I can't help but note that many gungrabbers reserve particular contempt for RKBA folks who have actually done quite a bit to accommodate them through negotiation, compromise and "pragmatism" advocacy. I also can't help but note that many "pragmatists" in turn reserve particular contempt for "absolutists."
Curious. Especially since they are invariably the ones who rail against "eating our own" and "circular firing squads," meaning you need to agree with them, I guess, and if you don't, you must be scorned.
Maybe it has to do with the underlying mantra that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." They actually believe that, or say they do, although I'm not sure they've thought through all the implications.
I can't help but wonder though, if someone is willing to compromise on fundamental rights, what else are they willing to cede ground on? If we accept lies and betrayals from our oath-swearing representatives, would we not be equally forgiving with errant business partners or wandering spouses?
Can you imagine a quality policy that disparaged the concept of "Zero Defects"? Would you like to ride on tires made by such a company? Or how about undergo surgery from a hospital with the motto "Close enough for government work"? And do you think there's a reason that statement is considered a truism, but nonetheless a grim joke?
Ah, but "politics is the art of the possible," we are told, although how anyone falling back on that excuse instead of pushing the envelope would know the limits of possibility is never quite clear.
Oh well. Some of us, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers, will still plod on with the naive, perhaps hopeless belief that there is room in the debate for "shall not be infringed," and that the problem is not that we have too many "radical" voices, but too few.
