The current debate raging over guns is often punctuated by calls from the left to compromise. But these so-called compromises are usually setup like this; the gun banners get to take something away, and the compromise is that they don’t take away everything. Does that sound like compromise to you? Think back through history. Every new gun control scheme has come as one of these “compromises.”
It was a “compromise” when background checks were put in place. It was a “compromise” when many states instituted waiting periods. And it was a “compromise” that gave us the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
So what did gun-owners get in all these compromises? We got told, “You’re lucky we didn’t take away your guns, that’s the compromise.”
Today the gun banners want a new compromise, even better than the old ones—for them. Sen. Diane Feinstein wants to give us a compromise so good; she’ll even allow us to own “2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns.” How generous of her, right? Who decided which guns were “legitimate?”
The compromise Sen. Joe Manchin and other Democrats in the Senate want to give us is that we submit to background checks on private sales of firearms.
Yep. That’s it. What’s that? You expected us to get something from the compromise? Haven’t you been reading? WE DON’T GET ANYTHING FROM THESE COMPROMISES!
Here’s how the Washington Post describes the “compromise part.”
“But — and this is the compromise part — all private sales not done through a commercial venue would get a background check but a record would not be kept. This would mean records wouldn’t be kept for acquaintance-to-acquaintance or friend-to-friend sales.”
Records wouldn’t be kept for acquaintance-to-acquaintance sales. What kind of compromise is that? Private sales don’t have records kept now, nor do they receive background checks in many states. So the “compromise part” is that nothing changes. In other words, we should feel happy we’re not getting it worse. Thanks, that feels so much better now!
Now, as you may have already ascertained from what I have written above, I’m not for any of these so-called compromises. We’ve given enough. But if the anti-gun crowd wants to put some meat on the table for a real compromise I have a few suggestions.
1) If you want me to submit to more background checks and keep my records on file, once I pass through all that B.S. I will carry my guns where and how I want. If that means open carry down Pennsylvania Avenue, so be it.
2) If you want me to register my guns, I get to own a rocket launcher, a machine gun, and a howitzer. Because if you know I have those at home, you’ll be a lot less likely to come trying confiscate them. (By the way, that system is working in Switzerland now, so don’t start hyperventilating).
3) And if you want to decide how mean my gun can look by banning certain aesthetic features, I get to redesign the Toyota Prius so it doesn’t look so stupid. You say that doesn’t make any sense? Well neither do so-called “assault weapons bans,” but that hasn’t stopped you from trying to implement them.
Don’t let the word “compromise” fool you folks. No gun control bill yet has had an ounce of compromise in it. Men are born free. Then they spend their whole lives fighting government for what God (Allah, Yahweh, Mother Earth, the Big Bang, Q, the Force, Cthulhu, whomever) gave them. You are free until you are controlled. The concept of “gun control” isn’t about controlling guns. It’s about controlling you. Don’t let it happen. Don’t compromise.