Dave Hardy has an excellent essay in Reason about why gun owners have history on their side to back up fighting new gun restrictions. I know that most of you know these things, and it may seem like preaching to the choir. However, I really think it’s worth a read because it’s clearly written for a non-gun audience. I think we sometimes need to remember how to communicate with those who are sympathetic to our cause, but maybe don’t really see what the big deal is over bills like Manchin-Schumer-Toomey.
Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,†there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.
Most of the piece gives specific examples of violations of this concept of “compromise” that we’re so used to dealing with.
Great piece, and kudos to Dave Hardy for reaching beyond the usual gun-owning readerships. Reason mag is an ideal place to get out the message. It’s vital for our side to preach beyond the choir.
Way back in high school this was presented to me: If I take your pen & pencil from you, but only give back your pen, what is that called?
Seems to be about the same concept as current “reasonable compromise” to me.
Large numbers of people talk very casually about executing at least five million Americans, plus their families and dogs (“collateral damage”).
They want us in a ditch or in a boxcar.
You can’t compromise with such people, or even negotiate. You can only work for their social and political defeat.
Basically the same point LawDog made:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/
01/a-repost.html