more from Reason, a very interesting read this.

[alan]

http://www.reason.com/0505/fe.ak.straight.shtml


Posters Note:

Re Ms. Kohn's book, I bought and read it. It was interesting, though sad I thought re the following regarding her plea for reason and compromise by both sides.

It strikes me that the very long chain of lies, double dealing and double-talk by the anti gun side has quite effectively, and long since, blown out of the water, any chance of meaningful compromise that might ever have existed, assuming that "compromise" in the usual sense of that term was ever possible, given the often stated and unchanging goals of the anti gun set.

 

[bjbarron]

Pretty much the reason I left the NRA after 40 years of membership.

Nearing 60 all I have seen, for more decades than I want to think about, is the gun-grabbers winning... in small slices or big chunks. They are never satisfied.

I have no, zero, nada, zip, interest in any sort of compromise with the anti-gun side...they lie, they want me to be a victim, and they want me to depend on their ilk for my safety. I think 20,000 or so gun laws across the nation is enough compromise...lets see them compromise by removing half of them...then we'll talk.

Perhaps I am a bit beat up because I live in the PRNJ, but there it is.

 

[nico]

I remember seeing this a while ago, and I think the idea of "compromise" with antis is a losing proposition for us. Think about it: One group wants to take away a basic human right, the other wants to exercize that right. Any "compromise" would involve the right being reduced.

Is it OK to compromise with the KKK by killing some black people and burning down some black churches? Would it have been OK to compromise with Hitler by letting him kill some of the Jews and take over part of the world? If someone breaks into your house, do you compromise by letting them take some of your things and/or killing some of your family members? If you answered "no" to those questions, I don't see how you can argue for a compromise with the likes of the VPC and HCI.

 

[ravinraven]

Here's the way compromise works.

You're closing up your store for the day and pocket $1000. You need that to pay your bills and hopefully wind up with a $50 profit for the day's work.

In comes an armed robber. He grabs the $1000. You argue and fight and finally he compromises. He only takes half the money. Great guy, eh?

Any compromise involving liberty means you lose liberty. Any compromise involving any item in the BoR means a loss of liberty. Any interpretation by any court or government of any item in the BoR means a loss of liberty.

All governments always chip away at the liberty of the people. Our present decline started before the ink was dry on the BoR. It's getting real noticable now.

The image of a supersonic hadbasket comes to mind.

rr

 

[longrifleman]

I'd consider compromise when the antis tell us which existing laws they are willing to repeal in return for some new restriction. As long as compromise only means give them half of what they ask for they can go pound sand.

 

[Rebar]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=138293

 

[beerslurpy]

I'm open to reasonable compromise. I'm willing to do without nuclear weapons and not drive tracked vehicles on the road if everything else is legal.

 

[alan]

Rebar:

Thanks for the link top Harry Tuttles post and the comments appearing there.

The additional discussion might lead to more people thinking on this entire business, and possibly even to their taking action, as with contacting their elected things.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Rebar

Excellent link.

And summarized wonderfully by whomever said:

Simply put, you cannot negotiate with people who lie about their motives and goals.

"Gun Control" has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with control. The gun grabbers know that gun laws don't prevent crime or violence, that's just a smoke screen for their true goal: total civilian disarmament. The liberal/left has plans for America, that they know we're not going to like, and they need to disarm us before springing them on us.

And where is the room for negotiation here? Between the white of full RKBA and the black of confiscation, there is no grey. There is no room for comprimise.

The whole article is flawed in it's basic premise.

I amuses me to think the self-described enlightened among us fill their pockets with compromise and tolerance before every undertaking as if nothing worthy is ever accomplished without a goodly supply of both.

“Peace in our time” thinking carried thru the generations.


S-