Interesting title, albeit a bit misleading, since the compromise involves the death penalty, not guns. But it does raise a question none in power seem to ever ask themselves--or be held accountable for:
How can someone legitimately compromise that which is not theirs?
"Gun rights groups" would do well to remember this when they negotiate infringements with legislators, and come back telling us its the best scrap we can get, and that "politics is the art of compromise."
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
No reasonable gun owner likes to see his rights "negotiated" away. But refusal to compromise will usually get you nothing. Fight for the maximum you can get without risking complete defeat, and then fight for the remainder down the road when the odds are stacked in your favor.
Wisconsin's internal battle over concealed carry is a good example. A shall-issue carry law loaded with "feel-good" amendments (such as carring in or around schools) is 100 times better than no shall-issue law at all.
If you can eat the cake, eat it. But if you demand frosting, you may lose that cake!
Interesting, jason. See, I'm of the mind that gun control is tyranny, and I'm not aware of historical examples where tyrants have been repelled and freedom won except through strength and the willingness to use it. Yet this is what you maintain "will ususally get you nothing."
However, I fully support your right to compromise your rights. I just don't want the deal you negotiate to affect MY rights. If you can figure out a way to do that, you won't hear a peep from me.
Get all the permits you want and God bless you. Accept their registration and their fees and their restrictions, and convince yourself that's progress. Just don't force penalties you negotiate for not playing that game on me.
David C. I must agree. Don't take something of mine, then tell me you compromised if I fight you for it and get "some" of it back, albeit, that "some" is under your control and regulation.
All that does is formalize the assumed right to rid me of mine for use later. Jason is as wrong as the NRA on this issue. Incremental surrender is still surrender.
When we negotiate for what is ours to begin with and only manage to keep the outward use of it, subject to permission we have lost something far more important than the right to bear arms. We have lost citizenship, principle, and a nation.
I am opposed to that. Appearances and perception do not trump reality. If you must ask permission to exercise what is yours, you are not a free man. You live at the sufferance of your superiors.
I know not how you view this, but as for me, I recognize no superiors and damn few equals.
David, I must say your convictions are admirable (as demonstrated by your great blog) and I agree with most of them. Gun control *is* tyranny and we must fight it every time it encroaches on our freedoms.
However, if you don't want pro-gun groups fighting to maintain what little gun rights we have left, then step up to the legislative battlefield and take charge (which you may already do - I don't know). Otherwise we're in this together (remember, there's power in numbers) and you have to accept what the group has fought for.
I suppose your other option would be to move outside this nation's borders and declare yourself a sovereign nation.
Or simply ignore existing state and federal gun laws. Which make me curious...
I have to fill out that silly BATFE form each time I buy a gun (which of course is an indirect form of gun registration).
What about you?
Keep blogging!
Jason, if you buy from a dealer, you are correct, you must fill out the form or the transaction will not occur. You'll forgive me if I don't elaborate.
You said something else that I found interesting: "Fight for the maximum you can get without risking complete defeat..."
The men I follow were willing to risk defeat, ruin and death. Unless such men step to the fore again, we ARE doomed. Tyrants don't respect petitioners--they exploit them.
And sorry, I don't "have to accept what the group has fought for."
There are millions in the herd accepting compromise and "reasonable restrictions." Historically, the majority has generally been wrong, and the dissenters dismissed as "raving extremists" (a charge leveled against me by an NRA manager) and heretics. Surely there is room in the scheme of things for my lonely little voice in the wilderness. Or is the most extreme argument you wish to hear along the lines of "enforce existing gun laws"?
Put another way: Is Wayne LaPierre REALLY where you want the edge of the envelope to be?
I had to ask the question on the gun buy simply because I wanted to make sure you practice what you preach. Most don't. You do and you have won my respect for that.
And you're right. We need those who will "push the envelope" and even challenge groups like the NRA. I am a believer in dissidence and I truly respect those who aren't afraid to challenge the status quo. When I first found your blog I said "wow, this guy is a true fighter." But groups like the NRA play an important role and have accomplished a lot for gun owners. They may be "softies" in your world, but we still need them. And of course we need men like you nipping at their heels.
If I could live on a private mountain with my family and be completely self-sufficent, without gov't (and all the idiotic drivers on the road), I would. But most of us don't have that luxury and we rely on pro-gun groups to fight to protect our rights.
I may be one of the herd, but should the ---- ever hit the fan, I'm reasonably prepared enough to take care of myself and my family, even with all the "restrictions" imposed upon me. That's what matters to me. Of course I do my small part to defy "restrictions" by vowing never to live in a city or state that exemplifies the word tyrannical (e.g., NYC, Chicago, California) with respect to gun control.
And I'll re-iterate, there is power in numbers. Herds can stampede when provoked. ;-)
So keep up the good work and thanks for the debate. I enjoyed it.
P.S. You must be a veteran. No?
No, Jason. In my day, we had the "draft lottery." I registered and got a physical, but my number came up high, they never called me, and I never asked them why not.
In re NRA, I've explained before that I'm a life member, and was a volunteer activist and members council officer for years. One of my good friends is a former director who resigned in disgust over management practices. I haven't come to where I'm at lightly or without good cause and plenty of experiences. What I've tried to do scrupulously is differentiate between NRA members and NRA professional management. As far as I'm concerned, and like the slogan goes, "I'm the NRA." Unless and until they expel me.
Unlike you, I live in the belly of the beast--a Los Angeles county beach city. I also don't think that registration per se makes you more vulnerable than me. I'm a known agitator--I'm sure I've raised at least slight interest over the years, especially when I, along with Brian Puckett and Charlie Carner, publicly defied the CA DoJ at an NRA management-sponsored "assault weapon" registration meeting (Google "Professional Face of Evil").
I'd like to see that "power in numbers" applied to people demanding their rights instead of asking for permission. The truth is, we could have fully-recognized 2A tomorrow if just 1/10th of the nation's gun owners decided they were mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
Anyway, likewise, thank you for the civil discourse.
I've tried moving away from tyrannical control. When all else is conquered and subdued, their gaze will turn towards your remote mountain. Moving and living far away from the tyrants will only delay the inevitable. People with black hearts can never leave well enough alone. It doesn't matter if they wear a ski mask and stand in an alley or wear a suit and stand in city hall. Did you see David's latest post on the deputized NY state troopers?
By the way, Jason, have you read Enemies Foreign and Domestic?
No, I haven't read it. Thanks for the link.
Post a Comment