Translate

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Why No Compromise Is Possible On Gun Control

I had written some time ago about how the Left likes to "compromise", writing:

Liberals compromise like a mugger. First, they demand our "wallet," so we give them increased taxing and regulatory power over business, thinking this will be it; then they want our "watch," so we accept more gun control and funding of abortion just to appease them; then they want our "jewelry," so we give them special rights for everyone under the sun; now they are asking for our clothes, and soon our lives.

This is not true compromise, or they would be giving up something themselves. If they want higher taxes, then they should have to give up all the alphabet agencies that regulate businesses. If they want gay marriage, then they should have to give up the National Firearms Act and Obamacare. If they want homosexuals to be a protected class under Title VII, then they should have to give up the FHAA and Title IX.That would be true compromise.
My thoughts are echoed in David Hardy's article at Reason Magazine on why gun owners are correct to reject offers of compromise from the anti-gun fanatics:

In April, the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin gun control proposal. In the wake of its defeat many asked why gun owners and their organizations resisted so limited a measure. ... But why not accept something so modest, in light of the draconian ideas then being floated as alternatives?


Understanding the rejection requires understanding gun owners’ shared experiences. 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.

... The change [a shift in focus from handguns to all guns] underscored a lesson gun owners had already learned. Their opponents would go for any target of opportunity—if handgun restrictions didn’t fly, try to restrict rifles—and use that as a foundation to take more in the future. Any “reasonable compromise” would simply be a first step in a long campaign to make firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.
 The article describes examples of victories and failures at the national level, and uses California as an example of the "slippery slope" argument. The one thing I would fault the author on was the 1987 banning of the manufacture of fully-automatic weapons for civilian sale following the attack on President Reagan, which resulted in the serious injuries to James Brady. An attack that had nothing to do with automatic weapons. Yet that was the first shift to banning all "scary looking" rifles.

Anyway, read the whole thing. (H/t Instapundit).

No comments:

Post a Comment