Learn enough English to be able to read the second amendment and explain what it means. Admit that there is no restriction that you can put on me that will stop gang bangers from shooting each other in Chicago just like they do in Mexico. Then we will get along just fine.
Going to someone’s home with your children and the home is not childproofed at all, is just asking for problems. Kids are curious and like to touch things, like a train set, or even a pretty candy dish. Things get broken and feelings get hurt. If people have a loaded handgun in the desk near the door, you have to know that isn’t safe. I expect people that have dangerous items to be able to secure them when I am invited into thier home with my children.
The same with drugs, legal or illegal. Keep them in a safe place so the kids can not get them.
But, just because someone has weapons and has them visable and out of reach, is not a reason not to go into his home. The weapons are just tools.
I want parity of civilian weapons availability of at least Switzerland, and I am willing to divvy the blue and gray to get it.
Can’t We All Just Get Along Where Hillary Server and Clinton Foundation pay-to-play schemes Are Concerned?
No? Yeah, the DOJ doesn’t think so either:
http://www.whatfinger.com/single-post/2017/08/10/Huge-News—YES-Justice-Dept-REOPENS-Case-Against-Hillary-Clinton-Dick-Morris-reports
Q: Can’t we all just get along where guns are concerned?
A: So long as there are those who wish to disarm us using only lies, obfuscation, and logical fallacies — this their ultimate goal from the start and the only tactics they can employ — then the answer is, unequivocally, no.
Next question.
The question we face here is: How do we deal with this issue of “compromise”?
First, I am NOT talking about negotiating with the Anti’s to find some gun-control/-rights law we might agree upon. Others have articulated how foolhardy such an undertaking would be.
Instead, I’m referring to the PR aspect of the issue. How do we want to address the notion of “compromise” about gun-control/-rights with voters who haven’t yet committed to a pro-control/-rights position. This audience presupposes that “compromise” is a “good” thing; and so, by refusing out-front to discuss compromise we tend to look like we are the unreasonable side of the argument. Is that where we want to APPEAR to be? We need to turn-this-around.
As an example, let’s look at the training aspect. The Antis insist that National-Reciprocity is a bad idea because some states like PA have no training requirement while other states require “extensive” training for a CWP. How should we respond?
I suggest that we, the PotG, claim the high-ground by insisting that we are the constituency that most advocates for training. The NRA began as a training organization and this is still a major part of its activities. We, the PotG, would really like to discuss all the ways to promote training on the part of everyone who keeps or bears arms. Our problem is that the Antis use the training requirement of a CWP regime to erect a barrier to law-abiding people to obtain a CWP. The more hours of training required the more expensive the training is. The more they limit “qualified” trainers the more difficult it is to get training. A training requirement to obtain a CWP weighs most heavily upon those members of society that most need to be able to defend themselves but can least afford all the training, fees and expenses.
As much as WE would love to discuss ways to promote safe gun handling and carrying, we have learned that the Antis won’t discuss “gun safety” honestly. Their interest is confined solely to making it as expensive as possible for civilians to keep or carry guns for self-defense, sport or any other reason. Look at the evidence: we PotG devote a lot of energy and activity to gun safety; the Anti’s devote all their efforts to making guns expensive, if not impossible, to use. Which of these communities is genuinely interested in gun-safety?
The un-committed voter – by now – sort of “gets it” that making guns disappear from America is out-of-the-question. This voter is just looking for the legislature/Congress to figure-out some practical “common-sense” regime within which society can “live with” civilian guns. S/he harbors a presupposition that some such regime will be found by “compromise”.
How do we disabuse her of that naive presupposition? There will be no compromise so long as gun-control/-rights is a life-or-death fight for supremacy. If the Anti’s win, there will be no civilian guns; a result gun owners will not permit. But the converse is not a world with NO gun laws. If gun-owners prevail we – more than anyone else – wants guns to be used lawfully, peaceably and safely. The liberty of civilian guns can be maintained ONLY so long as law-abiding adults use them responsibly and supervise their children as well.
Our legislators/Congress can’t reach any “common-sense” legal regime concerning guns so long as the Antis remain the obstacle in every legislative debate. Gun owners have no choice but to resist just about every bill because – inevitably – the Antis insist on some ineffective “control” that strips us of another aspect of our liberty.
Good points, but it leaves the “middle”–who desire “compromise”–hanging.
We would need to propose some counter policies. Here are some that come quickly to mind–and are only partially baked ideas, if that. These are the flip side of the compromise.
1. The government offer every adult citizen with the standard infantry rifle plus 2000 rounds of ammo each year. Those accepting the offer would be required to attend two one-day training events each year that include both class and range time. Those accepting would be allowed to carry their rifle anywhere.
2. Anyone presenting a valid voter registration would not be subject to aNICS check or any other non-financial paperwork when purchasing a firearm.
3. Require that proficiency with rifle and shotgun be a requirement for high school graduation.
4. Require that any home owner, business, or government that prohibits carrying of firearms on its property be fully liable for injuries done to victims by criminals.
No doubt you can think of more.
Hmmm. What if the title of the article read- “How do I deal with free speech at a relative’s home?” Would it be as controversial?
Anybody who wants to force honest people to be pathetic, helpless, disarmed victims IS evil and corrupt and should be despised.
The Leftist’s Dictionary
compromise: (n) an agreement to diminsh your opponent’s rights in exchange for nothing except a guarantee of future ‘compromises.’
No.
We can’t get along.
I hate you, and everything you want.
You hate everything I believe in.
Fine.
I look forward to the day when we “come to blows”- I am better armed than you, and I look forward to your destruction.
Comments are closed.