That’s not compromise.

We are still hearing the shrill sounds of the shrieking of anti gun zealots who say that we should compromise when it comes to gun rights. They always tout “common sense gun laws” that have nothing to do with common sense. But they aren’t offering anything in return. Let’s look at that differently. You and I are in a car halfway between point A and point B.

A<—————————————-o—————————————->B

You want to travel to point A, and I want to travel to point B. Travelling halfway to point A is not compromise.

A<——————-o————————————————————->B

Apparently this is an underhanded usage of the word “compromise,” not as a noun, but as a verb.  If a military unit is compromised, that is not a good thing. That doesn’t mean that they came to a mutual agreement with their opposing force. It means that they have lost.

image

In the timeline above, I have listed the times we as gun owners have “compromised” so far.  It seems in these instances, we are using the verb definition.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 created a national registry and an additional tax for Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, Suppressors, Fully Automatic Firearms, and many other things, and outright banned a handful of things.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 gave us the “sporting purposes” restriction on imported firearms, and then promptly failed to acknowledge half of the sporting purposes it defined. This also required distributors and dealers to get an FFL and we got the form 4473.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act gave us the Hughes amendment which banned any new fully automatic weapons, and the rest of it has already been violated. So it doesn’t actually protect us. (Gun registries are illegal, but yet there they are, on a form 4473…)

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act is the formal name of the completely useless Federal Assault Weapons Ban which arbitrarily picked certain cosmetic features of certain firearms, and said they should be illegal.

So when you get right down to it, gun owners have been compromised. And now the anti gun zealots want to compromise us more.  They want to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban. They want to require “smart gun” technology for civilians, but not the military or the police. They want “universal background checks” even though there is a current background check system already in place that is about as enforceable as it is going to get, it’s just not enforced. 

So if the gun grabbers really want to compromise, using the noun definition of the word, good! Let’s go from here;

A<——————-o————————————————————->B

to here;

A<—————————————o—————————————–>B

not to here;

A<—-o—————————————————————————->B

How do we do that?  Simple, the gun grabbers get nothing, and we repeal the Hughes amendment, the NFA act of 1934, and a good portion of the GCA of ‘68.  And that’s a start. Next we want to go state by state and undo the onerous legislation imposed on us in places like New York, California, and so on.  If gun grabbers truly want to compromise, they need to come to the table with something besides, “we’ll let you keep….”  It needs to be more along the lines of “you’ll get this back…”  I think it’s about time we start compromising them the way they have compromised us.

com·pro·mise [kom-pruh-mahyz]
noun
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
verb
to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s