I’m sure we’ve all heard the plaintive cry from the “practical,” weak-kneed compromise apologists: I know XYZ isn’t the best bill/ law/candidate but if we don’t support it/him/her we’ll get something/someone even worse. You hard-liners/gun-nuts are so unreasonable! A-yup; unreasonable is a pretty darned good way to describe me. Indeed I have written on this subject before and I undoubtedly will again until the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) is treated as if it were actually the law of the land instead of a laundry-list of items the police state has to tiptoe around (or just stomp right through as the so often do) . . .

It was reasoning like this that led the NRA to support the “cop-killer” handgun bullet ban which meant inexpensive alternatives to lead were banned (hmm, and now they’re going after lead bullets…coincidence?). So an increasing number of what were previously considered rifle calibers are affected since manufacturers are producing rifle caliber “handguns”.

It was thinking like that which got the NRA to support Harry Reid despite his dismal voting record on Second Amendment issues.

It was thinking like that which got the NRA to help write the MD handgun ban.

It was thinking like that which has given us a long line of nominally “pro-gun” politicians who are often ambivalent (if not actively hostile) to the idea of treating the Second Amendment as if it were, you know, the law of the land. Politicians who “support the Second Amendment” but are willing to extend the Clinton ugly-gun ban. Politicians who write bills (and appear in ads supporting state legislation) to close the non-existent gun show “loophole” but still gain NRA endorsements.

Likewise the NRA’s support for the Instant Check system was meant to “save us” from waiting periods reinforced the ineffable monstrosity of prohibited persons which the NRA had a hand in crafting when they helped write the 1968 G.C.A. Now all the antis have to do is slowly but surely expand the prohibited person criteria.

Remember the VA’s stance on vets who needed a fiduciary trustee to help with their finances? Getting behind on your bills should not result in being reported to the FBI as mentally defective.

A few years back there was a movement in some states to add juvenile crimes to their prohibited persons lists, This sounds “perfectly reasonable” on its face. It isn’t. Remember that there are provisions for juveniles to be tried as adults for serious or repeat offenders; these new provisions would have swept up the inept and unlucky.

Remember the poor schlub in Texas who, after a morning of duck hunting drove to school and deliberately parked off-campus because of his shotguns? Parking on the street didn’t save him from being expelled, though. Or how about National Merit Scholar Lindsay Brown who didn’t realize a kitchen knife had fallen out of a moving box until too late and wound up charged with felony possession? Charges were eventually dropped, but given that the presumption of innocence has taken a serious beating in the last few years, it may not be too long before the antis start pressing for people arrested for felonies to be prohibited. After all, everyone knows that most of those scumbags are guilty but got plea bargained down to a misdemeanor because of busy court schedules.

‘But what do you want us to do? Should we just let even worse laws get passed?’ asks the compromise monkey. To which I reply, Hell No! You fight the bastards tooth and nail and you promise that come election time, whoever voted for that “worse” bill will be remembered, and not fondly. Then if it passes anyway, you fight to repeal it. If you had a hand in crafting the damned thing you can hardly A) hold it against people who voted for it or 2) work against it after it passes.

‘But you’ll waste all your political capital that way,’ says the tofu eating surrender-monkey. Except, you won’t. I can’t remember who I heard the story from – somebody’s grandfather I believe – but during the Depression he was in one of those WPA labor camps. The first day he was there, someone tried to start something and Grandpa went after the fellow like gangbusters. He said after that he never had any problems with the bullies and trouble-makers. “Did you kick the dude’s ass,” I inquired? “Oh no,” GrandPa said, “I lost the fight, but the other fellow knew he’d been in a scrap, and word got around that I wasn’t a pushover. So they left me alone.”

The other fellow knew he’d been in a scrap. That’s the key in fistfights and political fights.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

26 COMMENTS

  1. The reality of the situation is simple. A large number of people and their representatives don’t agree with the 2A and if the result is a compromise then that will be the result. You don’t enjoy a veto proof Senate, a gun owning president, or a SCOTUS consisting of originalists entirely.

    You’re absolutely right Bruce, but that’s not always enough.

    • The problem requires an understanding of the intentions of the adversary.

      To that end, here is a statement from Nelson “Pete” Shields, former chair of what is now the Brady Campaign.
      “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”

      That is the strategy, right there in black and white text for all to see. The disarmament lobby knows that it takes an ounce of work to propose a law versus a pound of work required to repeal it on the back end-look at the time and legislative effort required for Canada to repeal the expensive and failed Long Gun Registry.Virginia’s repeal of the one-gun-a-month law stands as another example of this.

      Thus there are no compromises for the disarmament lobby.Every freedom we yield is a gain to them. We see it as brokering, but the leftists see it as “one down, 100 to go”. They ask for an outright ban. We say NO! They say we have the media and the vote. The NRA says OK, we’ll parley and have background checks. NRA says its a winner, and the disarmament lobby laughs it up behind closed doors as they plot how to exploit the next senseless killing, and the cycle repeats again.

      We must play the game like they do;zero compromise. Our goals are diametrically opposed, and its high time we quit pretending common ground can ever be reached with these people, as ‘common ground’ to the disarmament gang equates to Great Britian’s current status.

      • All the tough talk has a hard time when there are school shootings or huge news stories painting guns as the problem not the the people holding them.
        Considering what happened in AZ last Jan with Giffords it’s amazing a larger push wasn’t made to melt them all down. The 2A has strong credibility still, the problem is not enough challenges to laws that contravene it. That’s expensive and faces an uphill battle in most jurisdictions.

  2. This argument would be stronger without characterizing tofu eaters as enemies. You do realize that a lot of Asians and Asian-americans eat tofu, right? Just in case you forgot. Not to rain on your war against hippies or anything.

    • Heck, Travis *I* eat tofu (mmm, a nice firm tofu, cut into strips, marinated in Yoshida Gourmet sauce and cooked up on a George Foreman grill, tasty); it was the “surrender monkey” that was the important part.

    • Yup, half-Asian gun owner here. Tofu is damn tasty done right and I grew up eating it done right.

      Ironically, a lot of hippies do it wrong.

  3. I have had to choose to vote for a NRA rated C- candidate over an NRA rated F candidate in at least one past election. Hey I wish I could vote for the A+ candidate, but if none are available, I gotta do what I gotta do.

    • I gotta do what I gotta do

      That’s the NRA’s mantra, too, and they (and you) are correct.

  4. So, what we are saying is that the Constitution has become another piece of paper. If so, then all the more reason to exercise those rights that the first ten amendments were meant to secure. Or, to put it another way, since there is no limit on the government, we must be prepared for the inevitable. In the mean time, never stop working to remove those who would destroy our republic! Vote while you have the privilege. We may not win, but they will know they have been in a ‘scrap’!

    • the Constitution has become another piece of paper.

      Mike, it always was. The Constitution isn’t self-actuating. It only has power when government decides that it has power and when “leaders” submit to it as a matter of conscience.

      The elected began to end-run the Constitution as early as 1789, and they haven’t stopped since.

  5. Great post Bruce. But the last two paragraphs are worth their weight in gold and well worth remembering. Make them pay the price and make them remember the cost. Even if you get the living daylights knocked out of you, they’ll think twice before they go looking for the same bargain again. I know well the truth of that from hard won personal experience.

  7. The end game on “prohibited persons” is everybody: If you want a gun, you must be suffering from delusions, paranoia, maladaptation or some other emotional disorder; and if you’re crazy, you shouldn’t have a gun.

    Progressives are real big on removing the stigma of mental illness. So much so that every behavior is becoming a clinical emotional disorder. Well, if you’ve ever sought the treatment of a psychiatrist or been prescribed anti-depressants, don’t bother applying for a pistol license in most states. So much for removing the stigma.

    Don’t ever seek treatment for mental health. You’d have to be nuts.

  8. While I agree that there should be no compromise in the legal preservation of Constitutional rights, pride in being unreasonable is the mark of a fool. Statements like that make me hesitant, even loath to be associated with most pro-gun citizens. When you cheerfully comply with the negative stereotype, you’re doing your opponent’s job for him.

    You should never wear as a badge of honor the insults of your enemy simply to confound or irritate him. That’s childish, and it accomplishes nothing. Are you pro-2A, or are you anti-anti? They are not the same thing.

    • It is intriguing how much hot air is expended in how much pro gun owners must adapt to the whims of the gun regulation lobby, when little to nothing is said of the reverse.

      Perhaps it is THEM who should step outside of their stereotypes and practice their advertised motto of being open minded to alternative ways of thinking.I do not discuss politics with liberal minded people anymore,because facts only serve to anger them. Such are the kinds of people who preach open minded dialogue and then resort to shutting down the forum when their arguments are ruined in debate.

      • I do not discuss politics with liberal minded people anymore

        I don’t have problems with the liberals, conservatives, libertarians or voodoo practicioners who are gun-simpatico. But I do not engage with gun-grabbers of any ilk, including the socialists, fascists and idiots who seem to gravitate toward disarming the law-abiding.

  9. Raise your hand if you actually vote……………..

    For those of you who raised your hand, excellent, now go get someone else to come vote with you. For everyone else, here is our problem. The left does an excellent job of getting out the vote even if it means bribing the homeless or the poor to go to the poles. You can’t get what you want unless you get involved.

    I take time off from work to go fight bad gun bills in my state, I go to rallies — my side does not always win, but we do chip away.

    More people probably went to Starbucks to give their $2 bill than will vote come this November. Even the NRA complains that so few member actually go to the polls to vote.

    For those of you who did not raise their hands, I implore you to please vote! Even if Obama does win, the House and Senate must not go to the left.

    • In some cases, the left will go so far as to put dead people on the voting rolls to ensure their side has voter turnout. There are Conservatives who vote in Illinois, not that one would know it from all of the statists cooking the books in Chicago and thereabouts.

  11. I write repeated letters to my representatives stating my stance as a single issue voter. You pass or try to pass an anti-gun bill, I will do what I can to make sure it’s your last term.

  12. The problem with compromise, is even if you give the Antis what they want or something similar, they will be back for more.

  13. Same old bull###t.

    The legislative process is the results of elections. And while Bruce talks a good game, to few gunnies follow through.

    You can’t threaten a legislator with electorial defeat, if you don’t have the money, message and man power to do it.

    I will wager that most here have yet to walk a precint for a progun candidate. That most think getting a orange post card with the endorsed candidates name on it and voting for that person is enough. It’s not.

    I will doubt that the majority of gunnies here have yet to spend a single saturday putting up yard signs for a candidate.. They would rather spend $20 on ammo, then gas in a truck to plant some signs and get a good guy elected.

    We dont win arguements at the capitol by waving the constitution arou d and pointing to statistics. We win by electiing the right people. And to many gunnies would rather argue about twp words in Heller, thanspend an afternoon getting somebody elected.

    To may keyboard quarterbacks around.

Comments are closed.