Seems the other side seems to talk a lot about “Compromise” Lawdog said it best.
I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.
Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.
I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.
Seems that their idea of “Compromise” is not taking all our rights all at once. But if you had any doubts.
Listen up everyone. I am not going to answer any questions about what “I” or “we” will give up. That is not how this is going to work. I have said before that I, personally, speak for myself. I am not in a position to make policy. I can offer my opinions and forward ideas to people who have more power than I. I am not asking what you all are going to “give up” either. I am talking about ideas here and I am expressing mine. I am allowing comments and respond which is more than most people on “my side” do. I enjoy some of the give and take of ideas. I am not using my blog to negotiate with my readers. So I hope you will all forgive my rudeness but you keep asking me that and I keep answering. Perhaps if you couch your question a different way and raise some ideas worth considering without wanting me to say very specifically what I will “give up”. If you and I end up at a negotiating table in Washington D.C., then we can talk about what each side will give up. Do you speak for the NRA? Can you say what you will “give up” and then assume it will represent the entire NRA leadership and Board and all of its’ members and all gun owners? And, by the way, I am not in favor of a national shall issue concealed carry law at this point. It has nothing to do with an exchange for background checks however. More on this later.
Joan Peterson has more guts than anybody in the anti-freedom pro-ignorance cabal. She’s not asking us what we’re willing to give up, nor is she ever going to offer concessions on her side. But she will say what she wants to take from us, and constantly asks why we aren’t willing to give up our rights (meanwhile ignoring or deleting any comments that may explain why her grand schemes will accomplish nothing but getting more innocent people killed), and of course you’ll note that she appears to be directly opposed to just about every bit of gun rights there are.
She won’t speak for the Brady Campaign, but she also won’t speak for herself. Also seems that there isn’t a lick of difference between her expressed opinions, and the opinions of the Joyce Foundation and the Brady Campaign for whom she works for.
I think we all know who she speaks for, and what her idea of “Compromise” is.