Does anyone think a "compromise" would have been offered if it hadn't been perceived as a necessary skin-saving political move? [More]
Why turn down the heat and give those bastards a pass? You know they'll only be back at your throats when they think they can get away with it. Seems to me Independence Institute has effectively done that.
Besides, the only one keeping you from getting such a magazine is you, and your vested unwillingness to acknowledge the new paradigm.
[Via cydl]
Lyn Bartels of the Denver Post is not, IMO, a reliable source on political or firearm issues. I have read her BS articles for several years and have no respect for her opinions.
ReplyDeleteThat's politics for ya. Either it is an admission of weakness to offer the compromise, or it's a way to split your opposition, or both...
ReplyDeleteIt's all a big game. The peons should just break the law, and not worry too much about the political maneuvering.
It's not her opinions I'm highlighting here, Orion. Is what is being reported about the rift between II and NAGR wrong? Is the quote wrong? If so, and if you know that, correct the record with what is right. That's the only issue here.
ReplyDelete"Why turn down the heat and give those bastards a pass? You know they'll only be back at your throats when they think they can get away with it. Seems to me Independence Institute has effectively done that."
ReplyDeleteThis is just stupid. The "heat" isn't important, getting better laws is.
Perhaps the Independence Institute wants a better law and not just a fundraising excuse?
Genius! Allow the bastards who passed the ban to stay in power! And thank God Independence doesn't ask for donations!
ReplyDelete