Earlier this week I counted Mr. Obama’s lies on guns during that ridiculous spectacle of a speech he put out to announce that he was doing something executivey on gun control. The lies were so ridiculous that even the Associated Press is calling President Pinocchio out:
“THE FACTS: It’s not that straightforward. In fact, federally licensed gun dealers are required by law to conduct background checks for gun purchases no matter where the sale takes place — in a store, at a gun show or online. While private gun sales can be conducted over the Internet, if the sale involves people in different states, a licensed gun dealer in the state where the gun is going still has to be involved in the transfer.”
Every now and then I hear some dim bulb insist that we the gun owning community somehow have to “compromise” with the banners. Absolutely not.
You see, the banners lie every time they open their mouths. They’re not even willing to have any sort of honest debate. They can’t, really. The facts are stubborn so they insist on lies and melodrama to try and sell their wares…and it appears to be frustrating the dickens out of them that folks ain’t buying.
You do not “compromise” with people lying and dancing in blood in their effort to deprive you of your rights. You fight them.
If you are not a member of the NRA, please join. Contribute the cost of a box or two of ammo to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
Lying never slowed-down progressives before – why should it start now?
“compromise” is also an entirely loaded word when used by the anti-gun crowd. Their definition means, check your feelings, facts and opinions at the door and take our one sided “compromise” up the rear. Every time somebody says gun safety classes should be required to own a firearm, I respond by saying “you know you’re right, we could accomplish that by requiring gun safety education alongside sex education in public schools” and then watch their heads explode. Or ok, let’s “compromise”..we’ll give you universal background checks if you give us universal reciprocity, remove suppressors from the NFA registry and nullify the Hughes amendment. Their responses to these actual compromises are telling of what their actual agenda is. Don’t let people brow beat you about not being willing to have a conversation about “common sense” gun laws, when they won’t come to the table with common sense solutions.
Thanks for speaking bluntly and honestly, Tim. I agree with every single word. We fight for ALL people’s rights. If you can believe this, I managed to actually reach out to a coworker who leans liberal, with my case about the Second Amendment applying equally to all folks. Him and I might be healthy and young enough to outrun, outwit, de escalate and avoid violence, but what about the disabled person? Elderly and arthritic? Can they outrun the attack? No, the firearm is the leveler. You may try to deny my rights, but you will not deny these people their inalienable rights. We must fight for them. Keep up the tenacity, my friend!
When they say “compromise,” they mean take another step in our direction. Find some spot between where we are legally today and where they would like to ultimately be. That’s not really a compromise. That’s incrementalism.
Compromise: when everyone agrees to do it my way.
Haven’t gun owners “compromised ” endlessly for 50 plus years. This version of compromise is to give up rights for nothing in return.
No thanks. I respect the people who fought for our independence and freedom to, ” just say no”.
“Compromise” means meeting half-way.
What do we GET if we “compromise”? Cause I don’t see us getting anything out of the deal.
Comments are closed.