It’s always frustrating to me when I see a “gun rights supporter” buy into the “we just want reasonable gun control” lie. I’ve dealt with part of that, the “nobody wants to take your guns” claim elsewhere. The questions you need to ask somebody who claims that is “how much is reasonable? Where is the line? At what point do you turn around and say ‘no more’? How far does it have to go before you’d agree we need to roll back the restrictions?” And then, take any answer they give you with a grain of salt because, frankly, whenever they’ve gotten a “we just want this” restriction they merely used that as a springboard for more.
One of the tactics the anti-gun folk use to great effect against us is “divide and conquer.” By going after one small segment of the gun community while assuring others that their guns are safe (at least for now), they get a large number of gun owners to sit back and essentially let them chip away at the 2nd Amendment. So we have the following:
First they came for the “assault weapons”
but I didn’t speak up because who needs an assault weapon?
Then they came for the open carriers
but I didn’t speak up because those people frighten the anti-gunners.
Then they came for the Saturday Night Specials,
but I didn’t speak up because they’re just junk guns.
Then they came for the high capacity magazines,
but I didn’t speak up because I only need a few rounds in the tube
Then they came for all the handguns,
but I didn’t speak up because I don’t use a handgun to hunt
Then they came for the High Powered Sniper Rifles,
but I didn’t speak up because I don’t use one of those.
When they came for the shotguns and muzzleloaders,
there was no one left to speak up.
Folks, the anti-gun crowd are not going to leave you alone. Just because they aren’t going after you today, just because they claim that they support your “right to hunt,” don’t be fooled. They say we need to “compromise” but we’ve been compromising since 1934. The ink isn’t even dry on each new “agreement” before they are talking about the “next step.” Each time you fail to support some portion of the community of law-abiding gun owners, you weaken yourself against the time they eventually come after you.
It’s time to stop compromising. Compromise is a strategy of weakness, of minimizing the effect of a losing position. We haven’t been on the losing side since the mid 90’s.
It’s time to get back our rights.
The Writer in Black 
True enough. We’ve seen where “reasonable” gets us — especially once it hits home that those on the other side are about as unreasonable a group of people as you’ll ever encounter.
As for those who bleat out the tired old saw calling for “compromise,” the first definition of compromise is giving up something in order to get something in return. The problem here is that while we gun owners have given up plenty, not once have we ever got something in return. Ever.
So, after years and years of watching us take it on the chin, I’ve come to the conclusion that what they really are after falls under the second definition of compromise: betraying one’s principles in order to accept the unacceptable.
The first definition is political horse-trading and involves negotiating in good faith. The second definition is moral cowardice in the face of those who never negotiate in good faith.
LikeLike
First, they came for the verbs, and I said nothing, because verbing weirds language.
Then, when they came for the nouns, I nothing because I no verbs.
Some things are not appropriate for compromise. Free speech is one, and the right to keep and bear arms is another.
“Gun Control” is evil and wicked in its conception because it is not about crime, it’s all about disempowering and infantilizing and subduing the normal peaceful citizens. “Gun Control” gives the advantage to the criminal element, because, obviously, criminals do not obey the law. Duh.
LikeLike