Executive Director
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 12
Today the Wisconsin State Senate passed Senate Bill 403 - the Personal Protection Act (PPA) - by a 23-9 vote.
The bad news is that at least half a dozen gun control provisions - all given
a silent wink and a nod by the institutional gun lobby - passed along with the
bill. Now, the bill goes to the State Assembly.
In light of the passage of gun control today, you should be asking yourself, "Was today's vote a victory, or defeat, for gun owners"?
You should have the answer to that question by the time you get done
reading, "Why conservatives are suckers for gun control."
Enjoy.
----------------------------
Why conservatives are suckers for gun control
By
Corey Graff
If a mugger shoved a gun in your ribs and demanded your wallet, but then handed you back your credit cards, your health insurance cards and your wallet-sized photos of your children - keeping only the cash - has a compromise taken place?
According to most conservative activists, apparently it would be. According to the proper definition of "compromise," however, it is really nothing more than stealing.
Most right-wing activists believe they must choose between standing on principle alone and compromising to be practical. This is a fatal error.
Nearly all gun control can trace its origin back to some point in which a
self-styled "pro-gun" organization, "pro-gun" lobbyist or even "pro-gun"
legislator accepted some so-called compromise. True, anti-gun liberals might be pushing gun control, but conservatives are their own worst enemy when they accept it.
But first some definition: "com-pro-mise 1. A settlement of differences by
mutual concessions," according to Webster's Dictionary. In other words,
compromise means each side brings something to the table to give up.
"This is not how the Leftists 'compromise.'" Wrote now-retired California State
Senator and founder of Gun Owners of America, H.L. Richardson, in his book,
Confrontational Politics. "They will ask for 100 percent, then give in a little
on their outlandish demands when opposition becomes formidable. They may call it a compromise but what are they giving up? Absolutely nothing!...Are they relinquishing control or perhaps abandoning some other established bureaucracy in order to negotiate in good faith? Never. They relinquish nothing while insisting we compromise away a piece of our freedom."
The left takes advantage of conservatives' dislike of confrontation, by
redefining compromise to bully us around. It works like this: Anti-gunners push
a nightmare gun control bill, a bill so bad they know it will never pass into
law. Pro-gunners throw up the red flags and begin to build a defense. The left
lets pro-gun opposition grow. The right begins to panic. Once opposition
reaches liberals' pre-determined level, they back off and offer a more
"reasonable" anti-gun bill, which they repackage and call a compromise.
Conservatives - who are uncomfortable with the orchestrated confrontation from the start - let out a big sigh and jump on the version that appears less threatening.
But wait a minute. The liberals have just advanced gun control - without giving up anything! It was a net loss for gun owners, and a net gain for the gun grabbers. In fact, there was no compromise anywhere in this equation. Did the left offer to give up just one of those over 20,000 gun control laws currently on the books? Of course not. Did the mugger offer the victim his own car or his own watch in trade as a compromise? No, he just took the cash.
This also holds when pro-gunners try to push a pro-gun bill into law.
Republicans will concede gun control provisions in their own pro-gun bill to
try to appease the left into voting for the bill. But - the left never gives up
any ground, and expecting this appeasment strategy to work is simply
irresponsible and foolish.
Take Wisconsin's Personal Protection Act (PPA), for example. Before the bill was even introduced, it was loaded down with half a dozen anti-gun provisions (by Republican "conservatives"), any one of which concessions would normally draw fire from gun owners. We're told these concessions will help us pass concealed carry; we're told they are reasonable compromises.
But let's back up. In early 1870, your right to bear arms was stolen from you -
a net loss. Now, gun control apologists are crawling out of the woodwork, a
list that includes Republican legislators, NRA, Wisconsin Concealed Carry
Association, and others. They claim gun owners must accept a central registry list of gun owners, a criminal background check, an excessive fee, an
application (waiting) period, an expanded NICS check on handgun purchases, the creation of no-carry-allowed areas, a rogue-cop amendment, and possibly even fingerprinting of gun owners - that's at least 7 gains for gun control.
But what exactly are the anti-gunners giving up here? What are they bringing to the table? If you answered "nothing," - or zero - congratulations - you're no longer a gullible victim of liberal tactics.
Some will object here, pointing out that what anti-gunners are conceding is
their agreeing to support concealed carry contigent upon these anti-gun
provisions. While that is a one-step loss for anti-gunners, they still achieve
an overall net gain of 6 additional gun controls - plus they've brought nothing
new to the table, and they are still in the black. On gun owners side, we're
still in the red and gain one step, while losing 7 steps - for an overall net
loss of -6.
This is why conservatives never get back to their original starting point, and
why we're buried in over our heads in gun control. If you do the math, the
institutional gun lobby's willingness to compromise simply doesn't add up for
gun rights. Sure, it's incrementalism alright - in the wrong direction.
Our course of action as conservatives, then, must be to force anti-gunners to
give up ground, so they incur devastating net losses on their side. Ours is not
an all-or-nothing position, it is a gain-more than-you-lose position.
Incrementalism works; only if gun owners stop selling more farm than they buy.
Conservatives must learn that when liberals - and liberal Republicans - use the
term "compromise," there is rarely a true compromise taking place. Therefore,
we cannot even begin to weigh any gains against any losses - we're only ever
asked to accept more net losses. It's always a matter of anti-gunners gaining
either alot or a little - but it's for sure gun owners always losing: alot or a
little.
Why are conservatives suckers for gun control? Because they give up in the name of compromise when no compromise is on the table. And they hand their wallet over - when the mugger's gun is loaded with harmless blanks.
Corey Graff is the Executive Director of Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. - Wisconsin's only no-compromise gun rights organization. For more info about WGO, visit http://www.wisconsingunowners.org
The bad news is that at least half a dozen gun control provisions - all given
a silent wink and a nod by the institutional gun lobby - passed along with the
bill. Now, the bill goes to the State Assembly.
In light of the passage of gun control today, you should be asking yourself, "Was today's vote a victory, or defeat, for gun owners"?
You should have the answer to that question by the time you get done
reading, "Why conservatives are suckers for gun control."
Enjoy.
----------------------------
Why conservatives are suckers for gun control
By
Corey Graff
If a mugger shoved a gun in your ribs and demanded your wallet, but then handed you back your credit cards, your health insurance cards and your wallet-sized photos of your children - keeping only the cash - has a compromise taken place?
According to most conservative activists, apparently it would be. According to the proper definition of "compromise," however, it is really nothing more than stealing.
Most right-wing activists believe they must choose between standing on principle alone and compromising to be practical. This is a fatal error.
Nearly all gun control can trace its origin back to some point in which a
self-styled "pro-gun" organization, "pro-gun" lobbyist or even "pro-gun"
legislator accepted some so-called compromise. True, anti-gun liberals might be pushing gun control, but conservatives are their own worst enemy when they accept it.
But first some definition: "com-pro-mise 1. A settlement of differences by
mutual concessions," according to Webster's Dictionary. In other words,
compromise means each side brings something to the table to give up.
"This is not how the Leftists 'compromise.'" Wrote now-retired California State
Senator and founder of Gun Owners of America, H.L. Richardson, in his book,
Confrontational Politics. "They will ask for 100 percent, then give in a little
on their outlandish demands when opposition becomes formidable. They may call it a compromise but what are they giving up? Absolutely nothing!...Are they relinquishing control or perhaps abandoning some other established bureaucracy in order to negotiate in good faith? Never. They relinquish nothing while insisting we compromise away a piece of our freedom."
The left takes advantage of conservatives' dislike of confrontation, by
redefining compromise to bully us around. It works like this: Anti-gunners push
a nightmare gun control bill, a bill so bad they know it will never pass into
law. Pro-gunners throw up the red flags and begin to build a defense. The left
lets pro-gun opposition grow. The right begins to panic. Once opposition
reaches liberals' pre-determined level, they back off and offer a more
"reasonable" anti-gun bill, which they repackage and call a compromise.
Conservatives - who are uncomfortable with the orchestrated confrontation from the start - let out a big sigh and jump on the version that appears less threatening.
But wait a minute. The liberals have just advanced gun control - without giving up anything! It was a net loss for gun owners, and a net gain for the gun grabbers. In fact, there was no compromise anywhere in this equation. Did the left offer to give up just one of those over 20,000 gun control laws currently on the books? Of course not. Did the mugger offer the victim his own car or his own watch in trade as a compromise? No, he just took the cash.
This also holds when pro-gunners try to push a pro-gun bill into law.
Republicans will concede gun control provisions in their own pro-gun bill to
try to appease the left into voting for the bill. But - the left never gives up
any ground, and expecting this appeasment strategy to work is simply
irresponsible and foolish.
Take Wisconsin's Personal Protection Act (PPA), for example. Before the bill was even introduced, it was loaded down with half a dozen anti-gun provisions (by Republican "conservatives"), any one of which concessions would normally draw fire from gun owners. We're told these concessions will help us pass concealed carry; we're told they are reasonable compromises.
But let's back up. In early 1870, your right to bear arms was stolen from you -
a net loss. Now, gun control apologists are crawling out of the woodwork, a
list that includes Republican legislators, NRA, Wisconsin Concealed Carry
Association, and others. They claim gun owners must accept a central registry list of gun owners, a criminal background check, an excessive fee, an
application (waiting) period, an expanded NICS check on handgun purchases, the creation of no-carry-allowed areas, a rogue-cop amendment, and possibly even fingerprinting of gun owners - that's at least 7 gains for gun control.
But what exactly are the anti-gunners giving up here? What are they bringing to the table? If you answered "nothing," - or zero - congratulations - you're no longer a gullible victim of liberal tactics.
Some will object here, pointing out that what anti-gunners are conceding is
their agreeing to support concealed carry contigent upon these anti-gun
provisions. While that is a one-step loss for anti-gunners, they still achieve
an overall net gain of 6 additional gun controls - plus they've brought nothing
new to the table, and they are still in the black. On gun owners side, we're
still in the red and gain one step, while losing 7 steps - for an overall net
loss of -6.
This is why conservatives never get back to their original starting point, and
why we're buried in over our heads in gun control. If you do the math, the
institutional gun lobby's willingness to compromise simply doesn't add up for
gun rights. Sure, it's incrementalism alright - in the wrong direction.
Our course of action as conservatives, then, must be to force anti-gunners to
give up ground, so they incur devastating net losses on their side. Ours is not
an all-or-nothing position, it is a gain-more than-you-lose position.
Incrementalism works; only if gun owners stop selling more farm than they buy.
Conservatives must learn that when liberals - and liberal Republicans - use the
term "compromise," there is rarely a true compromise taking place. Therefore,
we cannot even begin to weigh any gains against any losses - we're only ever
asked to accept more net losses. It's always a matter of anti-gunners gaining
either alot or a little - but it's for sure gun owners always losing: alot or a
little.
Why are conservatives suckers for gun control? Because they give up in the name of compromise when no compromise is on the table. And they hand their wallet over - when the mugger's gun is loaded with harmless blanks.
Corey Graff is the Executive Director of Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. - Wisconsin's only no-compromise gun rights organization. For more info about WGO, visit http://www.wisconsingunowners.org
