Replies

Warren and the rest of the gun-grabbing, would-be tyrants:

“Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?”

Any informed gun owner (answer courtesy of Law Dog https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?showComment=1285384385988#c6434453110329887129 ):

“Since what you consider to be reasonable isn’t even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

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”.”

The lesson here is that the anti-gun fanatics who seek only to control everyone else in society DO NOT COMPROMISE. They only back off on their demands somewhat when they face opposition. Compromise MIGHT look like: “OK, we’ll have more thorough background checks by mandating that all state and local government agencies immediately update the NICS system when anyone is convicted of a crime. In return, suppressors are hereby removed from the NFA permanently, and will be treated as ordinary accessories for firearms. Further, Title 18, Section 922(o) of the US Code is hereby repealed.” THAT would be a compromise, where BOTH sides actually gave something up in order to gain something else. But until the Republicans grow a spine, that will never happen.

That type of instructional analogy might have been useful years ago to help deconstruct the prog's earliest disinformation campaigns.

Nowadays, the issue is much more straightforward and direct: the left aims to conquer, control and rule. IMO, most people understand the present domestic threat is as real and unforgiving as what the Nazis, imperial Japanese and Soviets posed in their day.

Rather than (individual) gun control, the discussion should be focused on federal/state/agency gun "balance". That is, either their capabilities should be subject to 'control', or citizen access to military grade weapons - consistent with the original meaning of the 2A - should be expanded.

In reality, the high water mark for gun control was probably the bump stock ban, and that was really just a concession made by a political novice fighting a media coup. If Trump can get two more conservative SC judges, RvW may not be the most important decision they will decide.

The 1934 NFA is the act that could really be subject to close scrutiny. Any informed reading of the law today would lead many to conclude it's unconstitutional.